said, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade the following question respecting the Report made by Messrs. Robert Galloway and Thomas Gray, the officers of that Department, as to the mode of working out the Chain Cables and Anchors Act of 1864, copy of which Report was laid upon the table of the House on the 8th day of March, 1865, and which contains the following paragraph (No 13):—

"The great majority of chain makers also object strongly to any maker being allowed to test his own cables for the purposes of giving a certificate of public proof; and many makers, who intend to go to the expense of making their machines perfect, have expressed their determination not to take out a licence, but to have all their work tested at a public machine:"

namely, Whether any, and how many, makers of chain cables and anchors had applied to the Board of Trade for a licence to test cables and anchors under the Act of 1864, which comes into operation on the 1st day of July next; also, whether, in case any such applications have been made, it is the intention of the Board of Trade to grant licences to manufacturers, not only to test but to affix the public proof stamp, as required by the Act, OR anchors and cables manufactured by themselves.

said, in reply, that the power of the Board of Trade, under the Chain Cables and Anchors Acts was simply to give effect to the provision, of that Act, and if any person applied for a licence for a testing machine, all that was necessary was that the Government Inspector should report that the machine was a proper one, and able to test the strength of the anchors and chains. The Board had no power to ascertain whether the person applying for a licence was the manufacturer or not. Applications had been received from three manufacturers. One of these was from Messrs Brown, Lenox, and Co. Their machine was found to be perfectly sound in principle, and after some little matters of detail had been attended to, the licence was granted. But Messrs. Lloyds had been found so seriously defective that the Board had not yet determined whether a licence should be granted or not. In all probability the machine would be altered in accordance with certain requirements made by the Inspector.

said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether a Letter, dated Aberdeen, the 17th February, 1865, and signed by five Captains, four Lieutenants, and two Ensigns of the 1st Aberdeenshire Volunteer Rifle Corps, against the appointment of Lieutenant William Jopp, a supernumerary Lieutenant in the 10th Aberdeenshire or Inverary Rifle Corps of Volunteers, to a Majority in the 1st Aberdeenshire Rifle Corps, has been received at the War Office; and whether the Secretary of State for War has approved the supersession of the Captains of the Regiment?

said, in reply, that the letter referred to by his hon. and gallant Friend was received at the War Office and returned to the senior officer in command of the Corps with a notification that everything respecting the subject must be forwarded to the War Office through the lord-lieutenant of the county. It was irregular and contrary to the discipline of the Volunteer Force that any such representation, or, indeed, any collective representation at all bearing upon the discipline of a Corps, should be made. If the letter in question, therefore, had reached the Secretary of State through the proper channel, it would have been their duty at the War Office to point out to the lord-lieutenant the irregularity of the course adopted. With regard to the latter portion of the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he had only to state that the appointment was recommended by the lord-lieutenant, and was accordingly approved by the Secretary of State.

said, be would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the proceedings against Constance E. Kent and the refusal of the Reverend A. D. Wagner, Perpetual Curate of St. Paul's, Brighton; and also of a person calling herself Superioress of St. Mary Hospital, an Institution attached to that Church, to give evidence of certain facts on the ground that the same became known to the said Reverend A. D. Wagner "under the seal of confession" and to the said Superioress under some like pretence—Whether the Government will introduce any Bill this Session for the purpose of preventing such persons as the Reverend A. D. Wagner from officiating as clergymen of the Church of England and receiving the emoluments thereof; and whether the Magistrate was justified in allowing the said Reverend A. D. Wagner and the said Superioress to refuse to give evidence on such grounds?

said, in reply, that Her Majesty's Government bad no intention of proposing to Parliament any Bill of the kind referred to by the hon. Member. The case to which the Question referred was one which was heard before a full bench of magistrates, and he was not aware that the magistrates did allow any witness examined before them to refuse to answer any questions which they believed to be material to the ends of justice. They received sufficient evidence to justify the committal of the prisoner for trial. If at the trial any witness refused to answer questions, the Judge who presided would deal with the case according to his discretion.

