With reference to the Question put last night by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire (Mr. Lygon), as to the truth of a statement said to be contained in various news papers, that a failure of justice had taken place in a recent case of alleged murder in Epping Forest in consequence of the Advisers of the Crown having neglected to appoint certain forest officers, who alone could have arrested the person charged, I have to state, that, having inquired into the facts, I find there is not the slightest foundation for that statement. The person referred to, a lad of the age of fifteen, was charged with the offence of shooting a boy. He was immediately arrested by the police, there being no difficulty in the way of the arrest. He was tried before Mr. Justice Willes, and was acquitted on the merits, the defence being that the gun had gone off by accident.

said, he wished to ask a Question relative to the Roman Catholic Oath Bill, which stood on the Orders for to-night. He was not going to enter into the merits of that Bill, but every Member of the Government who had spoken on the subject had expressed a strong opinion in favour of having one form of oath which should be taken by all Members of that House, and he wished to know, whether the Government had any intention of bringing in a Bill which would adopt one uniform oath to be taken by all the Queen's subjects. This question was one which ought to be dealt with by the Government, and not left to a private Member like the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), for whose Bill, though he sympathized with him very much, he could not vote. As in the old days the defences of this country were committed to the Government of the Sovereign, so, in regard to these oaths, which were meant to be a protection to the Sovereign and her Throne, it was the duty of the Government, and no one else, to take up any measure which might be necessary. He trusted, therefore, that the Government, seeing the feeling of the House so strong on the subject, would not delay in bringing forward some measure which would give relief to all Her Majesty's subjects.

This Question ought rather to have been addressed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lime rick (Mr. Monsell) as to the course which he intends to pursue. My right hon. Friend has brought in a Bill the effect of which, if adopted by this House, will be that one uniform oath will be taken by all Members of this House, subject only to the difference which exists in the present oath as to the Papal jurisdiction, the Protestant being called on to deny the spiritual jurisdiction, and the Roman Catholic being ex empted from that denial. The House have by a large majority affirmed the principle of that Bill, and I am not pre pared to stand in the way of the progress of the Bill of my right hon. Friend. I think it most desirable that one form of oath should be taken, and, in my opinion, the wise and rational course would be to require that that oath should be an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty. I do not say that there might not be some addition to the terms in which the oath of allegiance is now expressed; but that is an oath which every one would willingly and loyally take, and it is the only oath I think which we ought to require. I do not, however, understand that all the hon. Gentlemen who say that one uniform oath ought to be taken are prepared to admit that it should be merely one of allegiance to Her Majesty; my hon. Friend who has just spoken himself says that he cannot vote in favour of this Bill. But if it is meant that the Government is to introduce a Bill which would retain, and not only retain for Roman Catholics, but impose on Protestant Members of this House parts of the oath which are now taken by Roman Catholics, I cannot hold out any hope that we shall do this. From the language used in different parts of the House I really hope that we shall be able to arrive at some satisfactory settlement of the question; at the same time I am not disposed to advise my right hon. Friend to give up the advantage he has gained and to abandon his Bill for the sake of another Bill being brought in. If his Bill is passed, as I hope it may, a most important step will be taken in the direction of having one uniform oath. We shall only then have to strike out the words I have referred to from the Protestant oath—words which in the mouths of Protestants have no meaning—and the oath will become uniform. I am prepared to leave the subject in the hands of my right hon. Friend, and if he wishes to proceed with his Bill the Government will give him their cordial support.

said, he was not in the House last night when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckingham shire (Mr. Disraeli) put a question to the Government in reference to this Bill, nor had he received any notice from the right hon. Gentleman, though he did not com plain of any discourtesy. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Bill should not be proceeded with this evening, but should be postponed until a morning sitting on Tuesday next. That course involved some delay, but, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that if that course were adopted some arrange ment might be arrived at which would be acceptable to both sides of the House. After the discussion which had taken place it must be obvious that no arrangement would be satisfactory to the House which did not do one of two things—either carry out the Bill which he had introduced into the House, or else adopt one simple oath of allegiance which all Members of the House indifferently could take. He there fore understood the right hon. Gentleman, when he said that some arrangement might be come to which would be satisfactory to both sides, to be of opinion that one of those two courses must be followed. Under these circumstances he would postpone his Bill until Tuesday at twelve o'clock, and he trusted to the kindness and good feeling of the House not to waste time in preliminary discussions, but at once to proceed in Committee to discuss the terms of the oath.

said, he thought it would be better before postponing the Bill to have an intimation from the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire that the anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite were well founded, because, if the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire came down with one uniform oath, and inserted words in it for the protection of the Established Church in England and Ire land, that oath would not be agreed to. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would give a clear, perspicuous, and unambiguous expression of opinion as to the sort of oath which he meant to propose.

It is extremely in convenient to discuss the important question of Roman Catholic oaths in this desultory way, à propos of a question put by an hon. Gentleman opposite, and I really must decline to enter into any discussion of the subject. I principally rose to assure the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) that it was from no feeling of discourtesy to him that I made last night the suggestion which occurred to me as the most expedient course to take. I had consulted with several gentlemen who take different views on the subject, and they all agreed that it was important, if possible, that we should obtain a morning sitting from the Government. With regard to myself, as I have not before had the opportunity, I shall, before we go into Committee on Tuesday, express my views upon the general question, and indicate what I think will be the best and most convenient course for the House to pursue.

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, Whether he had taken into his favourable consideration the division of yesterday? His own experience in the House, no doubt, would have shown the noble Lord that had the division been taken on the merits of the case the majority would have been on the other side. Under the circumstances the noble Lord must see that the feeling of the House was in favour of delay, and he hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord's well-known urbanity and skill in throwing oil on the troubled waters of dissension would lead him to promise that further consideration should be given to this case.

The only answer I can give to the hon. Member is that it appears to me it would be totally and fatally subversive of the discipline of the army if the Commander-in-Chief were not to be allowed to use his discretion as to who should and who should not be considered fit to command a regiment in the service. That principle being admitted—indeed, I think it incontrovertible—it has not been the duty of the Government to take any step in consequences of the discussion of yesterday. As for the division, I do not think the hon. Member has much to congratulate himself on in respect to it.

I may state with regard to a Motion of which the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) has given notice for this evening that I am authorized by the Lord Chancellor to say that he courts inquiry into the matter to which that Motion refers. I may, there fore, observe that the Motion of the hon. Member for a Select Committee will not be opposed by Her Majesty's Government.

