Mr. Speaker, upon a matter which comes under the head of privilege I wish to put a question to you, Sir, as to what I conceive must be a most unjustifiable hoax, that has been practised upon the Lord High Chancellor of England and the noble Lords in another place. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether there be any truth in the statement that you, at the instigation of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, have sent a challenge to the other House of Parliament to meet this House in a rifle contest. I have reason to believe that the statement is a mere hoax, but I wish to give you, Sir, the earliest opportunity of contradicting it.

Before you reply, Sir, I wish to say that had my hon. Friend not risen to put his question, it was my intention to have claimed the indulgence of the House to allow me to read a letter upon a matter personal to myself. The letter is one addressed by you, Sir, the Speaker of the House of Commons, to myself, and with the permission of the House I will proceed to read it—

"May 16.

"My dear Lord Elcho,—I have heard with amazement that the Lord Chancellor announced last night in the House of Lords that he had received a challenge to a rifle match from the Speaker of the House of Commons—a challenge from the House of Commons to the House of Lords. As I cannot doubt that you made the communication to the Chancellor, I must remind you of what took place between us. I was busily engaged on Tuesday evening with Members presenting petitions and moving unopposed returns; you came to me with a roll of paper in your hand, saying that a rifle match was proposed between some Members of the two Houses, and asking me for my name. I answered that I was very busy, that I could not spare a moment to read the paper, nor did I see a single word it contained. You remained a short time by my chair, and said that the match was to take place, and many Members felt much interest about it. Wishing to dismiss the subject, I said in joke the only part I could take would be to fire a shot with the Lord Chancellor. If you have made me party to a paper which I did not read, and have been the bearer of a challenge to a rifle match to the Lord Chancellor from myself, putting me into conflict with that great dignitary, I shall have to request you to make an explanation to that noble Lord that you acted under a misconception—that, on my part, no such liberty had entered into my imagination.

"Believe me yours very truly,

"J. EVELYN DENISON."

I believe, Sir, when you sent me that letter it was your wish that I should read it to the House as I have done, and, in accordance with your wish expressed in that letter, I have also communicated its contents to the Lord Chancellor. For my own part, I have nothing to add except this, that I certainly did not anticipate that the subject would ever have been brought before either House of Parliament, and I have to express my regret that anything 1 have done or said should have led to this misconception and misunderstanding; and I have further to express my sincere regret that anything I have said or done should have caused you, Sir, the slightest inconvenience or annoyance.

I can assure the noble Lord that I receive the expressions he has just uttered entirely in the spirit in which he made them, and in a manner in which I should wish to receive such expressions from an old and valued friend. I wish to treat this matter with perfect good humour, and I trust the House will be disposed to treat it in the same way. I should guard myself upon one point—I mean a point of order, of which it is my duty not unfrequently to remind hon. Members—that it is not within the rules of order to refer to debates that have taken place in the House of Lords. I should be sorry to appear myself to have infringed such rules, but I must point out to the House that this is rather an exceptional case. Perhaps it might be treated in the light of a message from the Lords, and then it would be properly open to observation. I have only further to say that I regret the time of the House has been occupied even for these few minutes by such a subject; and for myself, having had the honour of presiding in this House for six years, I trust that there is no single Member of this House who, for a moment, believed that I had ventured in such a manner to commit myself, or this House.

I am quite sure, Sir, that the House would not require any assurance on your part to convince them that in any act, however serious, or of a different character, you would commit them in any way that would be inconsistent with the rules and proceedings of the House. The House has heard the statement of my noble Friend, and they have also heard what you, Sir, have said, and I am persuaded that they will join with me in the hope that there never may be any other or more serious collision or conflict between the two Houses than that which is likely—if it be likely—to occur—a practical trial of skill on the terms and upon the occasion that has been referred to by you and my noble Friend.

said, he rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they have received from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington a copy of the Report of the Committee of the House of Representatives of the United States on the operation of the Reciprocity Treaties with Canada; and whether, if such a Report has been received, there is any objection to lay it upon the table of the House?

said, the Report referred to by the hon. Gentleman was presented to the Congress at Washington. Her Majesty's Government had received a printed copy of the Report, and there would be no objection to lay it upon the table.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, When the Commissioners for inquiring into the necessity for erecting Forts at Spithead may be expected to communicate their Report to Parliament?

said, he was informed that the Commissioners had agreed upon their Report, and that it was likely to be in the hands of the Government next week.

When will it be on the table of the House?

When the Report has been presented to the Government, I will answer that question.

Then I will ask that question next week.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, What information Her Majesty's Government have received respecting the occupation of Mexico by France, and the intentions of the French Government regarding Mexico?

Sir, by the latest accounts which we have received from Sir Charles Wyke, our Minister in Mexico, who was then at Orizaba, it appears that there was an intention to advance a French corps to the city of Mexico. As to what the intentions of the French Government may be, I can only refer the hon. and learned Baronet to the Convention of October last, recording the intentions of the three Powers for common action in Mexico, and it is not, of course, for a Minister of the British Crown to speak one way or other as to the intentions of any Foreign Government. It may be satisfactory, however, that I should add that, from a Despatch from Sir Charles Wyke, dated the 13th of last month, it appears that he expected on the 17th to have an interview with Senor Doblado, the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs, to conclude a Convention for the satisfaction of British claims. My noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department states that he is quite prepared to lay before Parliament the Papers connected with the transactions in Mexico. That being the case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman who has given notice of the Motion for Tuesday will think it proper to defer that Motion until he has seen the Papers.

May we expect to have the Papers shortly?

Yes.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of I State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that on the 3rd day of May, 1861, a I tribunal at Naples decided that the owners of the Orwell steamer were entitled to compensation from the Italian Government for the seizure of their vessel by the Garibaldians; and whether he will forthwith lay upon the table a copy of the Judgment of that tribunal?

said, he was not aware that any judgment of the kind mentioned by his hon. Friend had been pronounced by a Neapolitan tribunal, He would, however, make inquiries into the matter.

said, that in rising to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the double appointment of Sir Edwin Pearson and Mr. Tite, M.P., to the Chairmanship of the Westminster Improvement Commission, he wished at the outset to express his regret that this painful duty should have devolved upon him. The matter, however, was one which, as would be seen, evidently called for explanation. He had also been personally placed in a most disagreeable position by the conduct of the Chief Commissioner of Works, and the only alternative open to him, if he would avoid raising a very unpleasant question, was to abandon a meritorious public servant. Early in May, 1861, the Westminster Improvement and Encumbered Estates Bill was passed by the House of Commons, and it was thereby provided that the Chief Commissioner of Works should, by writing under his hand, nominate some fit and proper person to be the Chairman of the new Commission. As soon as that became known, the Dean and Chapter wrote to the Chief Commissioner of Works strongly recommending Sir Edwin Pearson, on account of "the honourable and business-like manner in which he had previously fulfilled the duties of Chairman of the Commission." That was also the general opinion entertained throughout Westminster. Some years ago he (Sir W. Gallwey) brought forward the disgraceful condition in which one of the most important portions of the metropolis was then, and still remained. He was therefore asked to impress upon Mr. Cowper the expediency of appointing some gentleman as Chairman, so that the work might be immediately proceeded with. Accordingly, he saw the right hon. Gentleman in the lobby, and stated the desirability of appointing a gentleman who had all the details of this matter at his fingers' ends, and who, the Bill being a mere winding-up Bill, would be assisted by his previous knowledge. Mr. Cowper then said he would take time to consider. Some months elapsed, and at last, on the 17th of July, the right hon. Gentleman authorized him directly and positively to state to Sir Edwin Pearson that he would be appointed the Chairman of the Commission. More than that, Mr. Cowper said that Sir Edwin Pearson should hear from him, or should receive his appointment on the following day. He did therefore convey that intimation to Sir Edwin Pearson. The right hon. Gentleman's own letters confirmed his interpretation of what had passed; and although, by the help of the law officers of the Crown, some loophole might be found, he would put it to the House whether morally, as between gentleman and gentleman, it was not in every way a direct and decided appointment. The letter written by the right hon. Gentleman was dated the 2nd of August; it stated—

"I am required by the Act of this Session to nominate the Chairman of the new Westminster Improvement Commission, and I believe I should best discharge the duty devolved upon me by placing you in that arduous and responsible post. I am encouraged to hope, from the readiness with which you have worked for the public, that you will be willing to undertake this laborious task."

On the 3rd of August Sir Edwin Pearson acknowledged the Chief Commissioner's letter of the 2nd, and accepted the appointment to the office in the following words:—

"I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 2nd of August, in which you do me the honour to nominate me the Chairman of the new Westminster Improvement Commission. I will undertake with much pleasure the office which you offer to my acceptance, and I trust that I may be instrumental, with God's blessing, in bringing to a successful termination the improvements in Westminster, of which untoward circumstances have for so many years prevented the public from reaping the benefit."

From that moment the appointment dated; and he thought it was utterly impossible for the Chief Commissioner to withdraw the nomination without in some degree affecting the character of the gentleman who had been appointed. But then came another chapter in the history. On the 7th of August Sir Edwin Pearson, who had already apprised the Westminster Commissioners of his appointment as Chairman, received from the Chief Commissioner the following letter:—

"I am distressed to find that I must not. give effect to the intention I mentioned to you in my letter on Friday last. Since I wrote to you I have received an intimation that some of the parties at whose instigation the power of nomination was committed to the First Commissioner of Works attach great importance to the Chairman being a person who comes freshly to the work, without any previous acquaintance with it or any bias; and although I have never heard a whisper of complaint against you, nor do I believe that any one could offer the slightest objection to you personally, yet I do feel that if the duty of nomination was intrusted to me under the expectation that I should infuse what is called 'new blood,' and select a person who would take up the affair from its present starting point, rather than from its origin, I should not be acting rightly in giving way to my own feelings, which prompted me to desire to offer it to you. I am only consoled by the reflection that you will be saved a thankless and laborious task, and that you could find no satisfaction in being again concerned in the affairs of this unfortunate undertaking, from which, I believe, you derived no advantage but that of coming out of it with a spotless reputation."