said, he would give notice that he should at an early day call attention to the subject on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the Special Committee upon Armstrong and Whitworth Guns has made any Report in reference to the 12-pounders; and, if so, whether, he has any objection to lay it upon the table of the House?

said, in reply, that the first part of the Report of the Special Committee, which related chiefly to the 12-pounders, had been received, and the remaining portion would be shortly in their possession. As soon as the whole of the Report bad been received he would lay it upon the table of the House; but in its present incomplete state he must decline to do so.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, at the earliest possible period, to submit to Parliament a measure for the Amendment and consolidation of the Bankruptcy Laws; and, if so, whether such measure will provide for the abolition of the power of imprisonment of debtors, to compel the payment of money under any judgment or order of any Court, including Comity Courts and other Courts for the recovery of small debts?

said, in reply, that it undoubtedly was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, at the earliest period at which it could possibly be done consistent with the due attention which so important a subject do-served, to submit a measure for the Amendment and consolidation of the Bankruptcy Laws. As he had previously stated, it was not likely that this would be done this Session. With regard to the question whether such a measure would provide for the abolition of the power of imprisonment of debtors, and compel the payment of money tinder any judgment or order of any Court, the hon. Member was aware that the Committee had recommended generally the total abolition of the power of imprisonment for debt. That subject would therefore he considered by the Government with all the authority which the recommendations of the Committee could give it, but it was not in his power to anticipate the final decision of the Government any more on that than on the other recommendations of the Committee. He had no reason to doubt that there would be a desire to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee, provided no difficulties should arise to prevent those recommendations from being carried out.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for St. Ives whether lie intends under these circumstances to proceed with his Insolvent Debtors Bill?

said, that after the answer given by the hon. and learned Gentleman he should take immediate steps to discharge the Order.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the notification issued by a Committee at Oxford promoting the re-election of a prominent Member of Her Majesty's Government that the Election will take place in the second week in July next, has been made on the authority of any Member of Her Majesty's Government?

said, that in answering the Question he would first of all thank the hon. Baronet for designating him as "a prominent Member of Her Majesty's Government," for he presumed that it was himself to whom the hon. Baronet alluded. He had not received the notification referred to by the hon. Baronet, and he was not quite certain that he was acquainted with its terms, lie was not aware, and he believed that his noble Friend at the head of the Government was not aware, that it meant anything more than an expression of that speculation upon the subject which generally prevailed. Ho believed that it did not rest upon the authority of any Member of the Government, and certainly not upon the authority of the "prominent Member of Her Majesty's Government" alluded to by the hon. Baronet.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any objection to lay upon the table of the House a Copy of his own Despatch of 8th August last, and of the Minute of Lieut.-Col. Strachey, late Secretary of Public Works, upon the policy of the Government undertaking the construction of the necessary Irrigation Works in India, in preference to intrusting their construction to private companies?

, in reply, said, the Minute to which the hon. Gentleman referred had been received, but it had not yet been answered, and it was not usual to produce such documents before they had been answered. When the answer had been sent there would be no objection to the production of the Minute.

