said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Patriotic Fund, and the causes of the resignation of the majority of the members of the Ladies' Committee of the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum, appointed in January 1862; also to notice the admission of the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis, that a girl of sixteen years of age had been flogged in that establishment; and further, that the conduct of the officials who had committed this act was condoned by the Executive Committee; and to inquire what steps have been taken to prevent the recurrence of such practices. As he understood the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) wished to make some observations on this subject, which he could not do that night, according to the forms of the House, he (Mr. J. A. Smith) would repeat the Question on Monday, on going into Committee of Supply?

said, the statement of the hon. Member for Chichester, which, coming as it did ten days after notice, he had now heard with great surprise and regret, induced him (Sir J. Pakington) to ask the hon. Member a question. Having himself had the honour of being a Member of the Royal Commission on the Patriotic Fund, and also a Member of the Executive Committee, he that morning attended a meeting of the Committee. That Committee felt that the hon. Gentleman had so shaped his Question as to convey an insinuation against the Royal Commission and the Executive Committee. They therefore wished to meet those insinuated charges as soon as possible, and he (Sir John Pakington) asked the hon. Member whether he would bring forward his Question not later than Monday next, in order that explanations might be given on the subject.

said, he would put the Question as early as the forms of the House would permit.

Sir. I rise, according to notice, to call attention to the unusual form of the Report, founded on a Vote taken in Committee of Supply, which the Clerk has just read at the table. If you look at the Report, you will find that it is in an entirely unusal and novel form. The Votes in Committee of Supply are usually Votes giving a sum of money to the Crown for a certain specified purpose. On this occasion, to the usual form of Votes is appended an opinion with reference to a particular contract, declaring negatively that no portion of the money voted shall be applied to the purposes of that contract. In order to understand this subject thoroughly, the House must bear in mind the proper functions of a Committee of Supply, and the mode in which these functions are to be carried out for the public convenience—nay more, for the due preservation of the constitutional privileges of the two Houses of Parliament in their relations with each other, and with the Crown. The Committee of Supply is really the cardinal point upon which the whole working of our constitution depends, and the forms adopted with reference to Committee of Supply are the means by which the working of that constitution is kept in order. On the one hand, you do not allow the Government even to go into Committee of Supply until any Member of this House, who has a grievance or a matter of complaint to bring before the House, or a matter which ought to be brought under the consideration of Parliament, has had the opportunity of submitting it to your consideration. And when you go into Committee of Supply, after all these matters have been disposed of, and after Members have had the opportunity of interrogating the Ministers, as they have a right to do, you go into it for one purpose and for one purpose only—to decide on granting and to decide on the amount you will grant to the Crown for the service of the year with respect to any particular Vote. I assert boldly, and you, Sir, will correct me if I am wrong in my assertion, that during the last century there has been no form of proceeding similar to that adopted in the Committee of Supply before the recess. I believe that not a single instance can be brought forward of that form, or anything like, it having been adopted. Nay more, according to the best research I have been able to give the matter, and according to the best research which others more competent than myself have given to it, the form of Vote has always been strictly limited, as it ought to he, to the grant of a sum of money. If that be so, it becomes a serious question, what consequences will flow from an alteration in the form deliberately adopted and sanctioned by usage; and, being sanctioned by usage, more important than if contained in a written Resolution. I do not state that there is any written Resolution; but more than by written Resolution, it is established by the usage of Parliament, which gives vitality to all our proceedings, and which usage, if uninterrupted, is to my mind more important and more forcible than any written Resolution. There has been one alteration in recent years with reference to the form in which Votes in Committee of Supply are taken. Those Members of the House who were Members in 1857, will recollect that Sir Denham Norreys made a Motion to the House upon a discussion in Committee of Supply, as to the form in which the Votes were taken, and that matter was referred to a Select Committee of the House. Members of the House whose authority was the greatest upon the subject were Members of the Committee. No evidence was taken. Lord Russell was in the chair. The matter was discussed. Various Resolutions were proposed, and to some of those Resolutions I wish to call the attention of the House. Sir Denham Norreys, who moved the appointment of the Committee, proposed a series of Resolutions which would have entirely altered the form of proceedings in reference to Committees of Supply. Two of those Resolutions at the beginning of the series were in this form:—First, That a general discussion upon the principle or policy of a Vote may be raised on the Chairman announcing the purpose of the Vote and the amount required; second, that such general discussion may be raised by moving a question analagous to the Previous Question, or by a Resolution affecting the principle or expediency of the Vote. Those two Resolutions were proposed with others. I was a Member of the Committee; and although the two Resolutions were moved a first time for the purpose of being recorded upon the records of our proceedings, the Committee would not entertain them a second time. Other discussions were raised; but the importance of those two Resolutions is this—that it was distinctly raised for the first time whether it was expedient to alter Votes in Supply, with the view of taking the opinion of Committees of Supply upon the policy of the Vote, or the expediency of passing it. The Select Committee would not, and did not, entertain it. But what the Committee did for the convenience of the House was in strict conformity with the rule that proceedings in Committee of Supply should be limited to the amount of money to be granted to the Crown. You will find in the little book originated by the late Speaker four Orders in reference to Supply, and those Orders were embodied in Resolutions of the House on the 9th of February 1858, the year after the Committee sat. Those Resolutions were all drawn up according to recommendations made by the Select Committee, and the alteration which they made was simply this:—The House will remember that when you took a Vote in Supply you used to take a Vote upon the aggregate sum; it was thought inconvenient to take it in that form, because when a Member wished to object to an item, there was no indication to Ministers of the Crown what part of the Vote was objected to. The alteration was this—any Member might move, not merely the reduction of the aggregate amount, but that a particular item should not be included in the Vote. Accordingly, now in Supply you may take a division on any item or the quantum and amount of any item; and when you come to the end of the items, you can only take a decision on the Vote itself in the form of that Vote, or in the form of a reduction of the sum, without any Amendment. I beg to impress upon the House the position upon which I take my stand. I say that the only mode known to this House of taking a Vote in Committee of Supply is on the proposition made by the Ministers of the Crown as to the amount which this House is prepared to give, or by an Amendment to the Vote, limiting the amount which the Crown has asked for. The terms of my Motion are to the effect that the form of this Vote is an unusual one; and unless my assertions are contradicted, I think that part of it is established. I now proceed to what is of much more importance. I undertake to show that it is a most inconvenient one; and, with the utmost deference to the opinions of those around and before me, who are much better able to judge of this question than myself, I beg them to consider the consequences which will flow from taking Votes in this form. I think I can prove, that if adopted, it will, in the first place, alter the relations of this House to the Crown in matters of Supply; secondly, that it will be committing to a Committee of Supply matters which have never been committed to it before; and thirdly, that it will alter the relations of this House to the other House of Parliament in the most inconvenient manner. As long as you take Votes in Supply in the way you now take them, you have an opportunity of discussing every question of policy before you go into Supply. If you introduce into Supply questions of policy which ought to be decided in the House, and ought not to be referred to Committees of Supply, what will be the consequences? Take the Army Estimates—the first Votes taken in the Session. When the House went into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Mills) raised a very important question—whether your armies shall be employed in the colonies at your expense? If you adopt this form of proceeding, what is to prevent my right hon. Friend next year submitting, not to this House, but in Committee, a Resolution appended to the Vote, that the Committee will give the sum asked, provided not a shilling of it is expended in the maintaining troops in the Colonies. I suppose it will not be contended that the Government may propose a Vote in this form, but that a Member cannot amend a Vote in a similar form; otherwise it will be giving to Ministers a power beyond the power of Members, which at present they do not possess. Take the navy—the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) has raised a most important question, and has been in the habit of discussing it with great ability—whether our ships shall in future be constructed as wooden ships, as iron-clad ships, or as iron ships. We have had discussions on this question this very year; but if you adopt this new form of proceeding, in Committee on the Navy Estimates it will be competent to move, in the very words of this Vote, that such sum shall not be applied, and shall not be applicable, to the construction of any ships other than iron ships. The consequence is, that you take from the executive Government a power which ought to be vested in the executive Government alone. The argument constantly urged against the propositions of the hon. Member for Sunderland is, "Give us the money as an executive Government, or give it not. If you do not give it, you show a want of confidence in us, and we go. If you do give it, you must trust the Executive, whoever it is, as to the mode in which it is expended." Need I go through the other Votes? Our Education Estimates have not yet come on. A most interesting debate has been originated by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) whether the Code, as now settled, shall be the Code on which the money shall be granted. If you adopt this proceeding, there will be nothing to prevent the hon. Member for Berkshire moving that the Committee of Supply will give the whole sum, but that not a shilling is to be applied, or to be applicable, to the payment of pupil teachers or certificated schoolmasters. The same may be the case with regard to public buildings. You may append a condition to almost every Vote in Committee of Supply — that this or that architect shall superintend the building—that the building shall he in this or that style of architecture, or that this or that condition or qualification shall be imposed. And then