, in moving a Resolution on the subject of the abolition of the unjust duty on foreign paper, said, he was about to ask the House and the Government to do an act of common justice, and before doing so, it would be his duty to place before them a case of as grievous hardship as, he believed, had at any time occupied the attention of the Parliament. In private life if one individual wronged another he was bound by every law of gentlemanly feeling, as well as by justice and morality, to repair to the best of his power the wrong he had done. He did not think that a Government or Parliament should be guided by different rules. He thought he would be able to show that in 1860 a step attended with most disastrous results to one of the most important and interesting trades of the United Kingdom had been taken by the Government and the Parliament of this 'country. He believed he could adduce the most incontrovertible proofs that Parliament had inflicted a great hardship on the British manufacturers of paper, and had acted towards them in distinct contravention of that very principle of free trade to which they proposed to give effect. One of the most important features in the Budget of that year was the proposal with respect to the Excise duty on paper. Wisely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer abolished that duty; but, at the same time, in the face of urgent remonstrances from the trade and of Motions in which his attention was directed to the injury which such a measure would inflict on the trade, the right hon. Gentleman repealed the differential Customs' duty on paper. The whole injury to the trade arose from that most rash, unwise, and blundering proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman was reminded that the penny duty had been arranged under a free trade Government; and that it had been imposed as an equivalent to the tax which foreign Governments continued to impose on the export of rags for the advantage of the foreign papermakers. The weight of raw material used annually by the paper manufacturers of the United Kingdom was 200,000 tons, and of that as much as 140,000 tons were rags. The weight of rags produced in this country was about 120,000 tons; it was necessary that the trade should supplement their supply of rags by going abroad for some, and there was an export tax imposed on that, say 10,000 tons, which they brought from the Continent. As long as the tax upon rags continued it was utterly impossible for the English paper manufacturer to compete with the foreigner. Of what use were energy, invention, capital, and perseverance when the rival manufacturer had an advantage of 20 per cent on the raw material? When the free traders were endeavouring to accomplish the re peal of the Corn Laws they argued that of itself the tax of £1 per quarter upon the 1,000,000 quarters imported was not the evil they complained of, but the real grievance was that by means of that tax the price of the whole 60,000,000 quarters grown in this country was correspondingly raised; so that, instead of there being a tax of £1,000,000, there was a tax of £60,000,000 upon the people's food. That was the cry raised by Mr. Cobden and Sir Robert Peel at Birmingham, Leeds, and other places. For his own part, be wished it to be known that while he was a free trader he was also a fair trader. Let him apply the old free traders' argument to the paper trade. The injury to the papetrade of this country was not to be measured by the amount paid by the manufacturer upon the 10,000 tons of foreign rags imported, but by the fact that in con sequence of that tax the price of rags throughout this country was raised to the price of foreign rags. The price of rags throughout the British dominions was 20, 30, or even 50 per cent above that of the Belgian and Prussian markets. What was the reason that the interest of the British paper manufacturer had been disregarded when the French Treaty was made? It was through the great desire of the Government at that time to throw themselves at the feet of the French people. No doubt the French Treaty was most admirable as far as it went, and would lead to the best results; but the interests of the British paper manufacturer were altogether forgotten at a time when Government had the power to improve their condition most materially. But the Government abandoned their opportunity; they surrendered their power, and left the English manufacturer from that day to this at the mercy of foreign Governments and of foreign manufacturers. There were many Gentlemen present who professed to admire the principles of free trade—he could mention their names, but he had no desire to be invidious—who expressed great sympathy with the English papermakers, who voted for them in July, 1860, and who promised them their support at the time of the making of the French Treaty, but the matter was then made a Cabinet question, and the trade was sacrificed to the interests of a party. Again, there were many good men who voted against the papermakers in the belief that the doleful anticipation of the English makers were without foundation: but four terrible years had since passed, and every anticipation of disaster had been fulfilled. In 1861 the Government consented that an inquiry should take place into the causes of the complaints which came from all parts of the country. A Committee was appointed, consisting of Members from both sides of the House, most fairly selected, and, after serious consideration, they came to the solemn conclusion that the position of the papermakers was deplorable, and that unless Government took their case up and persuaded foreign Governments to abolish the tax upon rags, the most disastrous consequences would result. No notice whatever was taken of that recommendation, and since that time matters had become worse and worse. The answer made to their repeated applications for relief was that they were doing splendidly; that their exports and imports were rapidly increasing, and that therefore they could have no cause for complaint. But of what use was it for a man to make and sell twelve tons instead of ten tons per week of an article by which he realized no profit? It was impossible for the manufacturer to reduce the price of the raw material he used; all he could do was to increase the amount of his production, and thereby comparatively to reduce the amount of his fixed charges It was to an effort of this sort that the wonderful impulse in the trade was owing. Out of the £8,000,000 worth of paper made in this country, only £500,000 worth, or one-sixteenth, was exported; and this would scarcely be taken as a proof of the great prosperity of the trade. The other side of the picture showed that while in 1859, the foreigner sent only 700 tons of rags might be reduced, their cost in of paper into this country, he now sent this country mu3t always exceed their cost 12,000 tons per annum, while the value in Belgium by the amount of the duty was raised during the same period from which was laid upon the exportation from £35,000 to £600,000. Was there any that country. If the price in this country further increase under that head? It I was so greatly diminished that rags could appeared from the official Returns of the Board of Trade that in the first quarter, ending the 31st of March, 1864, the importation of foreign paper amounted to 36,416 cwt., while in the corresponding quarter of 1865 it had been raised to 48,000, showing an increase of 32 per cent, On the other hand, the exports of British paper amounted in 1859 to 126,000 cwt., of the value of £525,000, while last year it amounted to 165,000 cwt. of the value of £556,000, showing an increase of 32 per cent in quantity and of only 5¾per cent in value. Comparing the present year with the last, he found that for the first quarter of 1864 English paper was exported to the amount of 37,366 cwt., of the value of £120,000; while for the corresponding quarter of this year it was 37,318 cwt., of the value of £117,000. In 1859 the quantity of foreign paper exported from Great Britain was 5,000 and odd cwt.; in 1864 it was 28,000 cwt., showing an increase of 476 per cent. Let not the hon. Gentleman imagine that lie was complaining of the quantity of paper which came into England. What he complained of was that the British trader was unable to meet the foreigner and to make a profit. That he was not able to do so was not his fault, but that of those who sacrificed a trade lo the exigencies of a Government. The grand point of the right hon. Gentleman by-and-by would be that there was an ample supply of new material. The principal now material was esparto, or Spanish grass, and of that only 40,000 tons were imported last year, which would produce only 15,000 tons of paper. The effect of the export duty upon rags had been to raise the price of esparto from £2or £3 to £7 per ton. Now, as 2¼ tons of esparto were required for the manufacture of a ton of paper, the cost of the material required in the making of that quantity of paper was £15 15s., say in round numbers £16. But the Belgian manufacturer, who was protected by his Government, could get rags from which he could make paper to rival that manufactured from esparto for from £13 to £14 per ton. Perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman might say that the effect of the introduction of esparto had been to bring down the price of rags. That might be so; but, however, the price of rags might be reduced, their cost in I this country mu3t always exceed their cost in Belgium by the amount of the duty which was laid upon the exportation from I that country. If the price in this country was so greatly diminished that rags could be obtained more cheaply here than in Belgium, the American manufacturer would come into the market, and thus the price of British rags would be raised to the stan- dard of the taxed article. Who had benefited by this Act of munificent liberality performed by the Government at the expense of other people? The trade had, it was admitted, given the whole amount of the Excise duty to the public; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted that they had been also compelled to give up three farthings a pound, but that three farthings came out of the legitimate profits of the trade, whereas if the tax had been abolished, and the Government had the means of procuring its abolition, the consumer would have obtained the article at the same price, and the manufacturer would have been able to make a profit out of it. But who besides had got the advantage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's liberality? The penny press. ["Hear, hear!"and a laugh.] He was glad that that advantage had been given to them. There was a laugh as if he had made a slip, but he had done nothing of the kind. If the Government had been commonly wise, that boon might have been given to the penny press without doing any injury to British manufacturers. Four newspapers, one of them a very large one, had, ac cording to documents in his hands, gained to the extent of £100,000 from the liberality and care of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade. To one paper in London, £34,000 was given in the shape of re mission of the Excise duty, and adding the three farthings which had been taken from the pockets of the British paper-maker, amounting to £17,000, it appeared that that paper had gained by the policy of the Government £51,000 or £52,000 per annum, or about £200,000 since the change was made. Let him show to that press, influential and powerful as it was, and among which he found some of the most formidable clamourers against the trade, what would be the difference of the state of things which he was anxious to promote, and which the Government might have secured by other means. Suppose the proprietor of a London newspaper got half his paper from Belgium and half from a neighbour in England, he would not advance the interests of his neighbour at all, because the British trader must sell at the same price as the foreigner, or else walk out of the market. Let him show how this tax of three farthings in the pound operated upon the British manufacturer. In the case of a man who manufactured only ten tons a week it amounted to a tax of £3,640 a year. What was the policy that was laid down by Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Cobden, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer? Mr. Cobden, quoting Sir Robert Peel,said—