, in moving the Order of the Day for the resumption of the adjourned debate, said, that he wished to state to the House what he considered the wisest and safest mode of proceeding. Since the discussion of the previous evening he had endeavoured to make himself master of all the facts connected with the Report of the Committee, with a view to tender his advice to the House as to the course which they should pursue. The question was whether a resolution should be adopted with a view to commit to prison a person who was said to have been guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of the House, and he had no hesitation in saying that having regard to the gravity of the offence the Motion of the Chairman of the Committee was a right and proper one. The question under consideration was whether the resolution proposed by the Chairman of the Committee should be adopted, or the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) who desired to have the matter referred back to the Committee. The Motion was made under peculiar circumstances, and the case had been somewhat altered by the presentation of a petition from Mitchell complaining that the Committee had not afforded him a sufficient opportunity of defending himself—that the evidence of Mr. Netherclift was unfounded, and that he was prepared to refute it on oath and by witnesses, but that he had had no op- portunity of doing so. The House ought not to entertain too easily petitions from inculpated parties impugning the decisions of Committees, and in this case, having read with great care the proceedings of the Committee, he felt quite certain that they intended to do complete justice to Mitchell. The Report contained two statements, first, that a gross and audacious breach of privilege had been committed by the forgery of various names, and amongst others the names of officers of the House; that the petitions passed through the hands of Mitchell, were got up by him and by persons employed by him, and that neither he nor they had given any satisfactory account of the matter. To that extent the finding of the Committee was fully warranted by the evidence which Mitchell had the most complete opportunity of meeting, but which he deliberately abstained from meeting. If the case had rested there there was no reason whatever why the House should hesitate. But the Committee went on to find secondly, that Mitchell had been guilty of the offence of fabricating many of the signatures to those petitions, and that two other persons acting in concert with him had been guilty of the like offence. This was a most important addition to the finding, and if the House thought it more satisfactory to give Mitchell an opportunity of producing further evidence on that subject, his impression was that the House would not like to proceed to extremities without doing so. One of the witnesses, Mr. Graham, proved that his name was forged, and Mitchell admitted that he had written his name. Mr. Graham said he had given Mitchell no authority to do so. Mitchell said that he had received Mr. Graham's authority to do so. Mitchell was not in the room when Mr. Graham gave his evidence, and was consequently not then in a position to contradict his evidence, but Mitchell was informed of the fact, and on being asked by the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) if he should like to be confronted with Mr. Graham said that he should: but he had not of his own accord taken any steps for that purpose. Mr. Netherclift an expert pointed out several signatures which he said were in Mitchell's handwriting, which Mitchell denied. Evidence was given by Mitchell and his two accomplices to show that Mr. Netherclift had mistaken his handwriting. The Committee had a right to form their own judgment upon the evidence; but as there was just a possibility of doubt, perhaps the House would wish to grant an opportunity for further proof. The lion. Member for the King's County had desired Mr. Netherclift to make a list of the names which he believed to have been written by Mitchell, and the lion. Member then asked Mitchell whether be would like to see that list, and call the persons whose names were mentioned in it to which an affirmative reply was given. The Committee, however, did not think themselves bound, under the circumstances as they then stood, to act upon that, believing as they did, judging from his conduct throughout, that Mitchell was really playing with them. Mitchell knew perfectly well before the inquiry commenced the nature of the charge which would be brought against him. He did not appear, and the Committee ordered him to be summoned, but he could not be found at the address he had given. He was, however, at last met and served with the notice, but he did not attend that day. When Mitchell did attend he had the opportunity of cross-examining witnesses, but be played with them in the cross-examination in a manner certainly not calculated to produce the impression that he was bona fide defending himself from the charges brought against him and when, answering the question put into his mouth by a member of the Committee, he expressed a desire to call witnesses, the Committee were led to the belief that he was trifling with them, as he had been before. Besides the evidence of Mr. Netherclift and Mr. Graham, the Committee had also the evidence of their own eyes, and if the question now were merely whether their Report was one that the House might accept on matters of fact, he did not know whether any further inquiry would he necessary. He mentioned this to vindicate the Committee, who did not believe that Mitchell had any more evidence or wanted to give any; but it had become now a question of personal liberty. He should therefore propose, and he hoped it would meet with the approval of the House and receive the acquiescence of the Committee, to adopt the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, to refer the matter back to the Committee; adding, however, to the Order of Reference the petition of Mitchell presented to the House.

said, he believed that the Committee would be perfectly ready to adopt the suggestion, as it was desirable in a case of this kind, involving penal consequences, to avoid even the least pretext for alleging that injustice had been done. But any one who read the minutes of evidence would see that Mitchell's attention was repeatedly called to the portions of the evidence which bore against him; that he was repeatedly told that the Committee were anxious to bear any explanation he might have to make, and that he did, in fact, cross-examine Mr. Nertherclift and Mr. Strutt very closely. When he was present he was confronted with the witnesses, and when he was absent he was supplied with minutes of the evidence.