I ask whether the functions of a Committee of Supply would not be wholly altered? The Ministers of the Crown ought to be the last to do this, or to do anything which may tend to fetter them in the application of the money when voted. They should say, "We ask for money for specified purposes; we ask you to judge of the amount and mode in which the money is to be granted; but we ought not to be interfered with in the manner in which it is to be expended." I think that my first proposition is made out, and that if you adopt this form of proceeding, you introduce a novelty pregnant with consequences which must disturbed the relations existing between this House and the Crown in matters of Supply, and that questions such as those to which I have adverted ought to be decided by this House alone, and not to be delegated to a Committee which has one special purpose to fulfil. Let nobody imagine that this is a mere matter of form. There are forms in which the substance is so wrasped up, that unless you observe them, you will be surrendering great constitutional principles. If you refer a Bill to a Committee upstairs, you fix the limit to which they may go in dealing with it; and if any Member of the Committee goes beyond that limit, he is taking a course which the House does not sanction. In Committees of the Whole House I agree yon may enter generally into questions bearing upon the state of the nation; but very often—indeed, generally—even there you go into Committee to consider Bills relating to trade, religion, and matters of that kind. But in Committees of Supply you have only one purpose, that is the granting of money to the Crown for the services of the year. You have no authority beyond that, and I contend that you had not the other evening, when in Committee of Supply you passed the Vote to which my Motion refers. The materials were not before you to form a judgment as to whether it should or should not be taken. Mr. Church ward's contract was not before you, nor was any other; and the proceeding is attended by so much inconvenience that it ought, I think, to be set right. I have shown you that by the way in which you acted you are altering the relations which have hitherto subsisted between this House and the Crown in regard to matters of Supply. I would now ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is sure you will not, by adopting the Vote, be altogether altering the relations between this House and the House of Lords? We had, three years ago, a very warm discussion, leading very nearly to important differences between the two Houses. It was then settled that you had complete authority over Bills of Supply, and that the other House could not amend them. By that decision I will always stand. There is, however, a correlative power given to the House of Lords; and that is, that since we possess that privilege of recommending what Supplies shall be given to the Crown without its being open to the House of Lords to amend the measure of Supply sent up to them, they on their part can insist on the observance of the condition that you do not annex to those measures any matter foreign to Supply. Supply is in your hands; and if the House of Lords does not pass a Supply Bill in the form in which you send it up, you refuse to entertain their Amendments; but they, on the other hand, as an independent branch of the Legislature, claim for themselves the right to which I have just referred. The object of that claim is that the House of Lords shall not be deprived of the power of judging as an independent branch of the Legislature of any matters that are foreign to Supply. Do not, therefore, endanger your own power by appending something to your measures of Supply which the House, of Lords might, and, in many cases, would feel it their duty to reject? When this subject was first brought before the House, I ventured to ask whether the Government proposed to insert the Vote in question in the Appropriation Bill. The Solicitor General answered, at least indirectly, in the affirmative, and his answer raises a most important question. He said in substance, "It will be introduced into the Appropriation Bill, for then we shall have the decision of Parliament negativing the application of the money to the purposes of Mr. Churchward's contract, and that will enable us to meet any legal claims made on us in a court of law in that respect." Now, I am glad to see the hon. and learned Gentleman in his place, and I would ask, what it is he seeks to put in the Appropriation Act? It is the expression of an opinion with regard to Mr. Churchward's contract. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL intimated dissent.] My hon. and learned Friend shakes his head, and that is a very ingenious way of getting out of the difficulty. But you invite us to vote a sum of money, which sum you say shall not be given to Mr. Churchward for any contract after the 20th of June 1863. Now, do you imagine that the House of Lords, when they receive a Bill couched in those terms, will not ask for some information as to the meaning of that long negative condition which you append to the Vote? If they ask for that information, do you not think they will find that a certain contract has been entered into by the House of Commons which you want impliedly and indirectly to set aside, and not directly, ns you ought to do; and will they not thus have something before them which s not Supply? The argument of the Solicitor General is that a legal claim under the contract can be sustained, unless the House refuses to provide the necessary money. If the House does not provide the money, my hon. and learned Friend will argue in a court of law that the condition of the contract has not therefore been fulfilled. Thus he will have his legal answer. But, from the course which has been taken, I draw, whether rightly or wrongly, this inference—I think it probable the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted on this point, and that having to consider in what mode a demand made by Mr. Churchward could be met in a court of law, very acutely and ably suggested this what I may term "special plea." If this special plea were incorporated in an Act of Parliament, they would then use the Act as an answer to Mr. Churchward's claim. Now, if I am right in this conjecture, I would say to the Government, "If you did not intend to recommend to the House to continue this contract, you ought to have taken the legitimate mode of deciding that question. You should not have sought to decide it in a mode which, although it may have the effect of exempting you from a legal difficulty, yet will have a very bad effect as regards the constitutional privileges of the House of Commons." But I may be asked what other course I could suggest under the circumstances? I would say to the Government, "You can effect your object in another way, and I tell you most distinctly you ought to adopt that and not your present course." Three years ago—in July I860—you passed a Resolution stating that effect should not be given to any contract until it had been laid on the table of the House for one month. Now you might, any time last year, have taken the opinion of the House on this contract, and you ought, in my humble judgment, to have done so. You would then have had a decision of the House as to whether it should or should not be continued. There would, however, have been great inconvenience in your doing that, though I do not wish to attribute any wrong motives to the Government in the matter; but I do not believe that the Government for saw the inconveniences that might possibly arise from the course they were taking. I would, at the same time, beg the House to bear in mind how the contract stands. This very night a Petition was presented on behalf of Mr. Churchward, praying that his case in respect of the Packet Contract may be submitted to legal or other inquiry, before any proceeding to prejudge the same be taken in the House; and I am informed, indeed, I may say I know—that it contains two allegations—one to the effect that when the contract was made (the present Government, and not the Government who originated the contract, being in office) Mr. Churchward having applied in refer- ence to the contract, was informed that he previous contract of 1855 was cancelled, and had no legal existence, and that all the payments he had received from time to time were payments made in regard to the terms of the contract in 1859. In the Petition it is moreover mentioned that by a former contract Mr. Churchward would be entitled to certain sums for certain special services; that he applied for these sums, and that the Government did not give them, because by sums of money which under the new contract he would be entitled to receive he would be paid for those special services. Mr. Churchward has received money, I will not say under the contract, but on the footing of the contract, down to this year. How is the Government—how is the House to act in this matter? I agree that it is of immense importance that contracts which extend beyond the year should not be taken as matters of course without the sanction of this House being given to them. No one would support the Government in that more strongly than I would; but I say that the opinion of the House ought to be taken before going into Committee of Supply, directly upon the question whether the contract is to be made or not, and not indirectly by a negative condition annexed to a Vote contrary to the constitutional forms of the House. I must remind the House of other grounds upon which this Vote has been irregular. It was stated by the Secretary of the Treasury, who spoke with perfect fairness and with great ability and clearness, that Government had made better contracts which they were going to substitute in lieu of this one. But upon that point the statement is ambiguous. The contract for the conveyance of mails from Dover to Ostend is not, it seems, to be given to one of our countrymen, but to the Belgian Government. The contract for the service between Dover and Calais, as far as I could follow the statement, is not a better one than that which we had with Mr. Churchward. But is it a contract at all? It was said that the offer was withdrawn, and that that withdrawal was also withdrawn. Let the House bear in mind what is the consequence as regards this House. You have passed a Resolution that no Vote should be taken upon these contracts until they have received the sanction of the House by lying for a month upon its table. Has this now contract been laid upon your table? It has not. I said at the outset that the House was not in a position to judge whether the Vote excluding Mr. Churchward ought to be agreed to or not. You cannot be in a position to decide that until the new contracts are before you. You are bound to ask for these contracts. If the Government say, "We are only taking a Vote on account," I reply, "You are taking a Vote on account of a contract other than that of Mr. Churchward, and you have no right to take that Vote until we have seen that contract." But they may say, "We want the money for the other contracts." I say, take the money for the other contracts, bring in a special Estimate for this service, let us see what you intend, let us have all the facts before us, and let not public faith be shaken, as it will be if one Government is to make a contract and another is to break it—not boldly, openly, and in the face of the House of Commons, but by a negative Vote taken in a Committee of Supply. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER indicated dissent.] I see that my right hon. Friend thinks that I have overstated this part of the case. If I have done so, I have not done so with the intention of casting upon the Government the imputation that they have taken this course advisedly and with their eyes open and clearly directed to the points which I have raised. I fully believe that they had not considered the consequences which I, after giving the best attention which I can to the subject, apprehend will flow from the adoption of this step. If I am right, the Government ought at once to withdraw this Vote, and thus avoid the establishment of a most dangerous and most inconvenient precedent. For these reasons I move the omission from this Vote of all the words after "March 1864," relating to Mr. Churchward's contract.