Although he (Sir W. Gallwey) had been made the medium of the communication appointing Sir Edwin Pearson, he never heard of that letter, nor did he hear that the Chief Commissioner had changed his mind with regard to Sir Edwin Pearson. He did not mention that in any way to accuse the Chief Commissioner, but to express his deep regret that he had not heard it, because he believed he should have been able to find some way of reconciling the decision with the reputation of Sir Edwin Pearson. He now came to the next letter. Sir Edwin Pearson, he thought very naturally, rather rebelled against that decision, and in a private interview with the Chief Commissioner on the 7th of August, and again in writing on the 8th, he remonstrated with the Chief Commissioner upon it. It was in reply to the latter remonstrance from Sir Edwin Pearson that the greatest contradiction was contained. The letter was dated the 23rd of August; in it the Chief Commissioner stated—

"It is unfortunate that you should have hastily communicated the erroneous impression you had derived from my first letter before you could receive my second; but, after weighing carefully what you have urged, both by word of mouth and by letter, I am only confirmed in the conviction that the view expressed in my second letter is the sound one, and that by which I ought to abide I feel sure that you are over-sanguine in supposing that an appointment as director would be an advantage to you in regard to past transactions. Persons who, at present, have no inducement to raise questions as to the share attributable to you in those transactions, and who have no inclination to blame you, would be driven by the fact of your appointment to take up a different position; they would protest against the appointment, and bring forward their objections publicly. The amount of damage which you would incur from the raising and discussion of these questions would be greater than the benefit you could derive from having been selected by the First Commissioner of Works. The opinion of the objectors would have more effect upon the public than that of the First Commissioner of Works, since the former are cognizant of the circumstances, while the latter has no personal acquaintance with them. It would not be beneficial or advantageous to you to be named the Chairman of the new Commission, and it would not be right for me so to exercise the trust confided in me; and I am therefore compelled to repeat that I cannot appoint you, but have thought myself bound to offer the post to another gentleman. I am extremely sorry that in my desire to gratify you and your friends I should have caused you annoyance, and I beg to assure you that I shall be anxious to make amends in any way that would be consistent with my public duties."

It was one of the extraordinary features of the case that at the time, when the Chief Commissioner wrote that letter there was in existence another letter written by him to Sir Edwin Pearson on the 6th of August, 1857, long subsequent to the time when Sir Edwin Pearson had ceased to have anything to do with the Westminster Improvement Commission, to the following effect:—

"House of Commons, Aug. 6, 1857.

"Dear Sir,—I have so high an opinion of the services you rendered in transforming those haunts of vice and dens of misery into a wide and handsome street, that I shall be glad to seize any opportunity that may offer of helping to secure for you a suitable acknowledgment of the labours which met with so successful a result.

"Very truly yours,

"W. COWPER."

He believed the House would now be glad to hoar a few remarks with respect to the conduct of Sir Edwin Pearson while Chairman of the old Westminster Improvement Commission. In 1852 there was a plethora of money in the market. Some extraordinary plans and schemes were proposed to the Westminster Commission. In these wonderful schemes Sir Edwin Pearson refused to concur. He entered a protest on the books, retired from the Board, and had no more to do with it. When he retired from it, he believed the Commission had about £100,000 surplus. In 1852 Sir Edwin Pearson loft the Commission; in December, 1854, the number of the bonds had been largely increased, and the Commission had become hopelessly insolvent. sir Edwin Pearson received letters from Dean Milman, Rev. W. Cureton, Canon Wordsworth, Canon Jennings, the Duke ! of Somerset, Lord Carlisle, and Mr. Phillips, Secretary to the Department of Her: Majesty's Woods and Works, couched in the most flattering terms, and expressing; the highest estimation of his services. The letter of Mr. Phillips was dated in 1852, and since that time Sir Edwin Pearson had had nothing to do with the Commission. It contained this passage—

"If you have never asked yourself the question—and perhaps your generosity has forbidden it—I have. You owe me nothing; the public are a little in my debt on that account, it is true, but I owe them so much on many others that I have long ceased to keep account with them. Their greatest of all obligations in this affair is due to you. To you they are indebted for an improvement which, for all the ordinary purposes of such undertakings, is only the second of its class in the metropolis; for the moral benefits which it will confer second to none. What I am now stating would, I am sure, be confirmed in every quarter; but it is known, perhaps, only to myself how much its progress was aided by the confidence felt here in the purity of your personal character. Were I to make yon acquainted with all I hear on that point you would see how little you were indebted to me."

In a petition of bondholders, holding bonds to the amount of £250,000, presented to I Parliament in March, 1856, he found the following statement:—

"That Sir Edwin Pearson, who was Chairman of the Commissioners, but who resigned his seat from the conviction that the measure proposed was fraught with imminent peril to the Commission, and was not calculated to promote the interest of the bondholders, or of any persons other than those whose bonds were postponed and were to be exchanged, together with Mr. Kettle, used his best endeavours to explain to the bondholders their position and the consequences of the measure; but those persons, implicitly relying upon the good faith of the scheme, and believing that the building fund would greatly tend to improve their security, yielded to the persuasions of others, and, as the event has proved, were deceived."

That statement confirmed the explanation which he had given as to the cause of Sir Edwin Pearson's resignation in 1852. It seemed to have been the impression of the Chief Commissioner of Works that the office had no salary attached to it, for on the very day when he wrote the letter of the 7th of August he also wrote to the Westminster Improvement Commissioners to inquire whether the Chairman would be entitled to any emoluments or allowances. It was quite evident that the Chief Commissioner thought that the laborious task was not accompanied by any remuneration. It had been said that there was really no remuneration, because the salary was not to commence until there was a surplus; but speaking upon the authority of the Act of Parliament, he was enabled to say that the salaries overrode everything. There had not been a farthing of surplus, yet the directors had contrived to receive their salary. But it was not a question of a paltry £200 a year. The Chief Commissioner said it was a very laborious and a very arduous task. Sir Edwin Pearson assured him that the duties would occupy four or five hours every day. Who then was the person whom the Chief Commissioner appointed? Was it a person who had time and leisure? He had obtained a document which showed that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) filled sixteen appointments. In the name of common sense, he asked whether, if the duties were laborious and arduous, it was likely that the hon. Member for Bath would be able to perform them efficiently. He trusted that he had not exceeded the limits of courtesy, which he wished to observe, and in conclusion he would say that the question was not whether the Chief Commissioner was right in appointing to the office a gentleman who had been before connected with it or not; but whether, having had abundant time—a plethora of time—to consider the subject, and having appointed Sir Edwin Pearson, he was not wrong in seeking to force his retirement by what he must consider insinuations and imputations used for the purpose of intimidation.

Sir, if the hon. Baronet felt it necessary to apologize at being obliged to enter into such a personal question as the one which he hag raised, I must feel still more reluctant to trouble the House with the details. I can unhesitatingly say that I grieve exceedingly at the disappointment of Sir Edwin Pearson in not getting the appointment which he expected to obtain. [An hon. MEMBER: Which he did obtain.] Nothing is more unpleasant in the exercise of patronage than being unable to appoint people whom you would like to oblige. If the simple question had been the disappointment of Sir Edwin Pearson at not getting the place, I should not trespass at any length upon the time of the House. But the hon. Baronet has placed the subject in another light. He moves for a Committee of inquiry into the double appointment. I venture to say that there has been no double appointment. It is a fiction of the hon. Gentleman's brain. No such thing exists. There has been no double appointment, and there is nothing to inquire into. Sir Edwin Pearson was not appointed, and I do not think he ought to have been appointed. I will first state the circumstances under which I wrote the letter. I wrote it for the purpose of ascertaining whether Sir Edwin Pearson was willing or not to occupy the post. ["Oh, oh!"] If hon. Members demur to that, I am sorry to say I must go through the whole story. Everybody is aware of the gross mismanagement of the Westminster Commission. The Winding-up Act, which passed in 1861, was for the purpose of bringing that gross mismanagement to a conclusion. The affairs of the Commission were in a state of inextricable confusion. It was established in 1845 on a wrong principle, for it undertook to execute a very large work without sufficient funds. The consequence was that heavy loans were raised without any means to pay them off. It was stated by the Chairman of the Committee a few years ago that £700,000 had been lost in this transaction. A Bill was brought in to wind up the affairs of the Commission, to authorize the sale of whatever land they possessed, and to pay the proceeds into Chancery, to be divided among the creditors, mortgagees, and bondholders, according to their rights. When the Bill was introduced, it contained a clause to the effect that two of the Commissioners should be appointed by the mortgagees, two by the bondholders, and one by the old Commissioners, and the sixth by the First Commissioner of Works. I was anxious to prevent the Government from being mixed up in the matter, and therefore I informed the solicitor that I objected to the provision empowering the First Commissioner of Works to appoint one of the Commissioners. It was not a Government Commission at all, although the Government had given them a loan. Indeed, much of the loss which the shareholders suffered arose from the false pretences which were put forth that, somehow or other, the Government would find security for the repayment of their loans. During the first stages of the Bill the provision in question was therefore omitted; but it was afterwards represented to mo that, in order to secure a Chairman who would act impartially between the different creditors, the appointment should be made by the Government. On public grounds alone I assented to that provision; but I was unwilling to undertake the duty. When the time came to fill up the office, it occurred to me that Sir Edwin Pearson would be a suitable person. I had known him for several years, chiefly as a benevolent man, interested in providing lodgings for the poor. But, as I said in that letter of mine which has been so much misrepresented, I had no personal knowledge of Sir Edwin Pearson's proceedings in connection with the Commission. I believed he was a man of honour and integrity; and I thought it would be an advantage to get a Chairman who was acquainted with the former transactions, fair and unfair, of the concern. I consulted with the hon. Member for Thirsk (Sir W. Gallwey) as to Sir Edwin's fitness for the situation, and what he said confirmed my previous impression. It often happens, however, that no sooner is a gentleman named for an appointment than immediately one hears all that can be said against him; and when it was rumoured that I intended to nominate Sir Edwin Pearson, I received remonstrances from several persons. On the 2nd of August I wrote to Sir Edwin Pearson the letter which, by some strange delusion, has been supposed to be a regular appointment. I will read the letter again—

"I am required by the Act of last Session to nominate the Chairman of the new Westminster Improvement Commission, and I believe I should best discharge the duty devolved upon me by placing you in that arduous and responsible post. I am encouraged to hope, from the readiness with which you have worked for the public, that you will be willing to undertake the laborious task."