"Before you expose the manufacturers of this country to competition with those of other nations you should relieve them from any disadvantages in respect to their raw material, and in respect to the process of manufacture."

And the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech on the sugar duties, said—

"We are not willing to give any premium upon the employment of labour and capital in England, but certainly we are not willing to be parties to discouraging the employment of labour and capital in England as compared with other countries."

Now, he put it to the consciences of the Government themselves, and to the common sense of any of their supporters, whether they had not in regard to the paper trade imposed a penalty upon the industry of their own country and given an undue ad vantage to the foreigner? The effect of that was that the agents of foreign houses were to be found everywhere, and that, with the exception of some special articles, such as high class writing paper, account books, and envelopes, they could undersell the British manufacturer with regard to' all kinds of paper. The Chancellor of the Exchequer drew a glowing picture of the seats of industry which would, after the repeal of the paper duty, spring up in the rural districts of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and of the companies which would spring up. Now, he challenged the President of the Board of Trade, who he knew had been making inquiries, to deny the truth of his statement when he asserted that all the companies which had been established under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman, as the result of that glowing picture, had failed. One gentleman was, although he sat opposite to the right hon. Gentleman, so carried away by that picture that he put £10,000 into one of these concerns, and from that day to this he had not received one farthing of interest upon his money. From that day to the present not one farthing of interest on his £10,000 had that gentleman seen. But it was in the power of the Government to make that money fructify so as to produce a fair return if they had only the courage to give up their clap-trap with regard to the question, and to adopt the policy which he suggested. He could lay before the House the balance-sheets of various companies engaged in the paper trade to show that some had been obliged to stop business; that the business of others did not realize a single farthing, and that the prospect of being able to secure 2 per cent was the most cheering prospect to which more than one could look forward after a struggle of four years. He regretted to be obliged to trespass on the time of the House; but it was absolutely necessary that hon. Members should hear the voices of the sufferers themselves, and he should therefore read a few extracts from letters which he had received from England and Scotland—he was sorry to say from Ireland also, because in the case of the Irish manufacturer the calamity arising out of the course taken by the Government operated with peculiar severity. He had done, and would continue to do, his best to promote manufactures in Ireland, but the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had led to the shutting up of mill after mill in that country, to the throwing of hundreds of people out of employment, and, in short, had rendered the paper trade there one desperate struggle against adversity. But let him lay before the House a few of the extracts to which he referred. The first was from the letter of an honest, industrious man, who said—

"I have had a correspondence with some and interviews with other paper manufacturers, and every one of them says that the entire ruin of the trade is only a mere question of time if the pre sent system continues. It matter little what class of paper is manufactured; so long as things re main as they are paper manufacturers cannot make a profit. We are called Protectionists, but a more unjust accusation could not be made. For my own part, I have not gained 6d. profit for the last four years."

The next was a letter from Yorkshire, and the statement of the writer was—

"We are makers of coarse paper, and have about £10,000 invested in buildings and machinery. For twenty years, ending December, 1861, we were kept going on full time, with orders chiefly for the London market, at a moderate profit. Since then, however, we have been compelled to run half-time and reduce our prices from £2 to £3 per ton to meet Belgian and Dutch manufacturers; in other words, our profit has disappeared. We have good machinery and cheap coals, yet cannot compete with those who have their raw material protected by express duties. The wholesale stationers in the City know this; and we look with confidence to the Government taking prompt measures to put the trade in a fair and sound position."

Another communication was one from a gentleman who had written to him last year—a Kent manufacturer, who wrote as follows:—

"In my letter to you last autumn, an extract from which you read in the House of Commons, I stated I had stopped one of my mills for four months for general repairs and the introduction of several improvements, with a view to economize and increase out-turn; that after eight months' working my loss was £88, and that I determined to persevere for twelve months longer. This I have done, but regret to find a serious loss. I am compelled to stop the mill and discharge my hands. I cannot compete with that class of paper—namely, common printing—coming from abroad with a difference of 30 to 40 per cent in the rag material. I have used a proportion of esparto, to which there are many drawbacks, one being the pollution of the stream on which my mills are situated; therefore, without I obtain fair trade in rags, my mill is useless, and a property which should be worth £10,000 not worth as many hundreds."

The same writer, referring to the stoppage of a mill in Kent, another in Derbyshire, and a third in Westmoreland, said—

"Since I last wrote to you I have been compelled to stop one of my mills, having a mill full of paper, and no longer able to compete. There is another and a much larger mill than mine that has had to do the same. Mr.—(Westmoreland) has a two-machine mill which has been standing for fully a month. The mill of Messrs.—(Derbyshire), a two-machine mill, has had one of its machines stopped for some time."

The next case was one which involved the complete sacrifice of a property of £25,000, in the letter referring to which the writer stated—

"I have been engaged as a paper manufacturer for forty years. I embarked the whole of my property in the business, and by great exertions I succeeded in purchasing the mill, from which I got a moderate living, enabling me to bring up a large family respectably. Previous to the late Excise duty being taken off we were then being subjected to competition with the foreigners, and the only way to meet that competition was by erecting new and improved machinery; this cost me £5,000. Mr. Gladstone then admitted foreign paper duty free, without stipulating that the foreigner should take the duty off their rags, and the consequence was that my business was ruined. I have expended £25,000 on my mill, and now can neither work it, nor let it, nor sell it; and, although it is not bringing me in any money, I am called on to pay rates, or have my goods seized. My property is, in a manner, confiscated by the Government. I found it a hopeless contest, and was obliged to close my mill two years and a half ago. It has made a sad change in the neighbourhood, and more especially to myself, since I find that after forty years of most arduous attention to business my capital and all my earnings are sacrificed."

Then followed a few lines from Lancashire, the seat of free trade:—

"We sent you a statement of our concern on the 14th of July last, 1864, which you mentioned in your speech. We have ever since been struggling hard in turning out more paper, and making every alteration we could possibly think of, and must say that we see no further chance of our trade becoming a really good and beneficial one; and, unless through your strenuous efforts, or some other cause, we get put on a fair and equitable footing, we shall certainly be forced to give up this detestable paper making, and try some thing else, before our capital and energies are thoroughly worn out."