My right hon. Friend has, in his speech, raised a question which is of great importance as regards the forms of proceeding in this House: and he has likewise, I am bound to say, raised a question which is of still greater importance, with reference to the substantial powers of this House and its duty to superintend and purify the channels of the public expenditure. I think it is unfortunate that these two questions are, perhaps from the nature of the case, brought to an issue upon one and the same Vote, because the purpose of the Resolution which my right hon. Friend has proposed would be to leave the monies which have been voted in Committee of Supply applicable to the payment of the contract of Mr. Churchward, and consequently would cancel and annul all the prior proceedings of the House. However, I am quite ready to meet my right hon. Friend upon both and upon either of these questions, both upon the point of form and the point of substance; but I entreat those who have listened to my right hon. Friend upon the point of form not to forget that which was so forcibly explained by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General upon a former night with respect to the point of substance, to which I shall venture briefly to allude before I sit down. I come first to the point of form. My right hon. Friend stated that the Resolution which has been passed in Committee of Supply is altogether novel and unusual, and he enforced that proposition by various statements which appear to me to be laid down in a form by far too unqualified. My right hon. Friend spoke of the authority of usage as being higher than that of any written Resolution. The authority of usage may be very high or it may be very low. That depends in the main upon the importance of the principle involved in the usage. If a great principle is involved in the usage, I agree with my right hon. Friend; but if, on the contrary, principle is to be not compromised, but saved, by a departure from usage, then I say that to set up these high doctrines of the authority of usage is not political wisdom, but rather approaches—I do not apply it to my right hon. Friend — to political superstition. My right hon. Friend again laid down, in terms the breadth of which alarmed me, his doctrine that no matter of policy can be considered in Committee of Supply. I want to know from what storehouse of constitutional lore he has drawn the materials and the authority for that assertion. He says that nothing but a mere question of amount can be considered in Committee of Supply. In the first place, how can you possibly separate questions of amount from questions of policy? Suppose that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham wants to recommend in Committee of Supply the adoption of a peace policy, what need he do but propose to cut down by one-half the Votes for the Army and Navy? It is impossible to separate questions of amount from those of policy, and this doctrine of my right hon. Friend is full of exaggera- tion, which might, if accepted, land the House in the greatest difficulties. I demur altogether to accepting these abstract propositions which my right hon. Friend has laid down with respect to the powers of the Committee of Supply. What I apprehend to be the spirit of the institution of the Committee of Supply is this:—To leave the hands and the speech of the House of Commons as free as possible, to give it the widest possible scope, and to place no bar in the way of its exercising its power at the very first step when it is called upon to vote money. That I take to be the principle upon which the Committee of Supply is founded. That is the principle, as I understand its rules and usages; and if we have occasion, as I admit we have occasion, to adopt a mode of proceeding and a form of expression that is new, let our form of expression be tested by this—not whether it is new, but whether it is good—not whether it is agreeable to the form of proceeding upon every other occasion, but whether it is justified and required by-the circumstances out of which its adoption has arisen. My right hon. Friend says that not only is the Resolution novel and unusual, but that it is also most inconvenient. With respect to proof of its inconvenience, I must confess that I thought he marched with enormous strides from proposition to proposition; and that he extracted from the terms of this Resolution many things to which it does not apply. He said, "If you pass this Resolution,"—not "you may be raising questions of extensions which it may be argued are more or less analogous to this,"—my right hon. Friend was not contented with any such moderate and cautious statement; a moderate and cautious statement of that kind would not have been received with the warm cheering which followed upon the warm doctrines of my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend said, "If the House adopts this Resolution which is now in the hands of the Speaker, it will be in the power of the hon. Member for Taunton, in Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, to move that no part of the money voted shall be applicable to the service of the army in the Colonies." I do not pretend to say what are the powers of a Committee of Supply. I have heard of no authority, I know of no authority, living or written, which has laid down in a precise and intelligible manner what are the propositions with respect to the application of money which a Committee of Supply is precluded from entertaining; but this I know, that in Committee of Supply an appeal is made to the proper authority, and that the proper authority declared the proceeding to which my right hon. Friend excepts to be a regular proceeding—[Lord JOHN MANNEKS: No, no!]—a proceeding within the competency of those by whom it was conducted, and therefore a regular proceeding, and that decision has not been questioned in this House. ["No, no!"] Does the noble Lord intend to allege that the Vote passed in Committee of Supply was not within the powers of the Committee of Supply? [Lord JOHN MANNERS: I allege—] I do not ask the noble Lord to tell me what he alleges; that he may do in his speech. It was not I who made the appeal to the noble Lord; it was he who interposed the negative in the middle of my sentence. Well, without entering into any personal controversy, I assert that the Resolution has been declared within the powers of Committee of Supply by the decision of the proper authority, which decision has not been questioned by any appeal to the Chair. What further declarations and modes of limiting the Votes of Parliament are within the power of the Committee of Supply it is not for me to state; but the adoption of this Resolution does not justify in argument the assertion that therefore the Member for Taunton might specify, by an addition to a Vote of Supply, that no part of the money voted should be for the service of the army in the Colonies. It does not follow, that because a proposal of this kind may be made by the Crown, therefore a similar proposal may be made by an independent Member. That is a matter which has to be discussed. My right hon. Friend has entirely overlooked that distinction. But, in point of fact, the proposals are not similar; they are totally distinct. The proposal of the Crown refers to the exclusion of a particular individual from the performance of a stipulated service. It has no hearing on the service itself. It does not limit or alter the service; and consequently it is no precedent for any Vote which might limit or alter that service. I do not pretend to say whether the Committee of Supply could adopt the course suggested by my right hon. Friend. My impression is that such a proposal would be found out of the power of the Committee; but if it were found within their powers, then the question whether it was a proper course or not would be discussed, and decided upon the grounds of Parliamentary convenience, utility, and public expediency. That is the test to which I wish to bring the decision of the question raised by my right hon. Friend. I observe that my right hon. Friend has cautiously confined himself to the proceedings of the present century. I have admitted that the proposal made is not a usual or a common one. But is my right hon. Friend sure that he has not been entertaining the House with a doctrine which is opposed to the authority of Parliamentary precedent? Has my right hon. Friend referred to what took place in this House on the 27th of January 1767? I really did think that a regard for antiquity was among the pre-eminent claims of my right hon. Friend, and of those who sit around him; and I am much shocked to find that they cannot bear any reference to the wisdom of our ancestors in 1767. I had better read the passage in Hatsell at length—

"On the 27th of January 1767, on the Report of the Army Resolutions from the Committee of Supply, Mr. Grenville moved to amend the fourth Resolution, which was for paying the troops in America, by prefixing words to this effect:—'That such troops as shall be kept up in America shall be paid by America.' When this Amendment was proposed, the Speaker, Sir John Cust, said, ' He thought himself obliged, in point of duty, to acquaint the House that he had doubts whether this Amendment could be received, consistently with the rules and forms of the House; that by the Resolution of the 18th of February 1667 no Motion for an aid or tax is to be made but in a Committee of the Whole House; and that the uniform practice of the House had, upon this order, established the custom of laying no charge whatever in the Chair.' Mr. Grenville replied that this was an alleviation and not a tax; but that, even if it was to be considered as laying a charge, it was only following the precedent of the 10 Will. III., c. I., grounded upon the He-solution of this House of the 19th of December 1698, ' That such forces as shall be kept in Ireland shall be maintained by the kingdom of Ireland.' To this the Speaker answered that it was true it was an alleviation of the tax on Great Britain, but it was a charge on America; and, as to the precedent of Ireland, that appeared to him not as a Resolution of the House, charging upon Ireland the 12,000 men to be kept up there; but, considering the circumstances and history of that time, only as a declaration of the House of Commons—1, that the Crown should be restrained from keeping up more than 12,000 men in Ireland; and 2, that whatever number of men should be kept up, England would pay none of them. The House very generally, and I think with reason, adopted the Speaker's objection, in point of order."