When I wrote that letter, I did not know whether Sir Edwin Pearson would be willing to take the office, and that was what I wished to ascertain. There is a vast difference between an offer and an appointment, and no candid person can say that my letter constituted an appointment. To show hon. Members what a deed of appointment is, I will read that conferring the office on the hon. Member for Bath. It is dated the 5th of September, and runs—"Pursuant to the Westminster Improvement Act of 1861, I, the Right Hon. William Cowper, Chief Commissioner of Her Majesty's Works, do by this writing under my hand, within six months of the passing of the Act, nominate William Tite, Esq., M.P.," and so on. This is not a place to discuss the legal effect of my letter to Sir Edwin Pearson. Until the Court of Queen's Bench is moved, on behalf of the hon. Member for Thirsk, or Sir Edwin himself, to issue a writ of quo warranto, we have a right to assume that the latter was not appointed. I do not shrink from the slightest amount of responsibility that may attach to me; I only wish to separate the legal and the moral points of the case. As to the legal question, there has been no double appointment. That is impossible; inasmuch as if one of those gentlemen is Chairman, the other cannot be. I can only say, that I had not the most remote conception that my letter could be construed into a nomination. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members who doubt that, must give me credit for being about the greatest fool possible; for to imagine that any one out of a lunatic asylum would deliberately make an appointment, and then proceed upon the assumption that he had only asked whether a gentleman was willing to serve, is an absurdity about which I need really hardly argue. I say that my object in writing that letter was to intimate to Sir Edwin Pearson that I was intending to appoint him, and that I wanted to know whether or not he would accept the place. After I had written that letter, I received representations from persons interested on behalf of the mortgagees, that they thought this appointment would be very prejudicial to their interests. They said, that Sir Edwin Pearson had neither the ability nor the good sense—that is their opinion—nor the impartiality which would be required in the person who should occupy the chair of this Commission. They said, "We do not desire to have in the chair any one who is mixed up with the previous transactions of the Commission. We think it but fair to us and to our interests that the person who is to occupy that position, and to influence so strongly the march of events in the Commission, should be a man who is not in any way mixed up with its affairs. He ought to be thoroughly competent for the work;" and they naturally alleged a want of confidence on the part of Sir Edwin Pearson; because they said that he, having been Chairman of the Commission at the time when the transactions commenced which ended in their losses, was not a person whom they could trust as likely to prevent the recurrence of similar misfortunes. Of course, it is very invidious and very unpleasant to say anything against the ability, or talent, or judgment of any man, especially when he is not in this House to defend himself; hut I was satisfied, that in the opinion of the parties interested, Sir Edwin Pearson was not qualified for this post, either by his antecedents or by his attainments. I was bound by the Act to select a man who should be a Stand proper person; and although, in the first instance, with the information which I had before me when I wrote the letter of the 2nd of August, I was of opinion that Sir Edwin Pearson was a fit and proper person, on the 5th of August, when I wrote the next letter, fresh information had reached me, and on that information I could come to no other conclusion than that he was not a fit and proper person, and that I should have been betraying, instead of discharging, my public duty if I had given effect to my intention of two days before. And here I must complain of the hon. Baronet, who in rending a letter said, that Sir Edwin Pearson received it on the 7th of August, leading hon. Members to sup- pose that an interval of five days had elapsed between the writing of my first letter and the writing of the second. My first letter was written on Friday, August 2nd; Sir Edwin Pearson's answer was dated Saturday, the 3rd. I did not receive it, or, at all events, did not read it until Monday, the 5th. Did I allow any time to elapse? When did I write? On Monday, the 5th, [An hon. MEMBER: The 7th.] I must ask the hon. Member not to believe the papers which have been privately circulated to my prejudice. By the success with which the hon. Baronet has privately circulated papers, one of which I see in the hands of the hon. Member opposite, a very false and very unfair impression has been produced against me. I hope that hon. Members will discard what they have heard privately, and listen to me, when I assert—and I am ready to prove it—that I did on the 5th of August, the very same day on which I received Sir Edwin Pearson's intimation of the willingness to accept the office, write to him and inform him of the reasons which prevented me from giving him the appointment which I had offered to him. That letter was directed to the address which Sir Edwin Pearson had given in his previous letter, at Wimbledon; but it appears that Sir Edwin Pearson was at that moment staying with the hon. Member for Warwickshire, at Harefield. The letter travelled thither from Wimbledon, but did not reach him until the 7th of August. I do not object to his saying that he received it on the 7th, but in fairness to me he ought to have added that it was dated on the 5th. On the 5th of August I had this matter to consider. I must say that it did not occur to me that this was an appointment that Sir Edwin Pearson, or any one else, would much desire to have. What was the appointment? First of all, I believed that there would be no pecuniary profit attached to it. The hon. Baronet thinks there may be £200 a year. I doubt it; I think there will be no profit at all. Then it is not a permanent appointment. It is only the office of a Commissioner to wind up some very intricate affairs, I should think a most disagreeable office, and one which people would undertake only from a sense of public duty. It did not occur to me that in telling Sir Edwin Pearson that I should not give effect to my previous intention I was inflicting any great annoyance upon him, or depriving him of any special advantage. on the contrary, I thought that he would acquiesce very readily, and probably thankfully, in that decision. I was under the impression that he was probably under taking the task from a sense of public duty, and that he would have no particular objection to be relieved from it. If that is doubted, I may at least refer to the terms which I used in the letter of the 2nd of August, when, after referring to his public services as the ground on which I hoped he would undertake the office, I added, "I am encouraged to hope, by the readiness with which you have worked for the public, that you will be willing to under take this laborious task." I really did believe that he would get nothing but labour. Of course, he might gain some reputation if he did the work well, but I did not think that he would get any pecuniary advantage, or anything which he would greatly desire. Then the hon. Baronet says that on the 6th of August, which, it is true, was before Sir Edwin Pearson received my letter, I wrote to the Commissioners to ascertain whether there was any emolument or not. I had assumed either that there was no emolument, or that it was so small that it was unnecessary that I should take the trouble to ascertain its amount. It seemed to me that that was an oversight, and that I ought to find out what it was. I therefore took steps to learn what was its amount; but after I had written to Sir Edwin Pearson on the 5th. Therefore when I wrote to say that I could not appoint him I knew no more than I did when I wrote to inform him that I was intending to make that appointment.

It is unfortunate that that letter—

The hon. Baronet is out of order.

If there is any doubt as to the truth of that statement, I can refer to the date on which I wrote the letter.

The words "too late" were marked on that letter.

On which?

On the letter of August 5.

This is the first time that I have heard of it. It would have been well if I had been told that before, But that does not alter the fact that I wrote the letter on the 5th—that it is dated on the 5th. The hon. Member corrobo- rates my statement, however unwillingly, because he does not say that it was posted on the next day, but that it was posted on that day, only too late. He was trying to fix on me a statement which is contrary to my assertion, and contrary to fact. I again repeat—and I defy him to prove the contrary—that I did write the letter on the 5th, that I did post it on the 5th, and he has misrepresented the facts when he led hon. Gentlemen to suppose that it was written on the 7th. That is not his only misrepresentation. I say that on Monday the.5th of August I had to consider whether my public duty required me to appoint Sir Edwin Pearson or not. I had no private interest whatever in the matter. Whatever private feeling I had was in favour of Sir Edwin Pearson. I thought well of Sir Edwin Pearson. I had known him in connection with benevolent societies, and my wish was to appoint him. I had no wish to vex or disappoint Sir Edwin Pearson. On the contrary, the natural satisfaction which every one feels in giving pleasure to a person of whom they think well made me desire to appoint him; but it seemed to me that I should not he discharging the duty cast upon me by the Act of Parliament it I appointed a man who was objected to by any of the mortgagees and bondholders, on the ground that owing to the part he had previously taken in their affairs he was not as free from bias, from prejudice, and partiality as they had a right to expect in the discharge of the duties of the place to which he was to be appointed. There was another reason—I am reluctant to give these reasons; they are forced from me—but there was another reason why Sir Edwin Pearson was not a fit and proper person to fill this office. It is this—Sir Edwin Pearson had at that time, and I believe has now, a pecuniary interest in the transactions of the company, and it certainly was not desirable that the Chairman appointed by the Crown as an impartial person should have a pecuniary interest in the affairs he was to wind up. And not only had Sir Edwin Pearson that existing pecuniary interest, but he was one of those who originally contributed money to this undertaking. I understand that his share was,£7,000, and his brother's share £7,000, out of the £50,000 which were originally advanced to the undertaking, which money has been lost; and this circumstance might expose him to a suspicion which ought not to attach to a Chairman of such a Commission. I do not care to defend the judgment which I may have shown; but I can without fear of contradiction say that I had no improper bias or feeling whatever in the matter; that I had no personal, no private interest to serve. On the contrary, if I had been anxious for a quiet life, I should have let matters take their course but I thought that my public duty required me to take another line. In doing so I was naturally anxious to save Sir Edwin Pearson's feelings as much as I could, and with that view I used the expressions which the hon. Baronet has quoted; which I acknowledge are very strong, and which I might not otherwise have used. But I wished in the strongest way to make it clear to him that the decision at which I had arrived was in no way owing to anything I had heard against his moral character. I said that in as distinct terms as I could, and he might easily have understood, that the objections were not against his moral character, but against his conduct in the chair, and were urged by mortgagees, who said that he had been too much mixed up in the previous affairs of this Commission. I wrote to him, believing, of course, that he would acquiesce in the withdrawal—not of the appointment, but of my intention to appoint him. Because, although I had power to alter my intention, I had no power of cancelling or withdrawing the appointment; and such an idea never occurred to me. Perhaps I may fortify my statement with an opinion which has been given by a person who is very conversant with affairs of this nature. [Name, name!] I do not give the name, because the letter is confidential. What was said of Sir Edwin Pearson was, that he had not the firmness, the energy, or the determination.

said, he rose to order. Unless the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to state the name of the writer and the date of the letter, it would be better to refrain from reading that document.