He would now ask the House to listen to a voice from Scotland, and it was that of an enterprizing manufacturer in the county of Fife, who said—

"The effect of these measures—miscalled free trade—is simply to approve of a heavy foreign tax being levied on all paper made in Great Britain; which tax is applied for the benefit and protection of the foreign paper maker, whose paper is expressly freed from this duty. It is needless to say that the pressure of so unequal and unjust a system of taxation has been disastrous to those who, like ourselves, had the greater part of their capital invested in paper mills and machinery. For ourselves, we can truly declare that ever since that evening when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his plan of restoring prosperity to the rural paper mills we have found our trade regularly getting worse, and last year we had a positive loss. We are at our wits'-end to know what to do with our mills; and this change is the more striking, too, seeing that for about half a century previously these mills had been carried on profitably. If we were to shut them down we should still be liable in heavy rent and taxes, while this would then throw out of employment 210 hands. We never believed these measures would have been persisted in so long by an enlightened Legislature, and still feel quite assured that if we could get these high fiscal duties abolished on our raw material we could compete successfully with any foreign rivals Let both foreign and British paper be either equally free or equalled taxed, and we do not fear the result."

Again, there was another writer from Scotland, whose letter furnished evidence of a very bad case. His statement was—

"I have been actively engaged in paper-making for nearly forty years, and have experienced both brisk and dull times, but have never had such a battle to contend with as that which I have had to fight since October, 1861. Since that date I have not to complain of dull trade, far from it, so long as I offer at the same price as the foreigner, who, by artificial means, can buy his rags £4 or £5 cheaper than I can, and against whom it is impossible to compete with the most remote chance of success, seeing his advantage is so great over me in the cost of his rags. So far from things adjusting themselves, my experience is quite the reverse. Since 1861 each balance-sheet has shown a greater loss than the former; and now that my capital has nearly disappeared I shall be obliged to succumb, unless something be done for our trade by the Government, from whom alone redress can come."

The next case, however, was, in his opinion, the worst of all. It also occurred in Scot land, but he would not mention the name of the gentleman who brought it under his notice, because he might thus be doing injury to his credit. If, at the same time, there was any doubt as to the truth of the statement or the character of the person by whom it was supplied, he should have no objection to lay the letter containing it before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The writer said—

"We have been asked to send you, under confidence, what our experience has been as to the result of the foreign treaty, as far as papermakers are concerned. I now, in the name of my partners, reply, that the year previous to the treaty we showed a profit of about £2,000, and that last year, after watching so long for the 'fine days' that Mr. Gladstone said were coming to us, we had the mortification to find, on closing our books, that we had, instead of being gainers by the treaty, been losers to the amount of nearly £2,000. This sort of thing has been going on among the papermakers ever since the treaty came into operation. It is a question of time, no doubt; but as surely as the sun rises, so surely will the papermakers of this country decay and be swept off by the protection given to foreigners, by that most consistent of all—["Hear, hear!"and a laugh.] Had it not been that I and my partners have other sources of income, we should have been by this time in the bankrupt list; so no thanks to the Chancellor and his friends that we are not in that unpleasant position."

He had now done with England and Scot land. The next letter was from Belfast, written by Mr. Archer, a man of large means, who stated that he was obliged to close his mills in consequence of the operation of the present system, finding it quite impossible to compete with foreign makers who bought rags at a rate made low by their heavy export duty. The Dunadry mills, but a few miles from those of Mr. Archer, were also silent. There was another and very important mill owned by a gentleman who once paid a fifth of the whole Excise duties in Ireland and gave employment to 300 persons. Fortunately for himself, Mr. Greer was a man of property, and his wife also enjoyed a separate income; but as far as the means of livelihood of these 300 persons was concerned they had been destroyed by the action of the Government. Mr. Greer, writing on the 10th instant, said—

"Since I wrote you upon the same subject last Session I have shut down my Dripsey paper mills, after having suffered a very heavy loss, indeed, in a hopeless competition with the foreign manufacturers. It is not necessary for me to enter upon the merits of this question, the simple fact being that now, after having given constant employment for thirty years to near 300 hands, and having spent large sums of money upon buildings and machinery, I am at length driven out of the market by the operation of the late mistaken legislation, by which the results of the industry of a large portion of my life have been sacrificed. My wife and I have done our utmost to alleviate the distress of our late workers, some of whom have emigrated to America; many have gone to Scotland, Mrs. Greer in every instance having paid their fare and otherwise supplied their wants. We hear frequent and good accounts of most of them. I enclose an address which my wife has lately sent to each of them, to encourage them on their way in their life struggle."

Prosperity and contentment bad reigned at those mills even when prospects in other parts of the country were most dismal; but now, through the operation of measures for which the Government were responsible, the mills were closed and the late workers in them were scattered far and wide. Without wearying the House by reading other letters, he might state that he had received one from Mr. Routledge, two from other manufacturers who used esparto, and two from gentlemen who used straw. All these would be willing to avail them selves of the proposition which he was about to make to the Government. The right hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, repeat that it was only a part of the trade which was injured; but if he wanted to know how a barrister was getting on, would not the best person to ask be an attorney in good practice? And paper-makers of experience on this side of the Channel concurred in the belief that 75 per cent of the trade were struggling in a hopeless contest 15 per cent, probably, of the traders were above all risk of competition, being engaged in the manufacture of a special quality of paper; but day after day their position was getting worse, be cause they were jostled by others driven to manufacture in these higher branches to save themselves from utter ruin. 75 per cent of the trade were struggling, 50 per cent were in desperate difficulties, and 40 per cent were on the brink of ruin. If the Government continued insensible to the position of the trade, they would have at least the glory of deserving that statues should be erected to their honour in Belgium, in Holland, and in Prussia, though at home the prospect confined it self to ruined mills and scattered populations. The object of the proposal he was about to make was that the British manufacturer should be placed on the same level with the foreigner with regard to the raw material. This would not increase the price, as some supposed, but would enable him to lower it, at the same time that the press would be protected, and manufacturers would work at a profit. £60,000 was the amount of the tax, but it effected a trade of £700,000 a year. He pro posed that when a ton of rags came into England with a foreign tax upon it the Government should hand those rags over to the manufacturer clear of the tax, not, however, charging the amount, so remitted upon the Consolidated Fund, but receiving it again from the manufacturers after a sufficient interval. The trade were quite willing that when the rags were manufactured the amount of the tax should be assessed upon the manufactured article, and so levied from them. He believed he was right in saying that the question of principle apart, the financial details of this arrangement could be worked out in a very few days. Under the present system Americans came in, and by purchasing in our market, were continually raising the price of English rags towards the amount of the taxed rags. The trade said, "Stop the export of rags from our ports, or put on a tax equivalent to the amount imposed by foreign Governments." The request was a very small one, extending to 2,000 tons of rags only, or about £10,000. It might be said that he was attempting to get in "the thin end of the wedge." He hoped that when the facts pointed so clearly all one way the House would not be misled by this miser able delusion, this wretched clap-trap, by which too many were at all times ready to be deceived. No injury would be done to America by his proposal, because the markets of Belgium would still be open; and what did we owe to America in this case? The Americans imposed a prohibitory duty of 30 per cent on British paper at the very time that they were carrying British rags away from this country. The result would be to equalize the price of rags, and the British manufacturers would be able to meet their competitors in any market in the world. Otherwise they must inevitably go to the wall. The time might come when the Lancashire men, who were now opposing this demand of the papermakers, would feel the shoe pinch them in the same way. Inevitably there would be an export duty on their raw material, and if when the resources of that great continent across the Atlantic were turned to the pursuits of peace and commerce, the attempt to produce their great staple manufacture as cheaply there as here were successful, the Lancashire manufacturers would most certainly come down and demand the interference of the Government to keep out the foreign article. His proposal was that the trade should not be sacrificed; that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be put in a position to realize that glorious picture which he had drawn; and that Eng land, Scotland, and Ireland should have the opportunity of developing an important industry. The Government had al ready established one or two precedents for what he suggested. In the matter of the Scheldt dues they had paid half a million to put the shipowners of this country on a level with those of a small country like Belgium, and they had given advantages to the sugar refiners and others. It was a delusion to go on expecting foreign Governments to relinquish the duties on rags, for in fact they decided not to do it. No trade, even if it were guided by the genius of the Treasury Bench, supported by the wealth of the Bank of England, and aided by the hundred hands of Briareus, could stand against this 25 per cent burden. Unless the Government would address themselves to the relief of the wrongs which they had deliberately imposed on this trade year after year the complaints would be more deplorable, until at last there would be but one cry of calamity from what was once a prosperous and thriving industry. The hon. Gentleman concluded with his Motion.