Now, I am not going to make more of this precedent than it deserves, but I say that the force and bearing of it are to this effect—not that limitations of charge are beyond the power of the House of Commons —that was not the objection of the Speaker—but that these limitations of charge, involving as they may do the charge itself, ought not to be adopted in the House when the Speaker is in the chair, but when the Speaker is not in the chair—namely, in Committee of Supply. [" No, no!"] It is quite competent to those who take an opposite view from mine to express that view by-and-by; but I have given that which appears to me to be the bonâ fide intention of the passage I have quoted. My right hon. Friend will perceive that I object altogether to his references to the things which he says may be done if we adopt this Motion. I maintain, that if such things are done, they will not be done in consequence of this Motion, which is a precedent for nothing except what corresponds with it in principle and in substance. In its substance this is a proposal by the Crown to the House of Commons that a particular person, with reference to a particular contract, shall be excluded from the performance of a particular service. That is the substance of the proposal, and it is a precedent for nothing more. But the question is whether it is called for. My right hon. Friend has urged some objections, on which I think he can hardly be disposed himself very strongly to rely. How can we, he says, send up to the House of Lords a taxing Bill containing foreign matter? Now, is the opinion of the House of Commons that a certain contract for public money has been attempted to be made by a particular individual with the aid of corrupt inducements—is that opinion foreign to the business of Supply? I canuot believe that my right hon. Friend does not see that in a most perfect bona fides, and without any attempt at encroachment, such matter is strictly germane to the business of Supply, more especially if we show that there was no other proceeding which it was in the power of the Government to adopt. My right hon. Friend stated that he would undertake to show what course of proceeding we might adopt, but I am bound to say that though I entirely followed his objections, I am by no means certain that I comprehend what he proposed we should do, and what he said would be an unexceptionable proceeding as far as form is concerned.

Perhaps I may be allowed to state what I think should have been done. I would have submitted a distinct proposition to the House on the subject. I would have taken the opinion of the House upon the contract—whether it ought to be continued or not; and if the House should have decided against its continuance, I would then have had the other contract prepared which is intended to be substituted for it, and would have submitted that other contract in a special Estimate to the House.

My right hon. Friend says that in the first instance he would have submitted a proposal to the House -which would test the opinion of the House upon the contract of Mr. Churchward; and, supposing the opinion of the House had been that the contract should not be recognised, he would have brought in a distinct proposition, affirming; the payment of the money for the service to some other party. According to that, the difference between us is that he would have inserted the name of some party in the Estimate, instead of excluding the name. I want to know would not that have been just as great an innovation on the proceedings of Committees of Supply as that which has been proposed by the Government. Where is the case in which Committees of Supply have specified who is to perform a service? The plan is infinitely worse than the one we adopted. It would throw into the hands of the Committee of Supply the duty of the executive Government, of pointing out by whom public services are to be performed. What the Government have proposed is very different. We have proposed that the Committee of Supply shall join us in pointing out the person by whom a contract shall not be performed, because of corrupt conduct on his part, which renders him unworthy of holding such a contract. My right hon. Friend was mild in his language, but he followed others who have not been so mild and reserved with regard to the conduct of the Government. He says our course has been indirect; that we are attacking Mr. Churchward through the medium of a negative Vote; that we ought to have taken the opinion of the House of Commons upon the principle. Why, Sir, we did so. What my right hon. Friend says we ought to have done we have done. We have obtained the opinion of the House of Commons upon the principle of Mr. Churchward's contract. ["No!"] I never recol- lect any instance in which, it being the duty of the Government to leave the conduct of a question to this House, the Government itself was so little concerned. When we came into office, we found the whole subject of contracts in a state, as we conceived, most dangerous to the purity of Parliamentary Government. We proposed to the House of Commons that a Committee should be appointed to investigate the subject. This Committee addressed itself to the investigation of Mr. Churchward's contract, and being composed—impartially as I think—of many Members of great weight, ability, and experience, it decided, not as was said lately in this House, by a majority of two, but by a majority of eleven to four, that a Resolution should be adopted which declared Mr. Churchward's contract to be upon his part corruptly obtained. The arriving at such a decision, by such a Committee, placed the Government in a position of some difficulty; because it is for the House and not for the Government to judge of the weight which ought to be attached to the Report of its Committees, and it would have been invidious for the Government to take the first step in a matter promoted by their political opponents. The Government were rescued from the difficulty by an independent Member sitting on the other side of the House, who deliberately, and in terms as clear as the wit of man could devise, challenged the judgment of the Committee, and called on the House to reverse and reject the Report of the Committee. We did not say that the Report of the Committee bound the House to a particular opinion, but we formed the opinion that the judgment of the Committee was right, and that it ought to be supported by the House. I am sorry to quote myself on the subject, but after what has been said by my right hon. Friend, I wish to show that we have sought the opinion of the House on this subject. It is questioned that Captain Leicester Vernon also sought the opinion of the House? There can be no doubt he sought that we should repudiate and reject the judgment of the Committee, and that he called on the House to say that the decision of the Committee should be treated as so much waste paper. Well, so far from leaving the House in any doubt, I spoke as follows:—

"When the contract was made, Mr. Church-ward's attention was pointed to the fact that the monies for satisfying it were not at the command of the executive Government, but were to be voted by the House of Commons. Does not every man, woman, and child know that the monies so voted by Parliament are freely voted; and can it be supposed that Mr. Churchward, in accepting that contract, was not aware that it was subject to the free exercise of the discretion of Parliament. We are now arrived at the time when it is necessary to exercise that discretion, and I will grant that we are bound to exercise a just, wise, and liberal discretion. But does wisdom, justice, or liberality bind us to support a contract of this nature by our own free, voluntary vote, when an impartially-selected Committee of this House has reported that the party, in order to obtain that contract, has resorted to corrupt and degrading considerations? That is, in point of fact, the whole question; and on that question the House will vote. The Government do not wish to influence the vote of the House; they look rather for an indication of its will, and by that indication their future course will be directed." [3 Hansard, clvii. 1412.]

Was it possible for the Government to do more? My right hon. Friend says we ought to have initiated a proposal that Mr. Churchward's contract should be repudiated. But that would have been a most offensive and odious course to pursue towards those who preceded us in office. We were saved from that necessity by the Motion of Captain Leicester Vernon, and we made known to the House that we regarded that vote as a clear, definitive, and decisive judgment by the House on the contract of Mr. Churchward. It thereupon pleased the House of Commons, in March 1860, to vote by a majority of 162 to 117 against the Motion of the hon. Member, and thus to give the very indication of the opinion and wish of the House that we asked for, and to leave us the obligation of doing that which we are now doing. We have therefore acted in terms of precise conformity with the course which we then announced to the House. My right hon. Friend says we ought not to have come to that Vote in Committee of Supply the other night, when the contract was not before us. Why, this was not a matter which came before us for the first time; it was a matter which we had before us four years ago in the Report of the Committee; it was a contract which had been submitted to this House, and upon which it voted three years ago. It was, moreover, a contract on which we obtained that very judgment of the House which my right hon. Friend says we ought to have had. Then my right hon. Friend says that we ought to have adopted an affirmative and not a negative Vote, and that the House ought to have had the other contract before it. But in what position should we have placed the House if we had put before it two contracts with different parties? If we had carried an affirmative vote for a new contract, we should have fastened down the House to the execution of that contract. But some hon. Member might then have made a Motion on the part of Mr. Churchward, and in favour of his contract. What would have been our position if that Motion had been carried? It was impossible to obtain a definitive decision except by the course that we have adopted. A vote of the House on Mr. Churehward's contract would not have decided the question, because we have got that. There was no course open to us by which we could have avoided the ridiculous yet possible consummation of leading the House into the adoption of two contracts, except the plan which we have adopted of bringing the case of Mr. Churchward before the House. This is, in fact, a matter in which the Government have made themselves the faithful and humble guardians and exponents of the declared sense, first of the Committee, and then of the House itself, in March 1860. And what is now proposed by my right hon. Friend is that we should repudiate the Report of the Committee impartially constituted, which sat four years ago, and which was arrived at by a majority of eleven to four; that we should repudiate the vote of the House of March 1860, which was carried by a considerable majority, and which was understood by every one to be a vote decisive of the question; and that we should now repudiate the decision of the Committee of Supply a few nights ago. Two decisions of the House, and one decision of a Select Committee, are to be overturned; and for what purpose? What is the meaning of the words in Mr. Church ward's contract, "to be paid out of monies to be voted by Parliament"? Is is doubted that the House of Commons, if it is convinced of corrupt motives and conduct on the part of a person seeking a contract, has not the power to decline to give effect to that contract. That is a most important question. A Petition has been presented to the House of Commons by Mr. Churchward, in which it is stated that he is threatened, by a recent vote of this House, with the loss of his contract. A "recent vote," forsooth! He knows nothing of the Report of the Committee, and of the decision of the House in 1860. Those are facts, as it would seem, wholly immaterial. It is also immaterial that since 1860 the Government have declined to recognise his contract, and have proceeded on an interim arrangement. Mr. Churchward says he is threatened with the deprivation of his rights, and this upon allegations that are not true, and which are moreover utterly beside the question of his rights and claims against the Government. [Lord JOHN MANNERS: Hear, hear!] I hear the cheer of the noble Lord, and that is the doctrine I am combating. That doctrine is that corrupt measures having been taken by a party in order to obtain a contract from the Government, and those corrupt measures being discovered by this House, yet that the House is not justified in withholding the funds on the concession of which the completion of the contract was conditional, but is bound to go forward and vote the money necessary for the purpose. [Lord JOHN MANNERS intimated dissent.] The noble Lord says "No;" and I am glad of it. But that is the doctrine of Mr. Churchward. But is not the House to retain a power over these contracts, and to set its face against impure and corrupt proceedings? All contracts entered into by the Government are full of danger, and I know no other power exercised by the Government that this House ought to watch more carefully or to keep within narrower limits. My right hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in supposing that the new contract ought to be laid before the House. The Vote is for the service independent of the contract, and does not bind the House to the contract. The question is, whether the corrupt conduct of the parties to a contract justifies the House in withholding the money necessary for carrying out that contract. I must say that my right hon. Friend has failed to show, not only that the course taken by the Government is arbitrary and unwarranted, but that there was any other course which would have been possible for them to adopt, if it was their object—as it certainly was their object—to maintain intact the rights and powers of the House of Commons.