I beg to say that I was not reading the paper. I was merely stating the impression conveyed to me, which was, that persons who were interested in winding up this Commission were of opinion that Sir Edwin Pearson had not the energy, the determination, and the business qualities which would enable him satisfactorily to discharge his duties. I had to act not merely upon the opinion I myself might form, but I had to consider the interests of those whose money was at stake; and, from the information which I received, I came to the conclusion that Sir Edwin Pearson was not the right man for the position. Then I had to consider who should he appointed, and, after thinking of various persons, it seemed to me that there was nobody who could give such universal satisfaction to the persons interested as my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), who has had very large and varied experience in the class of business relating to this Commission. I also thought a seat in this House might he of advantage to the Chairman in reference to any future proceedings that might be taken on this question, and I therefore asked him if he would be good enough to undertake this task. [Mr. MALINS: When?] I applied to him on the 8th of August. Having written to Sir Edwin Pearson on the 5th, that gentleman came to me on the 7th, and I then had an opportunity of explaining to him my view of the case, and of stating that I was unable to appoint him, not on account of any reflections as to his moral qualifications that had reached me, but because persons whose interests were at stake were unwilling that he should serve. Having seen Sir Edwin Pearson on the 7th of August, I wrote on the 8th to the hon. Member for Bath, and I put it to him, as I had originally put it to Sir Edwin Pearson—"Will you undertake a public duty, a laborious one, for which you can get very little satisfaction beyond doing your duty and conferring some benefit on the public?" That hon. Member took a long time to consider the proposal; he ultimately accepted it, and on the 5th of September I appointed him to the place. A good deal more correspondence passed, but I believe there is no other point on which it is necessary for me to give explanations. I can only say, with regard to the papers that have been moved for—["No, no !"]—that are about to he moved for, if the notice which has been given shall be carried out—that there is nothing I more desire than that every letter I have written and received on the subject should be read. My wish is that the matter should be thoroughly and minutely sifted. But with regard to the Motion actually before the House, it seems to me that there are many difficulties to be encountered. One is, that it proposes the Committee should consider a point of law—namely, what is called the double appointment. My statement is that there has been no such thing; that I never intended to make, and that I never did make, a double appointment. But if the House wish it to be referred to a Committee, it is not for me to express any opinion. Before I sit down, I wish to say, that if the question raised were whether I am to blame for not appointing Sir Edwin Pearson, I should be quite willing to enter into a statement in my own defence before a Committee in much greater detail than I have now felt it right to do. The question raised, how ever, is altogether different, and implies that I did appoint him. That, I say, is entirely a mistake. I did not intend to appoint him—I do not believe I did; and if I did, the question which. is raised can only be settled in a court of law.

said, he quite agreed with the remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works at the beginning of his speech, when he expressed his regret that the appointment had been placed in his hands at all. He (Mr Tite), at all events, regretted that he should have been the unfortunate individual appointed. His own part in the transaction had, however, been very simple and straightforward; and, briefly stated, it would afford the best reply to the imputations upon his character which he felt sure the hon. Baronet would regret having made, He knew nothing whatever of the new street, or the dealings or doings of the Commissioner before the 8th of August, when, having gone down to the coast of Suffolk, he received the following letter from the Chief Commissioner of Works:—

"Dear Mr. Tite,—The Act which has just passed for altering the Westminster Improvement Commission, for winding up its affairs and giving a title to its property, and for making some new streets, and for getting that unfortunate chaos, Victoria Street, out of the mess in which it is, has given me the authority to appoint a Chairman, who is to be one of six Commissioners, of whom two are elected by the bondholders, two by the mortgagees, and one by the existing Commissioners. Is there any possibility of persuading you to become the Chairman? I am afraid it may be rather a troublesome task; but, on the other hand, there is great public good to be done, and some reputation to be achieved by getting the waggon out of such a rut. Pray tell me how you feel about this, for the parties concerned wish, I believe, that my appointment should he made before the election of the others proceeds,

"Truly yours,

"Aug. 8, 1861." "W. COWPER."

That was the first he had heard of the ap- pointment, or of the Bill itself, and he answered it by requesting the right hon. Gentleman to send him down a copy of the Act, which he received in a day or two afterwards. He read it over with great care, and believed he had mastered the enactments. It was distinctly a winding-up Act, and though it might entail a little trouble on a person who was well acquainted with business, there was nothing that could not be managed in a reasonable time. In two or three years, at most, he believed the work could be completed. There was a clause in the Act under which—if they could obtain the money, of which he saw very little prospect—some remuneration attached to the appointment. The sum amounted to £700 per annum, and was to be shared among six; so that his portion would be a little over £100, probably for a period of two or three years. But that payment was contingent on several considerations. At the present moment there were no funds to meet these fees, or to meet anything. The Commissioners had looked very carefully into the operation of the Act, and he thought he might say that he saw his way. On the 13th of August, not having returned an answer, he received a pressing note from the right hon. Gentleman saying it was desirable that the appointment should be announced as soon as possible, mentioning that the office was not wholly without emolument, and referring to the £700 of which he had just spoken. His answer was written on the 23rd of August, and nearly crossed another letter from the First Commissioner, In the mean time he had been in London and ascertained in society that some claim had been already made in respect of the appointment; and being anxious rather to diminish his own engagements, and being also the last man to interfere with the fair claims of any other gentleman, he wrote in the following terms to the Chief Commissioner:—

"17. St. Helen's Place, E.C

"Aug. 23, 1801."

"My dear Mr. Cowper,—Thanks for your note of the 21st, and the information it contains. But it has accidentally come to my knowledge that some appointment in favour of Sir E. Pearson had been under your consideration. I presume, how ever, Sir Edwin has no pretence to claim the appointment at your hands, because I would, on no account, expose myself to the chance of any contest with the claims of any other gentleman. If, however, the nomination were perfectly free from any such difficulty, I should be ready to accept it, and to do my best to perform its duties.

"I am, my dear Sir, your obedient servant,

"W. TITE."

The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was as clear as anything could possibly be—

"Aug. 30, 1861.

"My dear Sir,—I was much pleased to get your letter, and to find that you are willing to undertake this task, Soon after the Act had passed Sir E. Pearson was recommended to me by persons connected with the Westminster undertaking. I thought that his experience and intimate acquaintance with the affairs of the Commission during the first period of its proceedings might afford an advantage which no one else could possess, and that his zeal and interest in the cause, and the absence of other occupations, would insure his full and undivided attention to the business of the Commission, and I was pleased at the thought of giving him some opportunity of retrieving the disaster into which he had, I believe, been originally drawn by a patriotic desire to improve the district. Under these impressions, I wrote to him in order to ascertain whether he would be willing to accept the office, and unfortunately it was only after I had written to him that I discovered that the circumstance which I had imagined to be an advantage was felt to be a fatal objection by some who were pecuniarily interested in the winding-up of the concern; and it appeared that the duty of nominating the Chairman had been imposed on me with the expectation that I should select some one who would take up the affair without bias or predilection from previous transactions.

"I felt it, then, my duty to explain this to Sir E. Pearson, and to assure him of my regret that I could not act upon the intentions expressed in my previous communication. My second letter was written on the third day after the first; but owing to his absence from home it did not reach him immediately, and, unfortunately, he had on receipt of my first letter told his friends that he was to be appointed. I am greatly vexed at having occasioned him this disappointment, but I am now occasioned that I should not rightly discharge my duty by appointing him, so that a refusal from you would make no difference to him.

"I am truly yours,

"W. Tite, Esq., M.P." "W. COWPER."

It appeared to him that the explanation given by his right hon. Friend was a reasonable one, and that he should have been declining the performance of a public duty if he had not accepted the offer of the First Commissioner. He had no personal interest in the matter, but as a man of taste and an architect the task was one for which some persons might think he had a special qualification. He had been subjected to much inconvenience in his endeavour to discharge the duties which he had undertaken. Sir Edwin Pearson had served a notice on him, stating that every act done under his presidency would be illegal. He really thought that men desirous of having a great public object achieved ought to be prepared to surrender a little private feeling in furtherance of a common object. Such, however, was his explanation. He wished to mention that on one occasion when Sir Edwin Pearson called on him, being particularly engaged, he was unable to see him. A short interview had, however, taken place between them, and Sir Edwin Pearson told him he was desirous of leaving the matter to the arbitration of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. In reply to that offer, he stated that he was perfectly willing to leave the matter to any one. In the conclusion of the letter to Sir E. Pearson, in which he told him that he had forwarded all the documents to the Chief Commissioner, he also stated that he was perfectly ready to surrender the appointment. He ventured, therefore, most respectfully to ask the House whether he had not now cleared himself from any imputation that might have been cast upon him? As to the offer being intended to buy a vote that never was bought it was simply absurd—his politics were perfectly well known, he was the representative of an important constituency, he was well known in the City; and was it to be supposed that he would sell his independence for such a mess of pottage as the emoluments which might be attached to the chairmanship? It was said that he was a much occupied man. He knew it. If he had not been, he should not have a seat in that House; but he had done his best to diminish his occupations; and he appealed with confidence to that House, and to the City, in which he was well known, as to whether he ever neglected any duty which he undertook to perform. He must say that he regretted such an attack should have been made, because it must be offensive to the feelings of any right-minded man to have it supposed by any person that for £100 a year he would sacrifice those considerations to which he had alluded, or undertake any duty for which he was physically or morally incapable.

said, that as far as he understood the speech of the First Commissioner, the right hon. Gentleman objected to the wording of the Motion as prejudging the question of a double appointment; but that, subject to a verbal amendment of the Motion, he did not object to his conduct in the matter being referred to a Select Committee of that House. It was greatly to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had gone so far as he had done, not in casting imputations himself, but in disseminating in that House the result of imperfect information, filtered through him from suspicious sources, and calculated to prejudice the case of Sir Edwin Pearson. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have known that Sir Edwin Pearson had never been implicated in any of the scandals or the doubtful proceedings which had occurred in connection with the Westminster improvements. The Act of Parliament was passed in 1845; and Sir Edwin shortly afterwards became Chairman of the Commissioners, a situation which he held till 1852. During the time that Sir Edwin was Chairman of the Commission its proceedings wore not impeached; they were a success. Sir Edwin Pearson had the entire confidence of every public body and of every private individual who had any interest in the affairs of the Commission, including Lord Carlisle, one of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors in office. In 1852, however, certain propositions were made at the Board, from which Sir Edwin Pearson dissented. He thought he saw in these propositions the seeds of future misfortunes; but the majority were against him, and he left both the chair and the Commission, and from that day to the present had never had any connection with either. It was after 1852 that the scandalous proceedings which led to the issue of those bonds took place. Under those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner was not warranted in expressing an opinion that there were some grounds for bringing forward a charge against Sir Edwin Pearson in connection with those transactions. On the contrary, he ought to have suspected that any opposition to Sir Edwin's appointment arose from the persons or the representatives of the persons who were interested in carrying out the proposals against which Sir Edwin had protested. After the passing of the Act of last year, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have made inquiry in every quarter from which sound information on the subject was to he obtained, and the result was, he arrived at the conclusion that Sir Edwin Pearson was a gentleman whose appointment to the chairmanship would be a perfect unexceptional one. The right hon. Gentleman then wrote the letter of the 2nd of August, offering Sir Edwin Pearson the appointment. Sir Edwin Pearson wrote to accept the offer, and the right hon. Gentleman's letter and the answer constituted, as he maintained, an appointment to the office. He believed it was familiar to the House that a letter from a Minister of the Crown, offering an appointment to a Member of the House, and the acceptance of that appointment, rendered it necessary for the Member to vacate his seat. If the right hon. Gentleman had been hiring a clerk or a servant, such a letter, and the acceptance of the offer of employment, would have constituted a contract by which both parties would be bound. The right hon. Gentleman contended that the appointment was not perfect without the execution of some instrument beyond and besides the writing of a letter. He was perfectly at liberty to use that argument, and much good might it do his case; but it did not place his conduct in so satisfactory a light as could be wished. The right hon. Gentleman then communicated, on the 5th of August, his change of mind, and the language of that letter painfully conflicted with the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's observations with regard to Sir Edwin Pearson which the House had just heard. On the 2nd of August the right hon. Gentleman believed Sir Edwin Pearson to be capable, competent, and exempt from all taint. When the appointment was known, of course calumniators came buzzing about. On the 5th of August the right hon. Gentleman was in possession of all that was insinuated against Sir Edwin Pearson; at all events, he ought to have been in possession of all that was necessary to warrant him in retracting the offer. In that letter the right hon. Gentleman said—