said, he was glad that the suggestion of the noble Lord had been accepted, but regretted that the Attorney General should have thought it necessary, as the Committee were now to re-consider the case, to dwell so strongly on all the points which he thought told against Mitchell. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that twelve or thirteen persons came before the Committee, and stated that their signatures to the petitions were forgeries, and he led the House to believe that these forgeries were committed by Mitchell. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Some of them But the fact was that the expert, Mr. Netherclift, when pressed with regard to the signature of Charles Eales, a clerk of the House, declined to say positively that the writing was Mitchell's, and as to Walmesley, Smith, and the Rev. Mr. Jennings, he said the signatures were not in Mitchell's handwriting. Netherclift was then asked to write down a list of the names which he thought were in Mitchell's handwriting; and not one of those persons whose names he put down as forgeries had been examined before the Committee.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is confouning the London and Westminster petitions.

Notwithstanding he was on his trial for forgery, leading questions were put to the witnesses in Mitchell's absence, and not only when he was absent, but even when he had absolutely been ordered to withdraw. The only means Netherclift had of knowing the handwriting of Mitchell was by having certain receipts placed in his hand, for he had never seen Mitchell write, and from them he pointed out the characteristics of Mitchell's handwriting. He himself with several other Members noticed the signa- ture to a particular document, in which Mr. Netherclift had pointed out the characteristics of Mitchell's writing as somewhat different to those on the other documents signed with Mitchell's name. Mitchell was called in, and while admitting his signature to those other papers, he said that it was not on that particular document; and he added that, having injured his hand about a month before, he had authorized his clerk to sign his name for him. The clerk was produced, and said that the signature "G. M. Mitchell" to the document was in his handwriting. In that he was corroborated by another witness. After such testimony, if the case was under trial in a court of justice, Mr. Netherclift's evidence would be regarded as gone. That gentleman had contradicted himself, and had broken down on the comparison of handwriting; but be must say that he could perfectly understand an expert having so failed under the circumstances, for the inquiry was hurried, and Mr. Netherclift had not had much opportunity of comparing the writing. With regard to the statement of the Attorney General on the previous evening that Mitchell had evaded service of the summons and attendance on the Committee, it was to be observed that on the Hackney petition Mitchell gave his residence as "28, Weaver Terrace, Hackney, and on the London petition his town direction was "78, Cannon Street, West, City." But the porter of the House, to whom service of the summons had been committed, stated before the Committee that he had inquired for Mitchell in the neighbourhood of Cannon Row, Westminster, in which he could find no such number as 78, as there were but twenty houses in it. It was true Mitchell had obtained information that he was to be in some way implicated; but, so far from running away, he waited upon the Chairman of the Petitions Committee, and said he wished to offer every explanation. The hon. and learned Member for Suffolk, it was said, told the accused "the substance of the evidence," but that would not do in a court of justice. The testimony in support of so serious a charge against a man ought to be sworn testimony, and, though he had the greatest respect for the Petitions Committee, and thought they were quite right in following up the charge, he submitted that ten prosecutors were too many to be on a jury of thirteen. On the Committee of Inquiry in this case ten out of the thirteen members were members of the Petitions Committee also. But the Petitions Committee were conducting this case against Mitchell on behalf of the House. The inquiry which would be most satisfactory to the public in a matter of this nature would be an inquiry conducted by a Committee of five members chosen by the Committee of Selection, and upon sworn testimony. He thought it an omission in their Report that the Committee had not condemned, as a breach of the privileges of the House, the practice of paying agents to procure signatures. He hoped that this discussion would not close without a Resolution declaring it to be a breach of privilege of Parliament to employ agents—no less than forty had been employed in the case—to procure signatures to petitions at a penny for each name.