said, that he would reply in one word to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman why this Amendment was brought forward. It was that justice might be done. The right hon. Gentleman had divided his speech into two branches—the first intended as a refutation of the historical argument of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole), and the second a declaration upon the substance of the matter at issue. His right hon. Friend had challenged the Government to bring forward any precedent to justify what, he contended, was a most unprecedented course for the Government to take; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, brought forward a volume of the recorded Proceedings of the House, and proceeded to read an account of something that had taken place in 1767. But when the right hon. Gentleman had quoted his precedent, the House was quite surprised to find that the decision given by the Speaker of that day was totally opposed to the conclusion which the right hon. Gentleman would have established; and that if that precedent were to be relied upon, the argument of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) was intact and unanswerable. And then the right hon. Gentleman, to use his own words, "waxing warm" in his argument, stated, to the astonishment of the House, that in Committee of Supply the other night the Chairman, in answer to a question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, had distinctly ruled that the course proposed by Her Majesty's Government was in accordance with the forms and spirit of the House; and he (Lord John Manners) then took the liberty of contradicting the right hon. Gentleman. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No, no!] The right hon. Gentleman seemed to say that was not his statement. But certainly he understood the deliberate statement of the right hon. Gentleman to be, that the Chairman had ruled that the Government were entitled to take the course which they had taken with respect to the Vote in Supply. He (Lord John Manners) dissented from him at the time, and would now give the most emphatic contradiction to that statement of the right hon. Gentleman; and he was in the recollection of the House when he said that the decision given by the Chairman of Committees was not upon the form of the Resolution submitted by the Government, but upon the Amendment suggested on that (the Opposition) side of the House, which he ruled to be in order. It must be in the recollection of many hon. Gentlemen that the Chairman of Committees distinctly stated that he would give no opinion upon the Main Question; that it was not his province, and he declined positively to do so. It was on that ground that he (Lord John Manners) took the liberty of saying "No!" to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he now repeated that the right hon. Gentleman had no ground for his assertion. Well then, if that Resolution was wholly unprecedented and unsupported by authority, was the case which the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to make out upon what he called the substance of the matter one whit better than that which he had tried to substantiate upon the forms of the House? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the contract having been entered into, on Mr. Churchward's part, from corrupt and degrading motives. He (Lord John Manners), having sat upon the Committee which investigated the matter, ventured to say that no evidence had been submitted which would justify such a charge; and he would say more—if any hon. Gentleman would read the proceedings of the Committee, he would find, that differing as the majority did from the minority as to the Resolution to be adopted, they never went the length which the right hon. Gentleman had stated, Now, he would ask how and when this famous Committee was appointed. The House would remember the peculiar circumstances under which it sprang into existence. A general election had just taken place. Certain seats—but not so many as they on that (the Opposition) side of the House could have wished—had been wrested from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. No imputation, no charge was thought too vile in that House to account for so extraordinary a change in popular opinion. Those charges and those imputations were made, not, he regretted to say, by men of little weight or mark, but by Gentlemen of the highest character and standing in the House of Commons. Lord Derby was accused of having purchased the support of the whole of Ireland by the Gal-way Contract. Well, on the subject of that very contract they (the Opposition) had the satisfaction, the other night, of coming to the rescue of Her Majesty's Government from the rabid hostility of certain Scotch Members. His right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) was accused of having purchased all the publicans in the country, and the borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed in particular. They remembered with what solemnity these charges were made, and they remembered also in what miserable confusion those who made them were obliged to retract them. Well, it was under all that excitement that the Committee on the Dover Contract was appointed; and much was said of the malpractices between the Treasury and the Admiralty, from which this Contract resulted. The Committee met, and proceeded to investigate the matter. On the third day Mr. Churchward was called, and was questioned and cross-questioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring). Mr. Churchward stated that he had tendered his support to Captain Carnegie in a room at the Admiralty, and gave him certain advice as to how he should fight out his battle at Dover. On the next day Captain Carnegie gave his account, and it was to the effect that Mr. Churchward, having promised him his support, proceeded to say that he was anxious on the subject of his contract. [Ironical cheers and laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed, but they had not read the evidence. In answer to Question 966, "How came you and Mr. Murray and Captain Carnegie together?" Mr. Churchward said—

"I had heard that a deputation had been sent from Dover to Captain Carnegie to stand for Dover. I was at the Admiralty, and I saw Captain Carnegie go into Mr. Murray's room. I had not been introduced to Captain Carnegie before, but on that occasion Mr. Murray introduced me to him; and I said to Captain Carnegie, 'I understand that there is a memorial or a requisition for you to stand for Dover; if you go down to Dover, I think that you will have every chance of success, and it will cost you very little; at any rate, I shall be very glad to give you any interest that I can use for Dover."

[Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.] He was only putting in the fewest words the acknowledged fact that Mr. Churchward tendered his support to Captain Carnegie. That then was Mr. Churchward's version. Captain Carnegie's statement was as follows:—

"Mr. Churchward spoke to me on the subject of the pending election for Dover; and having volunteered his support, and promised me his assistance in general terms, he made an allusion to his anxiety to obtain the renewal of his contract; and he said, that they were anxious to defer signing the renewal of his contract until after the election was over; but he felt that that would be too hard on him, and that he would rather prefer voting for Mr. Bernal Osborne and for myself, inasmuch as he would have a friend in power whoever was in office. He also added, that he thought they wanted him to return two Government Members for Dover; and if they did so, he should be obliged to comply with it."

Next day, Mr. Murray, who was the only witness of the alleged conversation, made his statement. In answer to Question 1,521, "Have you a distinct recollection of what passed on that occasion?" Mr. Murray replied—

"My recollection agrees with the statement which Mr. Churchward has made, and, to the best of my recollection, nothing was said about the contract on that occasion."

Again, the following Question, 1,535, was put to him:—

"Are you prepared to affirm positively that during the five minutes that he and Captain Carnegie were together nothing of the purport stated by Captain Carnegie with regard to the contract passed?"

And to that Mr. Murray replied—

"I have a very distinct recollection of what did pass, and I do not think that the contract was ever mentioned."

And, in answer to Question 1,538, Mr. Murray stated—

"I think that I did make remarks of the nature which Captain Carnegie has described in conversation with him; but I am quite sure that Mr. Churchward never said those words to Captain Carnegie in my presence."

These were the three statements which were before the Committee. Something was said the other night by the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Cobden) about the unanimity with which the Committee received the statements of Captain Carnegie and discredited those of the other two witnesses, and he (Lord John Manners) on that occasion gave as distinct a "No!" as he could to that assertion. The fact was, that not only was the Committee not unanimous in accepting the statements of Captain Carnegie and in discrediting those of the two other gentlemen, but several divisions were taken on the subject, and there were repeated attempts, and he himself made one, though he failed, to get into the Report a statement, showing that Captain Carnegie's version had been contradicted by the other two gentlemen. The Chairman of the Select Committee, who spoke so positively the other night, must allow him to explain how it was, that when Captain Carnegie had made the statement which was the only ground for the monstrous charge against Mr. Churchward, the Chairman himself felt that Captain Carnegie's statement was so weak and so impotent to carry with it the conclusion at which he wished to arrive, that he asked Captain Carnegie the Question 1,393, to which he now begged to call attention. The Chairman asked—

"Will you be good enough to explain to the Committee what the means were to which you felt a repugnance, so far always as they had reference to the contract with Mr. Churchward for the Dover packet service?"

And then Captain Carnegie proceeded, for the first time, to tell the Committee what was the gloss, and he (Lord John Manners) would show the ignorant gloss, put upon the alleged words of Mr. Churchward by Captain Carnegie, Captain Carnegie said—

"I felt this repugnance, that as a Lord of the Admiralty I must be a party in some sense or other to the renewal of a contract, or the granting of a contract, which passed through the Board of which I was a member; and therefore I thought, that if the support of Mr. Churchward was to be given to me at Dover upon any consideration of that sort, I was a most improper person to stand for Dover, inasmuch as I must be, or be supposed to be, at all events cognizant of a transaction which I did not think a proper one."