"I am distressed to find that I must not give effect to the intention I mentioned to you in my letter on Friday last. Since I wrote to you I have received an intimation that some of the parties at whose instigation the power of nomination was committed to the First Commissioner of Works attach great importance to the Chairman being a person who comes freshly to the work, without any previous acquaintance with it or any bias; and although I have never heard a whisper of complaint against you, nor do I believe that any one could offer the slightest objection to you personally, yet I do feel that if the duty of nomination was intrusted to me under the expectation that I should infuse what is called new blood, and select a person who would take up the affair from its present starting point rather than from its origin, I should not be acting rightly in giving way to my own feelings, which prompted me to desire to offer it to you."

He did the right hon. Gentleman the justice to believe that he had not been prompted by his feelings to make the offer, but that he had taken that step after full examination, and after satisfying himself of Sir Edwin Pearson's fitness. When the right hon. Gentleman wrote that letter, he had not heard one whisper against Sir Edwin Pearson personally, and therefore he had not heard that he was personally incapable, or that he was either by suspicion or otherwise connected with the doubtful proceedings of the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman disclosed on the face of the letter what was in his mind when he wrote it—namely, that he had been overcome by representations that certain persons did not want to have Sir Edwin Pearson as Chairman; and the right hon. Gentleman, instead of consulting the Act of Parliament which cast upon him the decision, was weak enough not only to act on the gossip which reached his ears, but to give it publicity. Did the right hon. Gentleman receive the information which led to the third letter after the 5th of August, or was he in possession of the information conveyed in the letter of the 23rd of August when he wrote the letter of the 5th? If he was well founded in what he wrote on the 23rd of August, and had received the information before the 5th, he ought never to have expressed himself as he did at the latter date. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman received his information after the 5th, it only showed that when he retracted his offer on the 5th he was not acting on the grounds laid down in the letter of the 23rd. So far as it was possible for an injury to be done to a private gentleman by a Minister of the Crown, such an injury had been inflicted on Sir Edwin Pearson by the set of the right hon. Gentleman, and the language of the letter he addressed to him when, under the threat of possible charges, he tried to induce him to withdraw from his position. The fact was that after 1852, when Sir Edwin Pearson ceased to have anything to do with the Commission, they issued fictitious bonds to the amount of £500,000, when they had first mortgaged their property beyond its value. He understood the right hon. Gentleman did not object to inquiry, and an inquiry by a Select Committee of that House was the only means by which the matter could be settled to the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman, and so as to give redress to Sir Edwin Pearson. He would therefore propose to amend the wording of the Resolution so as to direct the Committee "to inquire into the circumstances connected with the appointment of Mr. Tite."

said, that it had happened in August last that Sir Edwin Pearson was staying at his (Mr. Newdegate's) house near Uxbridge, where the letter from the Chief Commissioner of Works, attempting to revoke the appointment he had made, reached Sir Edwin Pearson. He had had the honour of knowing Sir Edwin Pearson for many years: that Gentleman was extremely distressed at the letter, and referred the matter to him (Mr. Newdegate) as a friend. He approached the subject with every inclination to prevent anything like a disagreeable collision; he calmly considered the whole case. He had to take into account that ever since the resignation of Sir Edwin Pearson in 1852, in consequence of his strong opposition to the inception of the transactions which had afterwards disgraced the Commission, he had been the victim of false and malicious calumny. On resigning, Sir Edwin Pearson wrote to every bondholder, warning them, that if such proceedings as were then proposed to be taken were carried into effect, they would lead to disaster. This was an act of honesty and of duty, but was probably the cause of anger among those implicated in the subsequent transactions of the Commission. Since that period Sir Edwin Pearson had been the victim of calumny. He claimed for him the sympathy of the House, because he pledged himself to show that expressions had been used in that House on several occasions connected with the passing of the Act for Winding up the Affairs of the Commission, which gave currency to those unjust calumnies. On the 10th of May, 1861, Sir Edwin Pearson addressed a letter, which he (Mr. Newdegate) then held in his hand, to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works, in which he said, "I trust I am not asking anything but what is most just and reasonable, when I very respectfully request that you will take the opportunity on the third reading of the Westminster Improvements Bill to remove the erroneous impressions made upon the public with all the weight and authority of your official position." Therefore before his re-appointment to the chairmanship was ever thought of, before the present Act passed, expressions had been used by the Chief Commissioner which, in his (Mr. Newdegate's) opinion, had necessarily elicited, had rendered inevitable the appeal contained in the letter. The fact was, that the present Motion was the result of a long story. He (Mr. Newdegate) found that the circumstances of the case must have been known to the Chief Commissioner for many months, and he urged Sir Edwin Pearson to go to the Chief Commissioner and put the matter to him as between one gentleman and another, since it was evident that the attempt to cancel his reappointment must affect Sir Edwin Pearson in a manner quite different from the mere cancelling of the appointment of a person who had not previously been connected with the improvements in West minster. The letters which had been rend were then written. He felt that this was a question between one gentleman and another, and he had used every means, direct and indirect, both by appealing to Members of the Government and to mutual friends, to induce the right hon. Gentleman to adhere to his decision in making the appointment, the revocation of which had given great strength to current calumnies. The case, then, was that of an honourable and ill-used man, who had proved himself capable of serving the public, but who had been grossly and most unjustly calumniated, and he (Mr. Newdegate) hoped that this gentleman would have an opportunity of vindicating himself before a Committee from the calumnies which had been circulated.

said, that as he happened to have been the Chairman of the Committee to whom the Bill was referred, he wished to offer a few words in explanation. The Committee, having understood that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner did not wish to make the appointment, took the subject into consideration; but, not desiring to assume the responsibility of the step, they requested him (Mr. Baillie) to address a letter to the Chief Commissioner of Works, and to request him as a public duty to make the appointment. He (Mr. Baillie) did not wish to enter into the question whether the Chief Commissioner was justified in appointing Sir Edwin Pearson or not; but this he could affirm, that it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that no person connected with the former state of things ought to be appointed. No opinion of the Committee was more clearly entertained than that. He was fully convinced that the right hon. Gentleman could not have made a better appointment than the hon. Member for Bath.

Sir, I think the hon. Baronet who made this Motion ought to be satisfied with having attained what I feel persuaded is his main object—that of having vindicated the character of his friend from any imputation that might have been cast upon it. But, if he be resolved to persist in the Motion, I think he might add a rider; whereas he proposed to appoint a Committee to inquire into the double appointment which he says has been made, he might also move for a Committee to inquire into the double Motion made by the hon. Baronet himself, because he has given a notable example of that change of mind which he condemns in my right hon. Friend. The hon. Baronet, upon full consideration, makes a Motion which, after he finds it inapplicable, he consents, in accordance with the suggestions from another quarter, to alter into a Motion of inquiry into the conduct of my right hon. Friend. Now, I maintain there is no double appointment. The result of the discussion has boon to convince the Mover of this Resolution that there has been no double appointment. He gives up his Motion on that subject, and is content with a Committed to inquire into the conduct of my right hon. Friend. With regard to the appointment in question, nothing could be more absurd than to suppose that the letter offering the appointment constituted the appointment itself. It is childish to suppose such a thing. Does any man imagine, that if Sir Edwin Pearson were to walk into the Commission with that letter in his hand, and to say, "I am your Chairman," he would not be asked, "Where is your appointment?" And when he could not produce it, would he not be told, "Your appointment must be contained in some document from the responsible authorities. You have it not; therefore you are not our Chairman"? Therefore, I am glad that the hon. Baronet has himself acquiesced in the absurdity of his own Motion, and has seen the propriety of altering it into a Motion for a Committee of inquiry into the conduct of my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend, perhaps, made a mistake; but it was the first act that was the mistake, and not the second act. He might have made a mistake in offering the appointment to Sir Edwin Pearson—not that any moral imputation rested upon that Gentleman. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) has given a very good reason why Sir Edwin Pearson should not have been appointed, because he said, that from the time that Sir Edwin Pearson ceased to be Chairman up to the present day he has been the victim of calumny with regard to the transactions relating to the Westminster improvements. Sir, I say that a man who has been the victim of such calumny is not fit for the appointment. But when my right hon. Friend found, whatever might be his own opinion, or whatever might be the integrity of Sir Edwin Pearson—and I maintain that no imputation which ought, for a moment, to be listened to has been cast upon his integrity—that all the parties whose interests were at stake were adverse to that appointment, I say he would have been wrong had he persisted in his intention; and he was perfectly right, and only discharging his duty, in making another arrangement. The hon. Baronet moves for inquiry into the conduct of my right hon. Friend for not having persisted in the appointment of Sir Edwin Pearson. Why, it has been demonstrated that Sir Edwin Pearson, by the fact of his having been Chairman when all this confusion arose, was not a fit person to be Chairman of that Commission; and we have a confirmation of that opinion from the Chairman of the Committee of the House of Commons, who has just told us that the right hon. Gentleman would have been wanting in his duty if he had made such an appointment. We have it, then, from the best authority—not a political friend, but a political opponent—who gets up with a determination to tell the truth, and who boldly tells you that my right hon. Friend would have been wanting in the performance of his public duty if he had appointed Sir Edwin Pearson to that position. Well, Sir, it often happens in this House that a Member of the Government is brought to task for appointing a wrong man to a wrong place—we often hear of a wrong man in a wrong place—but here the hon. Baronet wants to censure the conduct of my right hon. Friend for not appointing a wrong man to a place which he ought not to occupy. Why, Sir, it is, I believe, the most unheard-of ground of censure that was ever taken up in the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend, as was well admitted by the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. H. Baillie), judged rightly that he had too hastily offered the appointment to Sir Edwin Pearson, that he would not he discharging his duty if he fulfilled his original intention, and he offered the appointment to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath. And I must say that I heard with regret, and I think the hon. Baronet himself must regret, that he should have stated that that was done to purchase the support of the hon. Gentleman in this House. That was an unworthy assertion, totally devoid of any foundation whatever, and which, I think, any man, when he reflects, would feel ashamed of. I contend, therefore, that the Committee which is moved for would have nothing to inquire into except this:—Whether my right hon. Friend was right in abstaining from making a wrong appointment and determining to make a right one? That is not a ground on which this House would be justified in appointing a Committee to make inquiry. I have not the least objection to the Motion for the production of papers; and therefore, if the House disposes of this Motion as I hope and trust it will, and if the hon. Baronet makes another Motion, he will have the papers which he wishes for, and the House will then have a still better opportunity than this discussion has given of seeing the grounds upon which my right hon. Friend has, as I maintain, and as the hon. Member for Inverness-shire bears me out in saying, properly performed his duty as a responsible officer of the Crown.