said, he did not think the House would do any good by going into the evidence in detail, as the case was to go again before the Committee. He had read it all very carefully, and the conclusion he had drawn from it was that the Committee were warranted in the judgment they had come to, so far as Mitchell was concerned; but, looking to the course the matter had taken, he thought it right that further inquiry should be made, so as to give the accused every opportunity of defence that he would have before a court of justice. It was a serious charge against Mr. Mitchell, and the House ought to be very tender in respect of any course which they took on this occasion. But there was, in his judgment, a far more important question which the Committee would yet have to consider. The Report was not an exhaustive one as regarded another person named in the case, and, no doubt, the first application which Mr. Mitchell would make, when the Committee re-assembled, would be for liberty to cross-examine Mr. Strutt. The moment the Committee met again the conduct of Strutt must be re-considered. It was the last request of Mitchell that he should be allowed to re-cross-examine Strutt. Who was Strutt? He was fons et origo mali. He employed agents to get signatures at a penny each to petitions intended to influence the House in its decision upon a matter which had reference to private claims and public rights. The Committee in their Report blamed his conduct, hut he greatly doubted whether, upon further inquiry, they might not feel bound to visit the conduct of Strutt with something more than mere censure. It was Strutt who held out the temptation, and if Mitchell should be able to establish that these petitions had been altered by him with a guilty knowledge of their character on the part of Strutt, there could be no doubt (however that might affect Mitchell) that Strutt would have been guilty of a still more serious infringement of the privileges of the House. Mitchell, it was perfectly clear, seemed most anxious to have it out with Strutt; he endeavoured to throw upon Strutt all the blame; and his defence (which was not, he must say, a good defence) was that he acted under the instructions of Strutt, a person already censured by Parliament. The Committee, therefore, would be bound to inquire into that allegation. The issue was not solely whether Mitchell was guilty of a breach of privilege, but who were the persons implicated, whether as principals or as accessories. There was much in the evidence to throw suspicion on the conduct of Strutt. The latter, in reply to a question put by the lion, and learned Member for East Suffolk stated that throughout all the earlier portion of the proceedings he had not the slightest reason to suppose that the signatures had been improperly obtained. He stated that he began to suspect the authenticity of the signatures in March, a day or two before the petitions were presented, but that want of time had prevented him from ascertaining whether or not they were genuine. But lie wrote a letter to Mitchell on the 31st of January, in which he used the following words:—

"You must be very careful about the petitions, as the gentleman who has seen them makes some very candid remarks, and I am inclined, from what he says, not to require any more signatures,"

What did this mean? Did he, when he afterwards handed those petitions to Mitchell, suspect the signatures to be false, or did he not? It appeared that Strutt, with all this suspicion on his mind, was acting as Mitchell's superior in the matter. It was the language of a man who suspected that the manner in which the signatures had been affixed to the petitions would not bear investigation. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Denman) hoped that when the matter was referred back to the Committee, they would not consider themselves precluded from investigating the whole case, and that they would inquire into the conduct of Strutt, and that the House would not shrink from punishing him also, if they should think that good ground existed for believing that he was implicated in these fraudulent proceedings. The House must not rest content with crushing the poor fly Mitchell upon the wheel, but should inquire closely into the conduct of Strutt, who, as a solicitor in a good position, ought to be far above the tricks and arts resorted to by poor wretches who obtained signatures at a penny each; and, therefore, if guilty, would be by far the worse delinquent of the two. With respect to Mitchell, he (Mr. Denman) thought that the case against him was very strong, and he appeared, in fact, to endeavour to escape by raising a false issue, and by causing it I to be inferred that none of the charges against him should be credited because they had not all been substantiated. But he (Mr. Denman) gladly left the case again in the hands of the Committee, hoping, as he did, that they would inquire into it from beginning to end.

said, he was a Member of that Committee, and lie wished briefly to defend them from the charges of the lion, and learned Member for the King's County. He was glad that the conduct of the Committee, of which he had been a Member somewhat reluctantly, had been justified by such lion, and learned Gentlemen as the Attorney General and the lion. Member for Tiverton who had just sat down. The letter to Mr. Cole, one of the officers of that House, was identified as being in Mitchell's handwriting by one of Mitchell's own clerks. The Committee throughout the proceedings had been influenced solely by a desire to render impartial justice. Mitchell had endeavoured to evade the Committee by giving an address where he was not known. Unwelcome as the duty would be, he was ready to enter with them again into an investigation of the case, but he hoped that when their labours were concluded they would not again be treated with the same unfairness they had experienced from the lion, and learned Member for Sheffield who, before the evidence could have been known to the House, had compared their conduct to that of the Committee of Public Safety at the time of the French Revolution.