After that, the Chairman said to Captain Carnegie—

"I take it that your letter must have reference to more specific communications with regard to Mr. Churchward's promised support than you have yet given the Committee. Would you tax your memory, and relate any communication that passed between you and Mr. Murray, or anything else with regard to the part which Mr. Churchward was to take in your election for Dover?"

Captain Carnegie's answer was —

"From Mr. Churchward I heard nothing more than what I have already stated to the Committee."

That statement being that Mr. Churchward, having promised his support to Captain Carnegie, made an allusion to his anxiety about the contract. Well, then, was it come to this, that future Election Committees would have to inquire into the mental condition of those whom the Report of the Select Committee called "influential electors,"—into their hopes, apprehensions, and expectations? Let the House bear in mind, too, that these expectations were not held out on the part of the candidate, but were said to be entertained by the voter. If it was to be the rule that Election Committees should make such inquiries, there would indeed be plenty of work chalked out for them. The House would do well to observe the extraordinary want of connection between the premiss laid down in the Report of the Committee, and the conclusion drawn from it by the majority of the Committee. The word "expectation" appeared in the Report not from heedlessness or want of consideration, for the paragraph, as prepared in the Chairman's draught, contained the word "understanding," and on the Motion of an hon. Gentleman, who could not be accused of any unfair partiality towards Mr. Churchward, the word "understanding" was struck out and "expectation" substituted. But he wished the House to remark the want of connection between the premiss and the conclusion attempted to be drawn in the Report. The premise was as followed:—

"It appeared in evidence before your Committee, that Mr. Churchward, one of the contractors, on the eve of the last general election, at the time when the extension of his contract was under consideration at the Treasury, volunteered his support, as an influential elector for Dover, to the Hon. Captain Carnegie, one of the Lords of the Admiralty, if he should become a candidate for that borough, on the expectation that his contract was to be extended, and expressed his intention, if required, to vote for two Government candidates for Dover."

That was the only charge made by the Committee against Mr. Churchward, even on the supposition that Captain Carnegie's memory was infallible; but how was it morally possible for Mr. Churchward to avoid entertaining that most reasonable and sensible expectation? He knew—no man better—what the form of conducting a contract was, and he knew that the renewal of the contract had been recommended by the Admiralty to the Treasury at least six weeks before the date of the conversation alluded to. Was this, then, a matter deserving to be branded by the indignant eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman, who used the word "degrading," though it was not to be found in the Report of the Committee, nor in the Evidence? Well, such was the premiss, and what was the conclusion? It was in these terms—

"While most anxious for the fulfilment of all engagements entered into in good faith between the Government and individuals, the Committee submit for the consideration of the House whether Mr. Churchward, in having resorted to corrupt expedients, affecting injuriously the character of the representation of the people in Parliament, has not rendered it impossible for the House of Commons, with duo regard to its honour and dignity, to vote the sums of money necessary to fulfil the agreement to extend his contract from the 20th of June 1863 to the 26th of April 1870."

Was there ever so flimsy, airy, and unsubstantial a foundation for so serious and monstrous a conclusion, that Mr. Churchward was guilty of corrupt practices? The logical conclusion was, not that the contract should be broken, but that it should hereafter be penal for any voter to entertain any expectations before giving his vote. It was always painful to enter into discussion as the credibility of witnesses giving different versions of the same transaction; but it was necessary on this occasion, on account of the Chairman of the Committee erroneously stating that the Committee were unanimous in favour of Captain Carnegie's version. Upon that occasion the Chairman asked, what motive had Captain Carnegie? He (Lord J. Manners) declined to impute any motive for the failure of memory exhibited by Captain Carnegie; but he would ask, in return, what motive had Mr. Churchward, six weeks after the extension of the contract had been recommended by the Admiralty, to make such a statement as that imputed to him? Who and what was Mr. Churchward? Why, he was admitted to know all the details of the Admiralty; he was perfectly cognizant of its mode of transacting business; he had obtained by open competition the Dover contract in 1854:; and he must have been aware, if the Admiralty had anything to do with the renewal of the contract, that it was not to a naval Lord, like Captain Carnegie, but to the civil Lord, to whom he should make application. In addition to this, when there existed a direct contradiction, on the part of Mr. Churchward and Mr. Murray, the reasons advanced for the repudiation of this solemn contract appeared the flimsiest which had ever been proposed for the sanction of Parliament. The whole case then may be summed up thus:—Either Captain Carnegie's version was correct or incorrect. If correct, it amounted to no more than this—that ignorant of the real facts of the case, he was under a misapprehension as to the effect of what he thought Mr. Churchward said; but subsequently admitted that he was wrong in his impression. This appeared, from the following extract from the evidence, given before the Committee: —

"At the time this conversation took place were you under the impression that the renewal of this Dover contract was still pending in the Admiralty? —It was pending somewhere; I do not know that it was pending in the Admiralty. Did you know whether the opinion of the Admiralty upon the renewal of the Dover contract had been already finally expressed some six weeks?—I did not. If you had been aware of that fact, would your feeling of repugnance to become a candidate far Dover have been so great as you have just told the Committee it was under the circumstances?— No, certainly not."

Consequently, the House was now called on to punish Mr. Churchward, on account of an erroneous impression, arising from ignorance in Captain Carnegie's mind. After a lapse of three years, not even political vengeance would be justified in adopting so unprecedented and enormous an act of injustice. But, on the other hand, if it were only admitted that Captain Carnegie's memory had in this instance failed, the whole case fell to the ground. Now, one word as to the form in which the Report of the majority of the Committee invites the decision of the House. He had shown how completely the conclusion, such as it was, went beyond the evidence, and transcended the grounds laid down for it in the Report. But in form it submitted the question whether the House could, with due regard to its honour and dignity, vote the money necessary for the contract. Well, in private life, it was well known, if a, man were to plead "honour and dignity" in bar of his pecuniary obligations, what a court of law and what his neighbours would think of such a plea. The course proposed, then, by the Government, did not consult the "honour and dignity" of the House; but was moreover in the teeth of their own solemn declaration in 1860. The right hon. Gentleman had said, in the conclusion of his speech, that he wished the House to give a final decision, which should have the effect of barring Mr. Churchward's remedy in a court of law. The Solicitor General had admitted that the effect of the Resolution would be to debar Mr. Churchward from successfully vindicating his claim in a court of law, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to-night asserted that the course the Government were now taking was identical with that which they took three years ago. The speakers on behalf of the Government seemed to say that Mr. Churchward had no right to complain. On the former occasion, however, the then Solicitor General declared that—

"If Mr. Churchward had suffered a wrong in a matter of contract with the Crown and its officers, he denied that he was without a remedy in a court of law. He could not bring the same kind of action as if a private individual were concerned, and he might have to submit to a somewhat cumbrous and dilatory mode of proceeding; but when a payment became due, he might proceed by a petition of right for its recovery, and every facility would be given him by the Law Officers of the Crown to bring the matter before any one of the courts of law."—[3 Hansard, clvii. 1382.]

Could Mr. Churchward have conceived in 1860 that this precious Resolution was to be the only facility afforded to him for obtain- ing a judicial settlement of his case? This was a case in which, indeed, the "honour and dignity" of the House were at stake; but there was another and an equally great quality at stake—and that was their independence. This Session had witnessed many singular proceedings. They had seen the Cabinet in a state of disunion on great questions affecting the ancient constitution of this realm; but here, for the first time this Session, they witnessed the gratifying spectacle of an harmonious Cabinet and a unanimous following engaged—in doing what?—in an attempt to deprive an individual of his claims against Her Majesty's Government. He entreated the House, as it valued its honour, as it valued its dignity, and as it valued its independence, not to become an accomplice in one of the most pitiful acts of political revenge ever conceived by malignant ingenuity, and directed to the consummation of the grossest injustice.

said, he had taken no part in these discussions hitherto, having great doubts as to the course which, as an independent Member, it was his duty to pursue, but he had recently read all the debates on the subject, and would state the conclusions to which he had been led. It appeared to him, that if they charged Mr. Churchward with corruption, they could not exonerate the other parties to the agreement. The Committee were possibly right in exculpating the Members of Lord Derby's Government from any taint of corruption, but it was clearly inconsistent to acquit them and, at the same time, to inculpate Mr. Churchward. The Committee themselves, it appeared, must have been in doubt as to the corrupt motives of Mr. Churchward, because it was stated in their Report that he gave his support to Captain Carnegie in expectation only of getting a renewal of the contract. But six weeks before that time Captain Carnegie and his colleagues had done all they could to procure that result. Long before there was any thought of a dissolution the Admiralty recommended the Treasury, on public grounds—not out of any favour to Mr. Churchward—to continue the contract. He could well understand that recommendation on the part of the Admiralty, because in a service of that nature a contractor must be engaged for some time before he brought his plant and staff into perfect operation, and in developing the different branches of trade. On the other hand, he could also understand the Treasury, when it was referred to them, hesitating to decide on the contract, not on account of any conduct of Mr. Churchward, but on the grounds of the policy of granting any subsidy at all for such a service. But let the House consider how Mr. Churchward, as an elector of Dover, would have voted, and how his influence would have gone, provided there hail been no question with respect to the contract. He had known Mr. Churchward for ten or twelve years to have been a very strong Tory—he had been editor of The Morning Herald—and it was very natural that he should have given his support to the Conservatives on that occasion. Taking all these things into account, he had no longer any hesitation as to how he ought to vote. If any Members, however, were in doubt, they ought to act generously, and give their vote in favour of the weaker party.