said, he was astonished at the statement the noble Lord had made as to the point at issue. They were not there, like a body of attorneys, to determine whether the Chief Commissioner had given a legal bond or made a legal contract, but they were there to decide upon a point of honour. It would be disastrous if the noble Lord, and those who were going to support him, failed to see that that was the point at issue. The character of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) had never been called in question. But what they wished to determine by the inquiry of a Committee was the grounds upon which the Chief Commissioner was entitled in honour to cancel the nomination which he had made. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had cancelled it upon grounds which reflected upon the character of Sir Edwin Pearson; and Sir Edwin Pearson had a right to ask for an inquiry.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether any understanding has been come to with the Government of the Republic of Guatemala with reference to the proposed road to be made from the City of Guatemala to the Atlantic coast? He was sure, seeing the responsibilities which the treaty cast upon the Government, the House would excuse him if he trespassed upon them with a few words. In 1859 a treaty was entered into between Her Majesty's Government and that of Guatemala; the object of which was to define the boundaries of the territories of the republic and of Her Majesty's dominions in that part of the world. It also contained a stipulation by which her Majesty's Government agreed to undertake the liability with the Government of Guatemala of forming a road. In the first place, he could not conceive a principle more objectionable than that this country should enter into liabilities for these kind of public improvements in another country which was quite capable of doing the work without any such assistance. The treaty, upon being brought to this country, was at once ratified by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office. The noble Lord having accepted this responsibility—as he (Mr. Fitzgerald) thought somewhat hastily—it struck him that he should like to know something of the extent of the liability. He was called on to do his part under the treaty in making the road, which was 350 miles long. Major Wray, an engineer officer, was therefore sent out to investigate the matter, and he reported that the expense of making the road would be about £150,000. It appeared, also, that the Government of Guatemala was under the impression that England was to find the money for the road, and they were to find the statute labour, the result of which would be, that whilst Guatemala found the forced labour, the British Government would pay into its treasury £150,000. But it appeared that while her Majesty's Government was astonished at the magnitude of the work, and the sum it was to cost, the Government of Guatemala was also dissatisfied, because they thought that the amount (which they hoped to receive) was too small; and although it had not, he believed, been officially communicated to her Majesty's Government, the Government of Guatemala estimated the cost of the work at £300,000. Considering the present position of the finances of this country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably be astonished to find a liability existing of which he knew nothing. But according to another report which had been made, the amount required to make this communication would be so large as to render it practically impossible to carry it out. Under these circumstances, he should like to know whether the Government intended to repudiate or to fulfil this bargain. Either alternative was much to be regretted. On the one hand, it was improper that obligations of this kind should be lightly incurred; and, on the other, it was a great misfortune to have to repudiate a treaty solemnly entered into. He was aware that our chargé d'affaires at Mexico had been despatched to Guatemala to endeavour to arrange this matter. He was probably still there with that object. His (Mr. Fitzgerald's) object in bringing this matter forward was to know whether the Government would fulfil the contract or repudiate an engagement under a solemn treaty.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances under which certain arrests (stated to be illegal) were made for trespass on the Curragh of Kildare, and into the powers possessed by the Civil and Military Authorities for enforcing their orders and Regulations within the Camps on that Common, while such Camps continue to exist. In 1853 a camp for the instruction of the troops was formed at the Curragh of Kildare—a plain which had long previously been used as a common, over which the inhabitants of the surrounding districts enjoyed rights of pasturage, and on which races had been held at least ever since the reign of Charles II. The proposal to establish a camp there at first awakened the jealousy of the persons who had enjoyed rights of pasturage, and who were interested in the races; but the Government entered into an engagement that no encroachment should be made upon the privileges of either of those classes. An engineer officer had been at that time sent to the Curragh, and a line was drawn on the map of it made for the purpose, which marked the boundary of the grounds to be allotted for the camp, and the ground reserved for the training and racing purposes. This arrangement had been made and signed by the late Lord Waterford on the part of the turf club, and by Captain Laffan on that of the Government. Since then, however, disputed questions of legal right had arisen in this matter. There could be no doubt that the Curragh was a common, and it had been dealt with as such in old Acts of the Irish Parliament, in which it was expressly called a common. The fact of disputed titles, it was well known to every magistrate, would oust the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in respect to trespasses upon the land, and any punishments inflicted in the exercise of such an assumed jurisdiction were consequently illegal. Punishments of that nature had, however, actually been inflicted on certain persons by a stipendiary magistrate sent to that part of the country by the Government. Not only had the stipendiary magistrate inflicted fines, but he had committed persons to gaol; and when they were brought up before the bench of county magistrates handcuffed, these magistrates had dismissed the cases for want of jurisdiction, and in every one the stipendiary magistrate was liable to an action for false imprisonment. The local magistrates referred these cases to the Government of Ireland for the opinion of the law advisers of the Crown, and after months of delay and evasion were at last informed that the arrests made by the stipendiary magistrate were illegal, and that they had no jurisdiction. This was a stretch of authority doubly objectionable when practised, not by an ordinary justice of the peace, but by a paid agent of the Central Government. Another complaint might be fairly urged by those possessing rights of pasturage against the acts of the Government. The Curragh was capable of affording pasturage for 30,000 sheep, but the number at present did not exceed 20,000, so that there was a loss to the people of feeding for 10,000. He also had to complain that soldiers were sworn in as special constables, and employed permanently in police duty. He doubted whether it was legal to swear in soldiers for such a duty; and, at all events, as the very name imported, when any disturbance induced magistrates to add to the ordinary constables, they had the power to swear in householders, to act as such for the special purpose; but they never were kept permanently on duty, as some of these soldiers were; and he should like to know by whom or by whose authority these soldiers were sworn in, and whether the Government would assert that their employment was legal. Nearly 2,000 persons, the Secretary for Ireland had asserted, had been illegally arrested for trespass, and sent to prison; but when brought before the magistrates, they had been discharged from custody. Although he (Col. Dunne) believed the number exaggerated, the real number was sufficiently monstrous. Such proceedings would not be tolerated in England. Was it right that the Government should set an example of outrageous illegality and violence to the people of Ireland? It might be said that the aggrieved persons might appeal to the law for redress; but they were too poor to do so, and the House was bound to institute an inquiry. The law officers of the Crown had admitted that arrests could not be made for trespass; and although it was proper that measures should be taken for securing the discipline and privacy of the camp, still it was essential that everything should be dune in a legal manner. There could be no doubt that a series of illegalities had been committed, and he hoped the Government would grant an inquiry.

said, that the hon. and gallant Member could not conclude with his Motion, because the House by a division had affirmed that "the Speaker do now leave the chair" should stand part of the Question.

said, that even had the Motion been before the House, he should have been obliged to resist it. The hon. and gallant Member had entirely failed to make out a case. Four instances of illegal acts had been given, and he believed that three were the cases of prostitutes, and one the case of a thief. There was no special Act for the Curragh, as there was for Aldershot; and the hon. and gallant Gentleman, from his experience in military matters, must know that for the sake of discipline it was necessary to keep the hordes of prostitutes and thieves who pressed round the camp outside its limits. He could not see how acts done by a stipendiary magistrate could be more illegal than nets done by unpaid magistrates. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, that whereas formerly there were 30,000 sheep, the number was reduced now to 20,000. Would he like the camp to be removed? The benefit of the camp being there, independent of the facility it afford- ed for military operations, must be considerable. The hon. and gallant Member had moved for Returns, and they had been given. General Larcom wrote,

"As to Colonel Dunne's Motion on the Curragh arrests, a Committee can ascertain no more that the Returns already given."

He would therefore appeal to the hon. and gallant Member, whether any good could result from an inquiry into the variety of persons who frequented the camp.

said, that as one of the Members for Kildare he begged to return his thanks to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for bringing the question before the House. The complaint was that the camp interfered with an ancient right of way, and that it had been stopped without any authority. In the case of Aldershot a similar complaint had been remedied. The right hon. Baronet, who was usually very ill informed about Irish matters, had given a singular instance of it that night. It was not true that the parties molested on the Curragh were, as alleged by the right hon. Baronet, thieves and prostitutes. In one case, a child nine years of age was kept some days in prison, taken before the county magistrates, and dismissed. Labourers, and, he believed, one farmer, had been arrested for using the public way, and instead of being admitted to bail to appear at the petty sessions, they were sent to gaol until the next day, when, being brought before the county magistrates, the case was dismissed. The stipendiary magistrate set himself above the county magistrates. Gentlemen in the commission, who had resided in the county for years, and enforced the law in a proper manner, would not strain the law, or commit an oppressive act. The stipendiary magistrate had exceeded his duty in sending a man to gaol for a common trespass, instead of taking his own recognisance to appear, at the sessions. There was no wish to interfere with Her Majesty's troops. All that was required was that the rights of the public should not be extinguished except by Act of Parliament.

said, he regretted that the Government was unwilling to grant the Committee moved for by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He believed that every one in the neighbourhood was agreed that the stipendiary magistrate had far exceeded his powers.

said, he held that, on the showing of their own law officers, the Go- vernment had no right over the ground upon which people were charged with trespassing. He was sorry to hear a Gentleman who held such high office in the Government as the right hon. Baronet express approval of acts which were admitted to be illegal. Even if there were nuisances connected with the camp which ought to be put down, the law ought not to be overstepped for that purpose. He thought there should be a Committee of Inquiry.