seconded the Motion.

Sir, I am afraid I shall find it somewhat difficult to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman through his somewhat discursive speech on the position of the paper trade; but I am glad that, after depicting so eloquently the hardships under which he says the trade is suffering, he finished his speech by telling us what is the remedy. I do not, however, understand how that remedy would repair the wrong which he says has been done. He commenced his speech by saying that a great wrong had been committed when the House abolished the customs duty on foreign paper, but in the course of his observations he never proposed to re-enact that duty. Now, the whole case was before Parliament, when it deliberately confirmed the proposal of the executive Government to repeal the duty on foreign paper in conformity with the express stipulations of the French Treaty. If a wrong therefore was committed, it was not a wrong committed by the executive Government, but a deli berate proceeding of the Parliament of England at a time when the papermakers had a stronger case than at present—when there was an absolute prohibition upon the export of rags from France and other countries which had now been replaced by a somewhat moderate duty. When the excise duty on paper was abolished, to have retained the duty on foreign paper would have been totally inconsistent with the French Treaty. In the correspondence which took place about the French Treaty, I remember the British Government bound itself not to impose any duty for the protection of English manufactures as against articles of French production, and there fore to have retained the import duty on foreign paper would have been inconsistent with the spirit and meaning of that treaty. The spirit of the French Treaty, as announced in the Correspondence which was published at the time, was that the British Government should bind itself to impose no import duties on foreign productions for the purpose of protecting similar articles produced at home, but only for fiscal purposes. The customs duty on paper was therefore reduced to the same rate as the excise duty; and when the latter was abolished it would have been impossible to retain the former. You may, therefore, dismiss from your consideration the re-imposition of the duty, as it is not before you, and I do not see how it is possible for the House deliberately to entertain so grave a proposition as a departure from the distinct spirit of the French Treaty. But the hon. Gentleman makes a proposal by which he says the English manufacturer will be placed on a level with the foreigner without any protection. He proposes that the State is to pay to the importer of rags the export duty which he has paid on those rags in a foreign country. The importer having brought a lot of rags into this country is to send his Bill in to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for export duties—duties paid in foreign countries—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to recoup him for these duties. Then, in the course of a few weeks, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to send his Bill in to the paper trade, and they are to pay him the sum he has advanced for them. The trade are to do in the end what other wise they would have done at the beginning; but I cannot understand in what different position that would place the paper-makers. The fact of a sum of money having been advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, as far as I see, make no difference except in saving to the trade the interest for a limited period on the money which has been advanced. The dealer in English rags will still know that foreign rags cannot be obtained at less than a certain price, plus the export duty, and he will therefore stand out, as it is said he does now, for the same price. I believe the papermakers have about 130,000 tons of rags free of duty, and that they have to pay upon 10,000 tons of rags a duty of £60,000; so that the whole of the difficulties and calamities sketched by the hon. Gentleman are caused to the paper trade by having to pay £60,000 on 10,000 tons of rags. The hon. Gentleman says the effect of his proposal would be so to lower the price of rags as to benefit the trade to the extent of £600,000 or £700,000. I very much doubt that pro position. I doubt whether a large quantity like 130,000 tons could be reduced in price to any great extent by operating on a limited supply of 10,000 tons, especially as that supply could not be indefinitely increased. It must really be a question of supply and demand. The supply of foreign rags is limited, and the English holders of rags when asked to take less than they had received be fore would say, "I know you cannot import an indefinite weight, because the foreign supply is limited." Unless the foreign supply could be kept up so as to replace the English rags it could not have the effect which the hon. Gentleman supposes. It is impossible to suppose that France and Belgium, which are paper-making countries, could keep up an indefinite supply of rags to England. But if the advance of £60,000 to the paper-makers can save them £600,000 or £700,000, why call in the assistance of Parliament at all? Why cannot a great trade like the papermakers of this country raise the money themselves? Why should they hesitate to embark in so profitable a transaction? But if we are to enter upon a scheme of this kind let us have some understanding that the trade itself is unanimous upon the point. We are to pay £60,000 to the importer of foreign rags, and then we are to collect this £60,000 from the papermakers according to the amount of paper they make. Now, I have received a letter from a papermaker who, alluding to this scheme, says—

"We beg leave to submit to you the very serious and unjust consequences that will arise to those papermakers who, like ourselves, use no rags, and nothing but raw fibres, if the proposal made to you by those of the trade who use rags largely be carried out. It is to levy some sort of excise duty, of about 10s. per ton, on all paper, to recoup the expense of the proposed import bounty on rags. We make thirty tons of paper weekly, and we should thus be mulcted in a yearly fine of £750, which would go into the profits of our rivals in trade, and thus give them, a double advantage. We believe there are about 200 tons of paper made purely from raw fibres weekly. We cannot think you would assent to such an unfair and unequal proposal when its true nature is brought under your notice. The writer would be happy at anytime to enter into any further explanations, either personally or by letter, should you feel it desirable to have them submitted to you."

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the writer of the letter?

I will give the letter to the hon. and learned Member.

Has not the person written another letter explaining his former one?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. This second letter was written in reference to a plan to put an import duty on foreign paper, proposed by the hon. and learned Member, but which he has not stated to the House. This correspondent wrote to me that he had changed his mind, and that he should not so much mind paying 10s. per ton to make up the £60,000 provided there was an import duty put upon all foreign paper. He objected to pay his £750 a year in order to pay rag duty for those who import foreign rags pure and simple; but when he was told that a part of the plan was an import duty on foreign paper, then he said—

"I do not mind if my paper, made from straw and esparto, is to be prevented from foreign competition. In that case I shall be recouped, and therefore I shall join in the plan."