said, they had witnessed that night the somewhat strange spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer defending his own Resolution in a very eloquent speech, without being supported by anybody on his own side of the House. He supposed that hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that this was a sort of business which should be done in silence; and that the less they said about this attempt to crush an innocent man, in order to gratify political passions—the less they talked while doing the dirty work—the letter. He could not consent to that arrangement. It might be in the power of a majority of the House to perform this act of political revenge; but it was not in their power to impose a seal on the mouths of the minority who opposed it. Therefore, in spite of the palpable impatience of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he must make a few remarks, without trenching on that sacred hour which they foresaw approaching. He was not going into the blue-book—he was not going into the proceedings of the Committee—he could not, however, allow the observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Committee was impartially constituted, to pass without a word. The words "resorted to corrupt expedients" were inserted in the Report of a Committee of fourteen Members. Eight were Liberals and six Conservatives, and the eight voted on one side and the six on the other. That was what was called, in the decorous language of the House, an impartially-constituted Committee; and he gave the right hon. Gentleman all the credit he could derive from the verdict of such a jury. For the sake of argument, he would concede everything connected with Mr. Churchward's "corrupt expedients." He would allow that Mr. Murray and Mr. Churchward were either inconceivably neglectful or wilfully mendacious and that Captain Carnegie's motives were as pure as driven snow. He would rest the case upon the pledge given by the Government to Mr. Churchward, and on the morality of their present proceedings. He asked the House to consider the question merely as one of contract. The case stood thus:— In 1859 the advisers of the Crown made an agreement with Mr. Churchward that he should have certain services to perform until 1870. On the faith of that bargain, Mr. Churchward invested a large sum of money—as much as £18,000 according to the blue-book. Now, he presumed that the present Government did not hold themselves to be, for purposes of contract, in a different position from their predecessors. What the one set of Ministers pledged themselves to do the next set of Ministers were bound to perform. If any other sort of morality were to be applied to public contracts, public integrity would become a sham. Words were introduced into the contract in question to the effect that the services rendered were to be paid "out of such monies as Parliament should provide." He did not in the least dispute the right of Parliament to refuse to provide the money, although he might be of opinion that it was one of those rights which ought only to be exercised in the most extreme cases. But what was the duty of the Government? They undertook to pay Mr. Churchward out of monies to be provided by Parliament. Would not any honourable person, any man of business, understand that to be an implied contract that they would ask Parliament for the money? Would it not be so understood by any honourable business-like man? He could not conceive that in private life a different interpretation could by any possibility be placed on those words. It would be a mere fraud, a swindle, if one man told another he would pay him out of funds to be provided by a third, and then went and on his knees entreated that third person not to furnish the money. In private life if a man did such a thing, no respectable people would speak to him. There was a recent case, of a very analogous character, which enabled them to test this matter. The Queen's Government had promised the Greek nation to cede to them the Ionian Islands on the condition, among others, that the cession should be consented to by the parties to the Treaty of Vienna. Supposing a change of Government should take place, and supposing the new Ministry should allege that some Greek had gone to a Junior Lord of the Admiralty, and made a corrupt proposal, and, acting upon that allegation, should entreat the parties to the Treaty of Vienna to refuse their assent to the cession, what would the House think of the morality of such a proceeding? Would not the Government that so evaded its own solemn obligations he branded as the most dishonest which ever ruled in England? Yet this was precisely what they were now about to Jo for the purpose of taking his money from an insignificant individual because he had happened to offend a Minister who could manage to keep his rancour fresh for five years. If Mr. Churchward had offended against the law, let him be indicted; or if he had committed a breach of the privileges of that House, let him be brought to the bar and sentenced to whatever punishment they pleased. Let him and his accomplices be punished to the utmost extent of their deserts; but let them not, for the sake of punishing him, cast a slur upon the hitherto unstained financial honour of England. Nothing could be more ridiculous and petty than to take such intense precautions about their own political virtue. One would think that a Junior Lord of the Admiralty was a delicate female whose virtue must be protected in every possible way; and one almost expected to hear all the commonplaces on the subject—that the seducer was worse than the seduced—that the Junior Lord of the Admiralty was more sinned against than sinning, that he was an unfortunate male, and so forth. Surely they should be able to take care of their political virtue themselves? They did not want to encourage a Ministry to break its own public faith in order to Bare themselves from a solicitation which they were confessing by this very act they were too weak to resist. Suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer's butler were to give an order for wine, and suppose the tradesman to whom the order had been given should, six weeks after, resort to a corrupt expedient for getting the right hon. Gentleman's further orders, it would be quite right for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he would never employ that tradesman again; but would he be justified in refusing to fulfil the contract into which he had already entered? It seemed to him (Lord Robert Cecil) that they were dealing with something much more important than a party difference, and much more important than Mr. Churchward and his contract—they were dealing with the faith which England had never once broken, whether with native or foreigner. From this time forward there would never be any certainty that any contract into which any Government might enter might not be quashed, because some political partisan might afterwards discover that the contractor had been guilty of resorting to corrupt expedients. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer applied for a loan, supposing a few hours before it was contracted, some words should fall from the contractor implying political motives, did they mean to say that they would repudiate the loan? ["Oh!"] They might not like the comparison, but others would draw it for them. He entreated them, if possible, to put aside party passions in deciding so momentous a question as this, and to resolve, that whatever the political views of a contractor might be, they would never sanction the repudiation of a contract on account of electioneering transactions.

(whose address was repeatedly interrupted by cries of "Divide!" "Divide!") said, he very much regretted that the forms of the House deprived them of the appeal to the Speaker upon the great and important constitutional question which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge. Never, in the Parliamentary history of this country, had such a Resolution as that by which Her Majesty's Government sought to violate or to annul a contract been grafted upon a Vote in a Committee of Supply. The question was one of justice and fair dealing between the Crown, acting through its Ministers, and one of Her Majesty's subjects, against whose character not the shadow of an imputation existed, and who had, for the last ten years, served his country under various contracts with different departments of the Government, not only without ever failing in the honourable and faithful performance of his duty, but in such a manner as more than once to call forth the approbation of the Crown for the efficient and admirable manner in which the service had been performed. He did not deny that it was politic and expedient that the House should exercise a control over certain classes of contracts entered into by the Ministers of the Crown. The words in the contract stating that the payment was to be made "out of monies to be voted by Parliament" had been repeatedly referred to, and it had been argued that it was the intention and understanding of the parties that the contract should be subject to the approval of that House. He totally denied that that was the meaning of those words; and he would show that Mr. Churchward had never entered into any contract which, according to any fair and just interpretation of its terms, was to be submitted to, or dependent in any way upon, the approval or disapproval of that House. At the close of the Session of 1860 a Resolution was passed, that when contracts of a, kind which required the approval of the House were entered into by the administrative officers of the Crown, they should be laid upon the table of the House; and if within a month that House did not express its disapproval of them, they should then, and not before, take effect. But was the least intimation ever given to Mr. Churchward, when he entered into this contract, that it would be laid upon the table of the House, or in any other way made to depend upon the Vote of a casual majority. The House must at once see that such a construction was wholly inapplicable to a contract which was to take effect and be acted on immediately, with a large expenditure on the part of the contractor. With regard to these particular words, his hon. Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) had stated his opinion to be, that he understood these words to signify that the approval or disapproval of Parliament was a necessary condition to their fulfilment. But his hon. Friend would allow him to appeal to another high authority, the late Mr. Wilson. In a debate on that very subject of mail contracts, Mr. Wilson said, that those words were not new—that they involved no new principle of Parliamentary revision; that they had been in use, at all events, since 1854, and were mere surplusage, because, out of what fund could the money be paid, except from monies voted by Parliament? These words had been used in all contracts of this kind since 1854; they were familiar to the legal profession, and he hoped that the Law Officers of the Crown would explain the grounds upon which it was now sought to attach a new meaning to them. In his Petition Mr. Churchward stated, that never until long after the execution of the con- tract of 1859 was his attention directed to these words; that if it had been, he should probably have asked his legal adviser to explain their effect and meaning; but that he was ready to make oath, that until the controversy between the present Government and himself had been going on for some time, he was never told, never knew, or entertained the slightest idea or suspicion, that the contract was in any way to be dependent upon the approval or disapproval of the House of Commons, or that it could be set aside, or his claims under it affected except by the decision of a court of law; that if he had been told that it was to be subject to that condition, he would not have agreed to it, unless a stipulation had been introduced to secure him the reimbursement of any outlay or liability he might have incurred under it in the event of its being disapproved by Parliament. In what a position, then, were they placing Mr. Churchward! If it had been intended that the contract should not be binding till it had been approved by Parliament, surely it would have provided not for its immediate performance, but for the lapse of some time to enable the sense of Parliament to be taken upon it; whereas they would find from the very terms of the contract itself that it should take effect and be acted upon immediately—that was on the 26th of April 1859. The terms also imposed on Mr. Churchward the obligation of purchasing one vessel of a particular description and building another, both of which things he had done, at a cost of £16,000, before he received the least intimation that there was anything unsatisfactory in regard to the contract. ["Divide!"] Let them divide if they would, but they should divide in favour of justice and fair dealing between man and man. What, then, would be the feeling of any man who had entered into a contract which he understood was to be absolute and binding, and who had laid out a great part, and perhaps the whole, of his fortune in order to carry it out if he were told some months afterwards,"Oh! there are some words to which your attention never was directed, by which you empowered the House of Commons to put an end to the contract without reimbursing you for your outlay, and the House of Commons is therefore to be asked by the Government to violate and repudiate the contract, not on the ground of any failure in its performance, or any breach of faith or of fair dealing on your part, but because a Gentleman has given to the House of Commons, behind your back, and not upon oath, an account of a conversation, as to which he is contradicted, but on which you have no opportunity of appealing to a jury or any legal tribunal?" [Loud Cries for a division.]