said, that it was, in his opinion, most important that the Members of Committees which had to conduct judicial inquiries such as that now under discussion should attend regularly, and, as far as possible, from hour to hour, and he himself was not absent for five minutes from this Committee. The Committee did not refuse to hear Mitchell, or to allow him every opportunity of defending himself. It had been stated that a great deal of the evidence was not submitted to the person who ultimately fell under the reprobation of the Committee, but it should be remembered that all the earlier proceedings of the inquiry were in the dark. The whole Committee was unanimous about one thing—namely, that forged signatures were attached to certain forms which had been furnished to Mitchell. The evidence of their own eyes was enough to satisfy them that frauds had been committed by several persons, and that Mitchell was one of those who had been concerned in them, and that evidence was confirmed by the testimony of the most distinguished expert who was commonly examined with reference to signatures. He did not think that the hon. Member for the King's County was as good a judge of the evidence as were other Members of the Committee who attended regularly from day to day, and who thus became acquainted with the manner and conduct both of all the witnesses and of the accused. Mitchell had himself been I employed as a messenger in the Petitions Office, where it was his duty to inform his superiors of any signatures which appeared to be forged, and he was therefore well aware that it was contrary to the rules of the House that any name should be signed to a petition by any one except the person to whom it belonged. The evidence before the House fully justified the finding of the Committee, and therefore there was no necessity for them to inquire into any other of the nineteen petitions.

said, he hoped the discussion would not be longer continued, as he did not see what good end could be obtained by such a course. He trusted that the matter would be speedily disposed of, and that the House would not again be troubled with it.

said, he had no desire to prolong the debate, but he did hope that the House would show every possible indulgence to the Committee in order to enable them to come to a satisfactory conclusion upon the subject.

said, that as one of the Committee who dissented from the opinion of the majority, he was glad to see his own opinion upon the subject ratified by the House.

said, he believed it would be more satisfactory if a Committee of five were named by the Committee of Selection for the purpose of deciding upon this case. After the expression of opinion which some of the Members of the Committee had made in that House he was afraid that but little weight would attach to their votes upon the subject.

said, he was sorry to hear the remarks which the noble Lord had made with reference to the Members of the Committee.

said, he had no intention of casting any imputation upon the Members of the Committee. He had referred particularly to the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken at length on adverse sides of the question.

said, he must state to the House that he should respectfully decline again to serve on the Committee.

said, that the notice had been worded so as to be vague in its terms; he had, therefore, suggested the terms which the hon. Member had now adopted. A great many petitions had been presented from miners, complaining of what they conceived to be some defects in the administration of the Act for the Regulation and Inspection of Mines. As that Act had been in operation for some years, it was a fit subject for inquiry, though he doubted whether a Committee could now conclude its labours in time to make a Report during the present Session, If the hon. Member thought it right to take the Committee under these circumstances, there would be no objection.

said, he thought a Royal Commission, which would have been able to visit localities and look personally into the matter, would have afforded a more effectual means of inquiry that a Select Committee. At the same time, he thought it would be very dangerous for the House to resist the demand made by so many persons engaged in the trade, and if no better result should arise from the inquiry than a proof that the claims of these persons were not overlooked, the time occupied in the investigation would not have been lost.

said, he was not aware that a Royal Commission had been asked for. He had understood that a Committee was what it was wished to obtain.

said, he wanted to know whether inquiry were to be limited to coal mines, or to extend to different metalliferous mines, such as those in Cornwall?

said, the Act mentioned only referred to coal and iron stone mines, and the petitions were limited in the same way.

said, it was to be regretted that there was so little time left forgoing into the question. He agreed with the bon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Fergusson) that a Royal Commission would have afforded a more satisfactory means of inquiry than a Select Committee. The case made out by the working miners was so strong, that it was impossible for the House to resist the inquiry. He hoped the Committee would sufficiently appreciate the strong feeling that existed on the part of these men, to determine that something should be done. It was very desirable that they should, if possible, make their Report this Session; but if that could not be done, they might recommend the Government to appoint a Royal Commission.