The first letter I read applies to the plan as it is now before the House. The writer objected to the Chancellor of the Exchequer being recouped for his advances to pay the import duty on rags by a charge levied on all English manufactured paper, whether made of rags or of esparto or some other fibre; but when he heard of an import duty on foreign paper, he thought there would be something to counterbalance such an impost on the English manufacturers. Now, I do not deny that there may be sufferings in a portion of the trade, but when the hon. and learned Gentleman said he repeated the representations of great paper-makers and others, it struck me that there was a marked deficiency of representations from consumers, and I think there would be considerable jealousy if any plan were introduced to enable papermakers to carry on their business under the arrangements of some Act of Parliament. Now there is another proposition of the hon. and learned Member, and that is that you are to put an export duty on British rags. Let me ask has the rag collector been consulted upon that point? I am prepared to contend that the rag collector is entitled to sell in the dearest market and buy in the cheapest, and that the hon. Member and his Friends have no right to deprive the rag collector from getting the best price he can for his industry. What sort of a position should we be put in if we were to put an export duty on rags? Have we not been asking from time to time that foreign countries should reduce their export duty on rags, and told them that it was for their own interest as well as for the general interests of the trade of the world that there should be no such duty? We have been preaching a doctrine as to the necessity of free trade in rags, yet we are now advised, when we have made some progress in that direction, to take the most retrograde and objectionable step of putting an export duty on our own rags. I believe the House of Commons will not consent to that proposal. It is a mistake to say no thing has been done. The Government have not been unmindful of the recommendation of the Committee to which reference has been made. The only real recommendation of that Committee was that Government should make an endeavour to influence foreign Governments to abolish the export duty on their rags. Government has acted on that suggestion. Let us see what has taken place in Europe! Russia has not done much in that direction, but she has done a little. Sweden, however, from a duty of 1s. 4d. per cwt. has abolished it altogether. Nor way from 3s. 10d. a cwt. has abolished it altogether. Denmark at present has not made any reduction, but there is every reason to suppose she will do so. In the Zollverein, the duty, which was 9s. 2d. a cwt. in 1859 is to be reduced in July, 1865, to 5s. 1d. In Hamburg rags have always been free. In Holland the duty on rags has been reduced from 8s. 6d. to 4s. 3d. a cwt. since 1859. In Belgium there was a prohibition in 1859, whereas now there is a duty of 4s. 10½d. only. In France there was also a prohibition, and there is now a duty of 4s. 10½d., which is to be reduced year by year, until in the year 1869 it will arrive at the moderate duty of 1s. 7½d. per cwt. In Spain and Portugal there has been no change, but Naples and Sicily have made a considerable reduction—namely, from 13s, 2d. to 3s. 3d. Austria has not made any reduction, but there are hopes that she will do so as the question is under consideration. Turkey has reduced her duty from 10 per cent ad valorem to 5 per cent ad valorem. In fact, I may say, considering the difficulties that there are in the opposition of protected interests, that considerable progress has been made, and it is my firm conviction, knowing what the opinions of some of the leading men in Belgium and France are, that if the English papermakers had been more quiet, and had not kept up one general agitation about the rag question, which had roused the opposition of the papermakers abroad, it is far from improbable that we should have made greater progress than we have done. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the importance of the export of paper. He told us that the great paper making trade produced about,£8,000,000 worth per year, and that the value of the imported paper is £500,000. The fact is that the value of foreign paper imported in 1864, less exports, was £453,447. Now I want to know whether the trade of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 is to be laid prostrate by an import of that extent. But then the hon. and learned Gentleman has stated there is a considerable export of British made paper. I find that the value of the export of British made paper is £550,092, so that there is £100,000 worth more ex ported than imported. When we find that we have exported in value as much as we have imported, how can you lay prostrate this great interest? The hon. and learned Member says the British papermaker meets the foreign manufacturer in neutral markets, but he can only succeed in selling the highest qualities of paper in competition with the foreigner there. But that is just the description of paper in which there is the largest quantity of rags. I believe it is true that the paper in regard to which competition is most felt is precisely that in which the least quantity of rags is used. I quite admit that a very considerable portion of paper—writing and printingpaper—has fallen more than the excise. The hon. and learned Gentleman says it has fallen ¾d. more than the excise, and that the cheap press has got the benefit of that. I entirely sympathize with him on that point, and am very glad that the cheap press has got the excise duty, and ¾d. into the bargain. That has been a great public benefit which has been conferred, and I am glad to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman that in his plan he does not intend to take away that ¾d. I will now take the imports and exports in quantity. The Returns quoted by the hon. and learned Member were Returns of all kinds of paper, much of which formed no part of the question. What we have to deal with is rag made paper. There was a fair quantity of rags in the foreign paper imported for printing and writing. During three years that foreign paper amounted to 345,000 cwt., and I suppose that the whole make of paper must be 200,000,000 cwt. a year in England. The British paper exported during the same three years, ending 1864, amounted to 314,403 cwt.; so really what is the difference between one and the other? I find that the paper imported was only worth £2 11s. per cwt., while the English papermaker got for the paper he exported £3 11s.; so that there really was, in point of value, a greater amount of paper exported than there was imported, and as far as the quantity was concerned the ex ports of British paper and the imports of foreign paper were upon a par. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the great in crease in the manufacture of paper in this country was quite consistent with the existence of great distress in the trade. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the papermakers had improved their machinery and had made their plant produce a larger quantity of the manufactured article. Why, there cannot be a more wholesome result of competition. It appears to me that if there ever was an argument more suited than another to prove the wisdom of the policy that has been pursued it is the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that, with the same plant and the same machinery, the effect of competition has been to produce a larger quantity of the manufactured article. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman want any plan which may enable the papermakers to obtain pro fit by producing less? Because it appears to me that that must be a plan not either conducive to the interest of the trade or those of the public. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has read letters, I shall take the liberty of reading a short extract from a letter of a very leading firm in London, which consumes a large quantity of paper, Messrs. Cassell, Petter, and Galpin. They say—

"We consider that the outcry as to the adverse influence of the export duties levied on rags by foreign Governments proceeds from misapprehension of the state of the case. The facts of our own experience in reference to this question may be interesting and useful. Our firm are large consumers of paper of the very sorts concerning which the makers were most gloomy in their forebodings, and with regard to which they are most open to the competition of our Continental neighbours. The principle upon which we con duct our establishment is to buy in the cheapest market for cash, and we receive offers from all quarters for the supply of our staple material as printers and publishers, but foreigners and their agents here are unable to successfully compete with the English producer. With an average weekly consumption of about twenty-three tons of printing paper for our various publications, the proportion of foreign paper in this quantity is not more than one-sixteenth. It should not be lost sight of in the course of this controversy that esparto and other materials are fast superseding rags in the manufacture of a large proportion of the paper now produced. Even those papers which the foreigner has the best chance of disposing of in this market are made up, not of rags, but of ingredients not in any way affected by the question of duties. Machine and hand made writings, of which rags form the principal constituent, are produced by English makers without fear of competition; while the cheaper class of printings, concerning which they show the greatest timidity, are a description of article in which rags come to be a minor element. A large proportion of the paper used in the course of our trade contains no rags at all. … The consumption of paper in the business of our firm has nearly doubled since the repeal of the tax, and we venture to say that a smaller quantity of rags is used in the whole of our present supply than was consumed in the lesser supply which sufficed for our needs four or five years ago. The truth is, that a change is taking place in the trade in respect to both the means of production and the conditions under which it can be best carried on.'