feared that the argument they had just heard was more against the general policy of the Land Drainage Act of 1861 than against this particular Bill, which was the first fruits of it; and it therefore became the House to look very carefully at the Motion which had been made. If the argument of the hon. Gentleman proved anything, it proved that the Act of 1861 was a very bad Act; because, under it, there might be produced consequences which would be very serious to the country at large, and particularly mischievous to owners of property. The hon. Member said that Durham would be damaged by the passing of these Provisional Orders; and, if so, this might possibly happen in the case of other districts to which the general Act might he applied. Parliament was always sensitive in respect to injuring the property of private persons by the execution of public works. All that it was proposed to do in relation to those drainage works was to enable a certain number of persons to do that which one person might do if he were the sole owner of the district in question. It might, no doubt, be the intention of the Act, which embodied the Incorporation Lands Clauses Act, to produce that effect which the hon. Gentleman feared. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) had, however, been informed by persons most competent to give an opinion upon that point that it could not have the effect apprehended. He should like to know the opinion of the Government on the matter, and whether it was not possible that the English Commissioners had given the persons in whose favour those works were carried out some particular rights in the district. If, however, there were any ambiguity in the Act, the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Durham was not the way to remedy it. The proper course for the hon. Member to take under such circumstances would be to introduce a short declaratory Act, showing clearly what were the limits of the powers of the Act. It was utterly fallacious to send the Bill back to a Select Committee to be dealt with as a private Bill. As far as he was able to look into the matter the case appeared very clear, that no third person could possibly be damaged whose property lay outside the land drainage district.

said, he was afraid that the hon. Gentleman (Sir S. Northcote) misconceived what was in effect the result of this Act. It appeared to him that the Act did not afford protection to individuals whose property lay without the land drainage district. The Act especially gave the elective Board the same powers as were possessed by the Commissioners of Sewers. The Act, no doubt, provided for compensation for any injury that might be done; but it did not provide for the prevention of those Acts which would give rise to claims for compensation. He was therefore afraid that the dangers apprehended by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Pease) were not altogether chimerical. On the part of the Government he should not offer any opposition to the recommittal of the Bill to a Select Committee, but only with a view to that portion of it which related to Morden Carrs being re-considered.

was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say he assented to the Motion of his hon. Friend. Such towns as that of Darlington, which lay low, would be placed in danger by the proposed measure. He thought that they were bound to refer the matter to the consideration of a Select Committee before they proceeded any further with the measure.

thought a proposition to refer a Bill to a Select Committee, with a view simply of considering provisions respecting a particular place, would lead to embarrassment, and doubted whether the suggestion, in point of regularity, could be carried out. They must refer the whole Bill, or none at all. Now, the general Act which had been passed was found by experience to be extremely beneficial. He could not help looking with alarm on the doctrine now suggested, that on the mere statement of au hon. Member that he apprehended danger to some persons outside the drainage district from some of these Provisional Orders, the Bill confirming those Provisional Orders was to be treated as a private Bill, and referred to a Select Committee, with all the inevitable consequences of protracted and expensive investigation. If that doctrine were to be accepted, then farewell to all Provisional Orders, and let them at once return to private legislation, and repeal the Acts of Parliament already passed on the subject. If the Government were of opinion that by those Provisional Orders persons outside the land drainage district would be affected, he thought that the more convenient course would be to recommit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, and to insert in it upon its re-committal a clause to the effect that the provisions of the Bill were not to affect the property of any persons out of the drainage district. He understood that the parties really interested in the question were willing that that course should be adopted, which could do no possible harm, and would effectually guard against the danger so much apprehended.

said, it seemed to him that the course proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Pease) was quite in accordance with the general usage of the House. When a General Inclosure Bill came before them, they were sometimes in the habit of referring that measure, only so far as it affected a particular inclosure, to a Select Committee upstairs. It was, in his opinion, a mistake to suppose that the benefit of the Act in question would be affected by the adoption of the course proposed. The only effect of it would be that the parties would be saved all the expense and trouble of private Bill legislation.

said, he possessed experience of the difficulty which might be entailed by the drainage on au extensive scale of upper lands. The channels through which the water was to be carried though the lower levels were not adapted to convey the volumes of water brought from above; and the lower land was sometimes flooded in consequence, and great damage done to the properly. He had known the difficulty met by the construction of weirs, which intercepted the water, and carried it from level to level for milling purposes. The House was now touching on a very large question—that of arterial drainage. The subject must press itself on the attention of the Legislature before many years, because the extension of drainage in the upper land increased the volume of descending water; and if that water were retained by a weir on the level of each successive mill, the mills would remain uninjured; but there must be a weir from mill-head to mill-head.

said, he did not understand anything about the matter, and he believed the House was in the same predicament; yet the House was called on to legislate on the question. He agreed with the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Pease) that the whole subject should be referred to a Select Committee.

approved of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Belfast that the Bill should be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House, which he thought would be more satisfactory than sending the Bill upstairs, with all the expense of private legislation.

proposed, as an Amendment, that the whole Bill should here-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

urged upon the Government the propriety of undertaking a system of arterial drainage for Ireland, to be carried out under the superintendence of the Irish Board of Works. It was known that Ireland was in great distress. She did not, however, come forward as a pauper. She asked the Government for a loan on security of land, which security would be augmented by the loan being expended on the land.

said, it was not considered desirable that the Board of Works in Ireland should undertake extensive works such as the hon. Gentleman recommended. The Bill now before the House had met with the general approval of Irish Members.

wished to know whether it was likely to come on then?

said, that in the absence of his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston), he was not able to state definitely whether any day could be given for proceeding with the debate. The business of the Session was, however, pressing, and he did not think there was such a general desire on the part of the House to proceed with the debate that the Government should give up the time at their disposal for that purpose.

said, that when the noble Lord at the head of the Government was in his place, he would be able to ask him if he could appoint a day for resuming the debate.

thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was under a very serious mistake as to the feeling of Ireland on the subject, as there was a very general feeling in that country in favour of the principle involved in the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn).

said, there was a very strong feeling in Ireland in favour of the question being fully discussed.

explained, that he did not presume to say whether or not there was a strong feeling in Ireland on the question, but only that there had been no general manifestation of a desire in the House for a debate on it.

observed, that the postponement of the debate at so early a period of the evening indicated the little interest taken in it by Members below the gangway.

said, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, in which he spoke of the Church as the garrison of the English in Ireland, and as a badge of conquest, had excited much dissatisfaction in that country.

retorted, that ample opportunity was afforded on the night when the discussion took place, and asked if his speech took the hon. Gentleman a month to ponder over.

said, that he only wished for further time, in order to give the Irish Members an opportunity to express their opinion.

, in moving that the House should go into Committee pro formâ on this Bill, in order to have Amendments printed, intimated that he should withdraw the measure at a subsequent stage, in consequence of the course which he understood the Government meant to take on that subject.

explained, that it was a measure which it was impossible to carry without Government assistance, and they were not yet in a position to take it up; but that an understanding had been made with the hon. Member that a Bill would be introduced next Session by the Government which would carry out the views of the hon. Member.

concurred in the course taken.

said, he was quite satisfied, and gave notice that on Monday he would move that the Order be discharged.