said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who possessed considerable talents, had spoken for a long time upon the subject without conveying to the House any clear idea of his meaning, or the precise point of his complaint. The clear object of his Motion might, however, be gathered from what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kildare. It apppeared that there was a dispute as to a right of way over the Curragh, but that involved a point of law which could not properly be determined by a Committee of the House. If the Committee did pronounce an opinion on the subject, it would not be binding upon any parties, and would have very little effect in terminating the dispute. Another ground of complaint was, that there was a difference between the county and stipendiary magistrates; but that was a matter for the consideration of the executive Government. If any difficulty arose from the absence of special legislation with respect to the camp at the Curragh, it was for the Secretary for War to look into the question; and if it were brought before him in the proper manner, he would give it his best consideration.

said, he was not surprised to hear the right hon, Gentleman say that the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend opposite was one of which he found it difficult to catch the purport, because, if he were correctly informed, the right hon. Gentleman was not in the House while the speech was being delivered.

said, he heard the first sentences of the speech and the conclusion; indeed, nearly the whole of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman introduced a special law to meet the existing state of things, the magistrates and the public of Kildare would meet him half-way; but, in the mean time, he thought that the Government ought to pledge themselves distinctly that the stipendiary magistrates would be restrained from violating the law in future. It was of the utmost importance, especially in Ireland, that the law should be strictly observed; and if the principle were admitted that an officer of the Government might violate it with impunity, serious injury to the country would be the result.

said, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether he will state at whose instance, and upon what ground, he has struck out of the List of Persons unanimously recommended by the Town Council of Northampton to fill the vacancies in the number of Charity Trustees for that borough the names of four gentlemen professing Conservative opinions, and has substituted others in lieu of them; and whether he will undertake to restore the original names to the List to be submitted to the Lord Chancellor? He begged leave to shortly state the circumstances of the case to the House. There were two public boards in Northampton—the one connected with the Church charities and the other with the general charities, the latter being by far the most important. It was obvious that such charities ought to be administered without the slightest suspicion of party influence, and the boards had been so constituted as to prevent any such suspicion arising. Ten years ago, when the Liberal party had the predominance in the town council, they themselves assented to the principle upon which it was determined that the office of trustees should be filled up—namely, in such a way as to leave the two parties equal, there being on the Church charities board a majority of one Conservative, and on the more important general charity majority of one Liberal. Such equality was particularly desirable in Northampton, where, as he could testify, party spirit ran so high; and in 1859, when the first re appointment of trustees took place, the Conservatives, if they had felt desirous to depart from the original principle laid down with respect to the appointment of the trustees, would have had a most favourable opportunity of doing so, seeing that there was a Conservative Government in power at the time, and that the Conservatives had then a majority in the town council. They, however, did nothing of the kind, but left matters precisely as they were before, with a majority of one in the general charity board against them. A second appointment of new trustees had recently been rendered necessary as well by the removal of some of the most influential of the trustees of the two boards from the neighbourhood as from the death of others. A committee was therefore appointed to draw out a list of names for the appointment, and it was arranged that the Conservative vacancies should be filled by Conservatives, and Liberal vacancies by Liberals. No objection was made to the. Conservative list, but there were some substitutions in the Liberal list made by themselves. When, however, the list was sent back from the Attorney General's office, it was found that the resignation of the Conservative non-residents was accepted, and their places filled up by Liberals, whereas that of the Liberal non-residents was not accepted, but their names were retained on the list, the effect of which was to give to the liberals a majority of eleven on the Church charities board, and a majority of fourteen against seven on the general board. Such a proceeding had of course led to no little indignation, particularly as it was understood that the chiefs of the two parties in the borough concurred in the recommendation of the committee of the town council. He quite acquitted both the hon. Members from any participation in such an extraordinary proceeding. There was great curiosity in the town as to what secret influence had been brought to bear on the Attorney General in this matter.

said, he was not in a position to follow the hon. Gentleman into the account he had given of the polities of the town, which appeared to have been unfortunately mixed up with the question. He did not admit that a law officer who had to discharge the duty of appointing new trustees to a charity ought to be dictated to by any party. It was his duty to obtain the best information in his power, and then to nominate, regardless of politics, the party appearing to be best qualified to discharge the duties of the office. The question here appeared to belong to the general charity.

To both. We say two Conservatives have been struck out of each list and two Liberals have been substituted.

said, he was not aware that any objection had been made to the Church list; nor was he aware, till he saw the question on the paper, that there was any objection to the general list. The trustees of the general charity were twenty-one in number, reduced by death and other circumstances to fourteen. Under those circumstances two lists were sent into himself as Attorney General to be submitted to the Court of Chancery—one a joint list prepared by the surviving trustees and the town council, and the other a list framed by the town council alone. Both these lists contained nine names, but there were only seven vacancies to fill up. He took the list submitted by the town council; and as that list was in excess by two, that number was struck off. He (the Attorney General) adopted five of the remaining names; and that left two to be supplied. The name of the Rev. Mr. Gedge, the incumbent of All Saints, whose predecessor had been one of the trustees, having been mentioned to him, he thought he was a fit person to appoint, and the other name he selected from the original joint list sent in by the town council and surviving trustees. The duty of the Attorney General was merely to submit the names to the Judge in Equity, who appointed; it being open to the town council or surviving trustees to appeal to him against any of the names submitted, and to take his opinion upon them. As to any one having been at his ear, or his having acted from any improper motives, all he would say was that, acting in a judicial capacity, he had obtained the best information that he could get, and had formed his opinion upon it.

said, that it was to he regretted that the selection made by the Attorney General had destroyed that equality which had hitherto pretty generally been maintained, and his selections of Liberals only, instead of taking Liberals and Conservatives fairly, had occasioned very great dissatisfaction in Northampton.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the manner in which the Charges for the Civil Services are increased, and to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is expedient to make any change in the mode of conducting business to enable the House to exercise a more effectual supervision over the progress of measures which tend to that increase. In consequence of a communication which he had received from the right hon. Gentleman, it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House at any great length, but merely to explain, the object and purport of his question. There was a growing feeling in the country, and even in that House, that the amount of the public expenditure was a question of the greatest importance, and the notice-book of the House had during the Session contained notices of an unusual number of Motions tending in the direction of retrenchment. If any proof were wanted of the growing importance of the subject, it might be found in a debate which took place not long since, and one striking feature of which was a disposition to make the House of Commons responsible for the great increase of the public expenditure of the country. It was not his object at that time to discuss the causes which had led to the increase in the civil expenditure, which had been both of long duration and of large amount. During the fifteen years which succeeded the peace the civil charges of the country were, under the persistent economy of a Conservative Government, reduced from £4,500,000 to £3,900,000. Since the passing of the Reform Bill, such had been the unceasing activity of the House of Commons in effecting charges of one kind or another, that they had increased from the last-named sum to £9,800,000, exclusive of the cost of collection, and the charges for protecting the revenue. To inquire into the measures which had occasioned that increase would be to discuss all the measures which had been passed for the last thirty years, but it was important to notice the manner in which that increase had taken place. The civil charges might be divided into three general heads; first, the increase resulting from the action of the Government; next, from great public works; and thirdly, from Bills passed through the House. No sufficient opportunity was afforded of considering the acts of the Government which led to the increase of public expenditure. It might be said there can be no increase without an estimate being first placed upon the table and a vote being taken in Committee of Supply; but he denied that the practice of voting money in supply afforded to the House of Commons a sufficient opportunity of expressing its opinion upon acts of the Government which lead to increase of public expenditure. That was illustrated in a remarkable degree by what had occurred in the present Session with regard to the expenditure on education. A sum of money was voted year after year for education, but in truth it was only giving money to pay the bill for proceedings which the Government undertook. No Resolution was put before the House on which it could express any decided opinion; the only alternative open to it was to refuse or to grant the money. Let them take another illustration. An hon. and learned Friend of his endeavoured to obtain the opinion of the House on a project relating to military expenditure, but he found himself completely baffled in his at tempts to take the sense of the House on that question, and was ultimately obliged to assent to the vote demanded. In the case of great contracts leading to large expenditure, the House was never asked whether it wished to embark in those undertakings; its opinion was only asked when matters had reached the second or third stage, and when it had become impossible or exceedingly difficult to arrive at an impartial decision. Two years ago an hon. Friend of his, no longer a Member of the House, obtained the appointment of a Committee to consider whether it was possible to reduce the public expenditure. That Committee examined the First Commissioner of Works as to the mode in which the business of his department was conducted, and came to the remarkable conclusion that it was desirable to have a permanent Commissioner of Works, who should undertake all the responsible duties of the office, and a political Commissioner, who should sit in the House and enjoy all the honour and dignity connected with the office. That partnership scheme, however, was not received with much favour by the House, and he was glad to think that it had not since been carried out by the Government. The Committee in that case did not touch the source of the evil; in fact, their recommendation would rather have had the effect of withdrawing the department more completely from the cognizance and deliberate judgment of the House. Many of their subordinate recommendations on the subject of audit and account were important, but precautions in that direction only fulfilled the old maxim of locking the door when the steed had been stolen. Nobody supposed that the money was embezzled by the Ministers of the Crown; the real point for consideration was, how had the House been originally drawn into expenditure greater than they ever foresaw, and led to vote such enormous sums? That subject of inquiry was about to be illustrated that night in a remarkable manner. An idea existed in the public departments of the necessity of what was rather vulgarly called "doing the House of Commons." That process consisted in beginning large enterprises as if they were very small ones, in getting the House of Commons to commit itself to something from which it could not recede, on financial grounds or from a natural feeling of self-respect, and then year by year presenting to the House something more and something more again, until at last the House found itself involved in an undertaking of enormous magnitude, and attention was arrested and the matter became the subject of discussion or perhaps of division. Every effort of independent Members was frustrated by the stereotyped answer, "The work has been begun, and you must go on, or what has been already expended will be lost, and you will incur the censure of never knowing your own minds from Session to Session, and of having no consistent course of action." If the House of Commons wished to improve its position, and fully to undertake the responsibility now cast upon it of that expenditure of £9,800,000, it must examine the question—how was the House to have full satisfaction regarding the nature, extent, and ultimate result of any project when it was originated? The question was painfully pressed on their attention by the proceeding of the present Session. In no former Session bad works of such magnitude been presented; it was difficult to say how many millions they would cost before they were accomplished. He was within the mark when he said that the works proposed to be paid for out of the public resources would involve an expenditure exceeding £5,000,000. If hon. Members were to ask themselves what steps they had taken to satisfy their own minds of the nature and extent of that expenditure, they would be compelled to answer that they had taken no sufficient steps at all. They accepted the measures which were proposed, but they did not challenge any expenditure in the first instance. The third head of increase was from Bills passed in that House. By way of illustration, he might refer to the measure for the establishment of County Courts. It was begun in the other House of Parliament, not as a Bill of expenditure, but as one to improve the administration of justice. The House of Commons was asked to consider it carefully, with the view of securing that the income from those courts should not produce large profits to be devoted to the payment of enormous salaries. Those institutions were to he sources of profit rather than of expense to the country. However, after sixteen years of experience, during which there had been various changes, what had been the result in reference to the County Courts? Why, that this measure alone had added £260,000 a year to the civil charges of the country. That was the sum which they had to pay annually to make up for the deficit between the income of the County Courts and their expenditure. He believed it was quite possible to make any County Court pay its own expenses; but the County Courts were used as a collecting machinery, and, as a consequence of these operations, they had to support persons in gaol while their wives and children were maintained at the expense of the parish. Then there was the Bill to set up industrial schools or reformatories. That had been introduced as a benevolent measure, which was to create no charge; but, in consequence of changes made in the Act as originally passed, it had created heavy expenses which the people were obliged to pay; and if justices could be got to go the lengths to which benevolent persons would wish to see that measure earned out, £100,000 a year might easily be added to the public expenditure in giving further effect to its provisions. The House was drawn into those things because they had not before them a financial statement of the probable results—because they had not a Minister of the Crown who made himself responsible for the financial effects of the Bills which Parliament was asked to sanction. A plan for accomplishing some object was laid before the House, and they directed one thing or another to be done; but the Bill containing the plan also contained a clause providing that the charges should be borne out of any sums which Parliament might hereafter think fit to vote. There was at that moment on the table a Bill framed on that basis which he believed would involve an expenditure of £1,500,000. Under the reformed Parliament they had brought up to £9,800,000 charges which under the unrefonned had amounted to only £3,900,000annually. Formerly, when a Bill was sanctioned, the tax which it created was also sanctioned—the expenditure was estimated and provided for in the first instance; but, under an improved system of finance, they had separated the raising of money from its expenditure. It was not for him to say how the evil should be remedied, but he would suggest for the consideration of the House whether by shortening their proceedings on Bills they had not also limited their opportunities of examining into financial results. Formerly a Bill was read a second time in Committee; and he was not sure that second reading in Committee would not be a convenient stage for going into financial explanations. Another mode might be, that a Minister of the Crown should be charged with the duty of laying before the House an estimate of the expenditure to be incurred in reference to the measure brought forward. The question as to the best mode of altering the existing state of things was a complex one; and rather than make any proposition himself he preferred to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had paid so much attention to that and every cognate subject, whether he could suggest any means by which the House could discharge the duty of pronouncing a deliberate judgment on every act that tended to increase the public expenditure of the country.