This shows that we ought not precipitately to bind ourselves by any abstract Resolution to meddle with the paper trade of this country. A great change is taking place, I believe for the better; great improvements have already been adopted; and I think, if you were to interfere by any legislative support to an old system of manufacture, you would check invention, and you would be the means of throwing back that progress which I confidently believe is now going on, and which will end in placing the paper trade on a more safe and sure foundation than it has ever rested on before. I cannot believe that any man can seriously entertain the scheme proposed by the hon. Member. There is some plan of protection, rely upon it, in the background; and it would be, in my opinion, the greatest possible injustice to all other interests which have been subjected to free competition if we were to make an exception in favour of this manufacture. There is scarcely an argument used on behalf of the papermaker that I could not use, I believe with greater force, on behalf of the grower of wheat. I could show you that lands were cheaper, that labour was cheaper, and that local rates were less in some foreign countries from which wheat is allowed to be imported into this country than these things are in Eng land; but Parliament did not listen to these statements of special burdens; it applied the principle of free competition to all the interests of the country, and I contend that we must adhere to the principle we have hitherto acted upon, and not make the paper trade an exception. If the hon. and learned Gentleman be serious in desiring this plan of recouping the merchant importer of rags for the import duties paid upon them in foreign countries, he should, instead of asking the House to pledge itself to an abstract Resolution in favour of legislative interference, have brought in a Bill to effect his object. If the hon. Gentleman had brought in a Bill and had attempted to put into the clauses the details of his plan for paying the merchant importer of rags, he would have found himself beset by insuperable difficulties. Who is to say when rags come from Ham burg whether they are Hamburg rags free, or paid the export duties in Prussia or Russia? You cannot tell, and we know from our old experience of certificates of origin that nothing is more open to fraud; and I contend that if you were to adopt any plan of paying these duties, which importers of rags said had been paid by them in foreign countries, and for which payment some sort of voucher might be produced, you would open the door to a very flourishing trade at the expense of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In fact, the whole plan is beset with so many difficulties, and in itself appears so delusive, that I hope the House of Commons will not give any countenance to it by agreeing to the Resolution. The papermakers in their printed statement have not gone so far as to say that this £60,000 was equal to £600,000 on all the rags; they only say that it affects the price of all the rags in this country to a greater or less extent. My belief is that the rags in this country are raised in price by the effective demand of our papermakers, who are anxious to execute their orders and make their profits. They raise the price of English rags by their demands, and their desire to have a large trade renders it profitable to import foreign rags with their export duty, but it is at their own option. They are not compelled by any law to embark in the importation of foreign rags. There is no country so full of the raw material for paper making as England. We have a large population and an immense mercantile marine, and other sources of supply, and it appears to me that the papermakers must be left free and unfettered to carry on their trade as best they can. We have never regulated the laws of this country by the laws of foreign countries. We must act for ourselves, and to put on any duties by the way of retaliation, with the hope of getting certain returns, experience has proved to be delusive; and therefore I trust that, under these circumstances, the House of Commons will not reverse the policy which has been already accepted by the present Parliament by very large and repeated majorities.

said, that there would be no difficulty in proving whether the export duty had been paid upon rags by means of a certificate signed by the Consul at the port of shipment. A sufficient reason for his not asking leave to intro duce a Bill upon this subject was to be found in the circumstance that, according to the practice of the House, a private Member was not allowed to introduce a measure affecting trade. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed a desire that the paper trade should be free and unfettered. That was all that he wanted, and he believed that more would be done to wards the attainment of such a result by the adoption of the plan which he proposed than would be accomplished by the negotiations of the Government in a dozen years.

said, he rose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire and report to the House as to the mode in which the service of the Established Church is administered at the Church of St. Paul's, Brighton, of which the Rev. A. D. Wagner is perpetual curate, and especially as to that part of the service of the said Church called Sacramental Confession, as referred to by the said Rev. A. D. Wagner in recent proceedings before the magistrates at Trowbridge, Wiltshire, against Constance E. Kent; and generally to inquire into the like practices in other churches by clergy men of the Established Church. In justification of the Motion he might refer to Motions of a kindred nature which had been made during the present and previous Sessions, in reference especially to those proceedings of the Roman Catholic Church which affected the females professing that religion. The subject which had more recently attracted so much attention throughout the country was that which had arisen in the case of the unfortunate Constance Kent. The subject fixed itself especially upon the attention of the House, from the fact that the practice carried on at St. Paul's Church, Brighton, had come into direct collision with the law in our Courts of Justice. The terms "sacramental confession" and "seal of confession" were unknown to the laws of England, and unknown, as he believed, to the Church. They were a novelty, and a very formidable novelty, when introduced into our Church, and they were especially so when brought into collision with the administration of the law. The Roman Catholic Church deemed auricular confession a necessary and compulsory part of their religious service; while, so far as confession was adopted in the Church of England, according to the canons and rules of ecclesiastical law, it was entirely a voluntary act, and was in no way compulsory. He might quote a large number of authorities, but he would confine himself to that of the Bishop of Winchester, who, in a recent charge, ex pressing his view of auricular confession, stated that—

"The last matter which had engaged his attention was that of private confession—whether it was voluntary or obligatory. The canons before the Reformation recognized it, but the language of the formularies, of the Church gave no sanction to private confession, while by the homilies it was condemned. He believed the practice had been attended with the greatest danger; it was capable of being perverted to the vilest purposes, and was repugnant to the manly common sense and independent mind of the great mass of the English people."

He had received many letters detailing instances of evil consequences which had arisen from auricular confession. It appeared that Mr. Wagner did himself feel the pressure of the circumstances of the case upon him, for he had volunteered an explanation in the newspapers as to how it happened that this poor young woman, Constance Kent, had given a certain sum of money to his Church. A curate of Mr. Wagner had thought fit to furnish the public with a very minute and detailed account of what was the nature of the auricular confession as administered in his Church at Brighton. Nothing could be more clear from his exposition than this, that let Constance Kent—or any other person—only consent to subject herself to the process of confession, there was an end of all her troubles—she was "purified and cleansed," and need not for a moment think of any sins she had committed. From the moment their sins were confessed to another, they themselves would be free from all imputation. Well, the people of Brighton asked why Mr. Wagner called in the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) in order further to purify and cleanse the conscience of Constance Kent? Twenty-one months she had been under the control and guidance of Mr. Wagner and his assistants; and at the end of that time Mr. Wagner discovered that she was not completely purified and cleansed, and that nothing less than the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman, and the formidable services of the law, were necessary to complete the operation of satisfying her conscience. It was to give Mr. Wagner an opportunity of explaining these things, and to remove from the Church of England a very serious stigma, that he had ventured to ask for the Committee. The Bishop of London, on a recent occasion, when the subject was mooted in the House of Lords, stated that he very much deprecated those practices which were commonly known by the name of Puseyite or Tractarian practices, but that he had no such information of the practices as would enable him to take any effective steps for the correction of them. [The hon. Member was interrupted by cries of "Divide!" and other noises.] He begged the House to have patience while he disclosed, to the best of his ability, the task which he felt his duty imposed upon him. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] The prevalence of these practices was as notorious as the steeple under which the Wagnerite practices were carried on. They were most obnoxious to a great majority of the members of the Church of England; but the Bishop of London said that he had no knowledge of them except by anonymous communications. This statement of the Bishop's was a most marvellous one, for he held in his hand the affidavit of Alexander James Beresford Hope—a well known name—sworn in 1855, and put in as part of a defence in the case of "Westerton v. Liddell." In that case a churchwarden of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, endeavoured to put in force the law against the Rev. Mr. Liddell, the clergyman of that church, for practices inconsistent with the services of the Church of England, and which went on at St. Barnabas's. It was sworn by Mr. Hope, that in at least 200 churches chancel screens existed. That was one of the most obnoxious of these Puseyite arrangements. It also stated that in ninety-six churches the Lord's table was of stone, and there was another list of churches wherein candlesticks were in use. The judgment of Dr. Lushington showed the importance of candlesticks. Of the list of 400 or 500 churches given by Mr. Beresford Hope, where these obnoxious innovations existed, a great number were in the Bishop of London's own diocese—the very bishop who regretted that he had no power to interfere because he did not know of them except by anonymous communications. This was in 1855; but at the present time, from the lists published weekly in the Church Times, the news paper organ of the party, if that were any authority, the number was quadrupled. And yet the Bishop of London, who had asked for a million of money, towards which the Government was going to con tribute £15,000 a year, stated in the House of Lords that he knew nothing of these things, except by anonymous communications.