said, he concurred very much in what had fallen from his hon. Friend, but he wished to say in reference to the Public Works Committee, of which he was a member, that evidence was given before that Committee of Works contemplated, and almost begun, by one Commissioner, and then that the whole arrangement had been reversed, on a change of Government taking place. The Committee were, consequently, of opinion that the Public Works should be placed under some responsible Commissioner, who should not necessarily go out of office on a change of Government. The Committee, also, thought that it would be well if the Commission had a political representative in the House; and the idea was that one of the Junior Lords of the Treasury, who had very little to do, might undertake that office. Another point which was raised was in reference to the audit of the accounts. The Committee thought that there should be a bonâ, fide audit, but that the audit conducted as at present was in reality no audit at all.

said, he did not wish to commit himself to the particular opinions of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, but at the same time he would confess that the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech showed that he was amply justified in calling attention to that important subject, and that Parliament would do well to consider whether some practical measures of improvement could not be adopted. The hon. and learned Gentleman had contrasted the period before the Reform Bill with the period since the Reform Bill, describing the former as a period of economy, and the latter as a period of activity and extravagance. [Mr. AYRTON: Not of extravagance.] At all events, of undue augmentation of the public expenditure. He did not think it liable to that charge, while he admitted that the Government and Parliament of the period just before the Reform Bill deserved great credit for the exertions they had made to obtain economy. But the thrift and good husbandry applied to the administrative system under the Duke of Wellington were, he thought, confirmed and extended by the Administrations which held power after the Reform Bill. New purposes of civil government had, however, come into view, which it was impossible to meet without increased expenditure, and thus the progress of economy had been arrested. If they took the period from the passing of the Reform Bill down to the Russian war, he did not believe there would be found in any portion of our history a more honest and judicious economy. During those twenty-three years the increase of civil charges was exceedingly small, although the wealth and population of the country had largely augmented, and although new views had been recognised in respect to education, civil establishments, prison discipline, and the amusement and comfort of the people, which had led to increased expense. He doubted, however, whether, since the period of the Russian war, there had been an equally good and judicious stewardship of the public revenue. The two principal modes in which public expenditure was introduced to the notice of the House were by Estimates and Bills. He was not sanguine in his belief that much remained to be done by any mere rules to be laid down relative to Estimates; and he demurred to the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition that the great and rapid increase in the Education Vote supplied a proof that the control exercised by Parliament over the Estimates was not effectual. That increase had taken place with the entire concurrence of Par- liament and in conformity with its views: and when, at the commencement of the present Session, the Vice President of the Committee of Council proposed certain changes, which in their basis and spirit were, he thought, beneficial, yet, inasmuch as they raised great doubt and scruple in the minds of persons in the country, no difficulty was found in insuring a full discussion of the subject in that House. If Parliament had been to blame, it was not for want of good rules. It was well understood that when any novel undertaking was submitted to Parliament, and when a Vote, however small, was taken, it was always accompanied by a full statement of the ultimate charge. There was not so much to be gained, therefore, by new rules as by a more vigilant spirit prevailing among private Members and the Government. The Estimates, however, were in some cases connected with Bills, because if Bills passed clandestinely through the House, it was absolutely necessary that the charges they imposed should appear on the Estimates. With respect to Bills, there were various modes in which they entailed charges on the public, by the appointment of public functionaries, with a train of clerks and subordinate officers. That was, however, one of the easiest branches of the question, because he could not see why some definite estimate of these charges should not be submitted, either when the Bills which imposed them were introduced, or upon the second reading. There were also other modes in which Bills affected the Estimates, as, for example, in the construction of public works and the adoption of various social and reformatory regulations, such as those affecting children of a certain class, &c. That description of expenditure was of a character that ought to be the subject of precise Estimates, and a careful consideration of what could be done for the improvement of the present practice was therefore desirable. The House had also to consider the modes in which legislative measures imposing new charges were brought before the House. Some of these Bills came down from the House of Lords, some were brought in by private Members, and the rest were introduced by the Government. Measures from the other House imposing new charges upon the public and those originated by private Members were under the especial guardianship of the Speaker. With the most important of the hon. Gentleman's proposals he entirely agreed. The practice which had grown up of introducing particular provisions by which Estimates were created and the faith of Parliament pledged to the payment of "monies to be provided by Parliament," amounted to an entire evasion and nullification of those excellent and honourable securities which the House had provided against itself. On the other hand, the mode of preventing the abuse, or of checking the danger, was a very serious matter. It was very difficult to do so, except by calling in the aid of the executive Government; and that certainly ought not to be done under pressure brought to bear by the Government itself, but ought to be the free and spontaneous offspring of the deliberate will and judgment of the House. Then, with respect to the charge imposed by Bills brought in by the Government, the hon. Gentleman said that a rule might be established to make some one Minister responsible. That sounded very well, and, as far as it went, it might be held in theory that at present the Finance Minister was responsible. But, after all, responsibility of that kind was very vague and indefinite, nor could it form a sufficient guarantee to the House, unless Parliament armed the department of the Finance Minister with powers which would enable it to make that responsibility efficient. He did not wish to press any opinion of his own upon the House, but his opinion, in general terms, was this—that the controlling functions of the Treasury were eminently useful, and that there was very little danger to be apprehended from any extension of those functions, but that as regarded the direct expenditure of public money by the Treasury, the Treasury had quite as much need to be controlled and watched as any other department of the Government. There was one important feature in the constitution of the executive Government of this country which was deserving of notice, and it was this—there was no department that was supreme over all the other departments. It was quite true the First Lord of the Treasury was the head of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet could give any order, which it would be the duty of the departments to obey; but it was not at all true that that order would become part of our executive or administrative system. On the contrary, it died with the Cabinet which gave it birth, and it would be for the Government which followed to revive it or not as they might think fit. There were two classes of charge with respect to which the Treasury stood in a very different kind of relation. It was in the power of the Board of Treasury to issue instructions to the Office of Works, for instance, or to the Post Office, and it was the duty of those departments to conform to the instructions. But most of the departments, and particularly those of the Secretaries of State, were not under any control of the Treasury whatever, excepting in regard to certain charges in their administrative capacity. In regard to the introduction of charges in Bills submitted to Parliament, there was nothing in our administrative system to prevent a Secretary of State from presenting any charge to the House without control on the part of the Treasury. And though the discretion of the Secretary of State might prevent the frequent recurrence of such a state of things, yet it had happened from time to time that charges of the kind he had referred to had been introduced in Bills, the department having particular objects in view, and the financial consideration being to them a secondary matter. Now, it was not in the power of Government to afford an effectual security against that practice. That security must be obtained by some rule to be laid down by the House itself, and that very point was the upshot of the speech of the hon. Gentleman. That was a matter which evidently required great consideration, and that consideration should be given by the House itself. An authority appointed by the House, assisted, of course, by the Government, ought to review the whole matter, and consider what recommendations should be given to Parliament. Her Majesty's Government, having had an opportunity of considering the subject, were of opinion that it would be very desirable—if it could be done at present, but, at all events, as soon as a sufficient number of the most experienced Members of the two Houses were free for the purpose—to go over the various points, and to take into view the various considerations which bore upon the matter. He had great hopes that the Report of such a Committee would be creditable to the House and conducive to the public advantage. It was therefore his intention, on the part of the Government, to propose to the House on a convenient opportunity that a Select Committee should be appointed for the purpose of investigating those matters to which the hon. and learned Member, with very great judgment and propriety, as well as with great ability, had directed the attention of the House.