The Government contribution is, I believe, £15,000 in all.

said, he was under the impression it was £15,000 a year for some successive years. The Bishop said in his speech in the House of Lords—

The hon. Member cannot quote a speech made in the other House of Parliament.

It had been said, that whatever these grievances, it was most inexpedient to introduce the affairs of the Church into this House, and that they could be dealt with by the laws which regulated the Church. But he believed he was fully justified in introducing them even if in the case of this Mr. Wagner these practices bad not been brought, as it were, in collision with the laws of the country; and the more so as the Bishop of London was of opinion that the difficulties which presented themselves to the application of any remedies were absolutely insuperable. The Bishop said that he had instituted proceedings in respect to the practices of St. Alban's, Holborn; but that he despaired of bringing the matter to a satisfactory termination. If anything more than his Lordship's testimony on this point was required the House need only refer to the case of "Westerton v. Liddell," in which that model churchwarden, Mr. Westerton, for five years had endeavoured to enforce the law against the hon. and rev. Mr. Liddell who had been able to defy him. He had established in every court the fact that the law was on his side; lie bad had the decisions of Dr. Lushington, Dr. Dodson, and the Committee of Privy Council all in his favour. Yet Dr. Robertson, when applied to to enforce their monitions, said he had no jurisdiction, and the whole of the proceedings were futile and fruitless. The judgment of Dr. Lushington in the "Westterton v. Liddell" case, showed why stone communion tables, altar screens, and candlesticks, things perfectly innocent in themselves, had become of importance, and had been suppressed in old times, be cause they led, or might lead, to the revival of superstitious practices. If it were said that if he did not like the Church of England he might leave it, his answer was that he declined to leave it. And here he must express his disapproval of the course taken by the right hon. Gentle man (Sir George Grey) at St. George's-in-the-East, to which church he sent a policeman for every three of the congregation to suppress the expression of the just and legitimate indignation of the people. He could quote whole pages of facts to justify the institution of an inquiry into the nature and extent of these Wagnerite practices, which the Bishop of London joined with him in deprecating. It was impossible to exaggerate the cruelty, the hardship, the pain, and the suffering inflicted undeservedly upon members of the Church of England and their families by them. When he said "undeservedly" he meant this—the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) from time to time brought before the notice of the House cases of hardship inflicted upon inmates of Roman Catholic houses of religion; but those persons had more or less accepted the position, the duties, and the obligations of the religion they professed. But in the cases to which he (Mr. Whalley) was referring earnest members of the Church of England found themselves and their families involved in a net, out of which they had no more power of escape than fishes of the sea when encircled by the meshes of the fisherman. That this was no imaginary grievance he might mention that a memorial had been presented to Her Majesty on this subject, the signatures to which extended to the length of twelve yards. The hon. Member, whose speech had been listened to with great impatience, concluded by moving the Resolution.

seconded the Motion.

I think the House will agree with me that it would be most inexpedient to grant the Committee which the hon. Member asks for. His first ground for the Motion is the legal proceedings which have taken place in regard to Constance Kent; but I believe the House will concur with me that this is not a proper time to discuss proceedings which are in the course of judicial investigation. At the same time I may say that there can be no doubt whatever that the law of the land does not recognize any privilege by which a clergyman is entitled to with hold any evidence in courts of law which may be material to the interests of justice. I believe the magistrates of Trowbridge did not admit that privilege, and that they did not allow Mr. Wagner to withhold from them any evidence that they thought essential to enable them to arrive at a conclusion as to the course they ought to pursue. I may also state that on the trial of Constance Kent—should she he placed upon her trial—if the evidence of Mr. Wagner should be deemed material, and he refuses to answer any question put to him, it will be for the presiding Judge to deal with him as with any other witness who refuses to give evidence essential to the ends of justice. Another ground upon which the hon. Gentleman supported his Motion for an inquiry was that certain rumours had reached him as to the mode in which the public service was conducted in the church of St. Paul's at Brighton, and in other churches in other places. I do not think mere rumour is a sufficient ground upon which an inquiry such as that proposed by the hon. Member ought to be instituted, even if it were desirable on other grounds. I have to express my regret that there should be in any churches belonging to the Established Church practices which are inconsistent with that pure and simple form of worship which prevails in the great majority of our churches; but, at the same time, the question is whether these practices are or are not sanctioned by ecclesiastical law. The hon. Gentleman argues that because the Bishop of London has stated that there is great difficulty in obtaining proof of the illegality of the practices in cases where a breach of the ecclesiastical laws has been committed, this inquiry ought to be instituted as to the mode in which the services are performed in all the churches through out the country, in order to obtain evidence upon which to found criminal proceedings. It is quite clear that if these practices are contrary to ecclesiastical law, they would afford matter upon which criminal proceedings might be taken, and for which penalties might be enforced. And I think the House will hesitate before it institutes an inquiry in order to obtain evidence on which criminal proceedings are to be founded. It is said that the Bishop of London has intimated his intention of taking proceedings in the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and if this results in the proof that there has been a breach of the ecclesiastical law, the law must be allowed to take its course, but I hope the House will not appoint a Committee in order to interfere with those proceedings. I feel bound to express my belief that discussions of this kind do not tend to public edification, and I trust the House will not be disposed to enter into a long debate upon the subject, but will be prepared at once to express its opinion as to the expediency or inexpediency of appointing a Committee.

said, he concurred with the right hon. Baronet as to the in expediency of discussing such matters in that House, but he was compelled to bring the matter before them because there was no other way in which they could be specially dealt with. He hoped the House would grant the inquiry he asked for.

said, it appeared to him the question raised by this Motion was whether or not it was expedient, if the law in its present state was inefficient, that they should alter the law. It was notorious that in the metropolis, as well as in many other parts of the country, the pure and simple form of worship which members of the Church of England had a right to expect, and which up to within a quarter of a century ago would have been found in all the churches of England, had been departed from, and the question was whether it should continue to be performed, or whether the service of the Church of England henceforth in those places should he undistinguishable from that of the Church of Rome. He should be exceedingly sorry to make any observations which a Roman Catholic would consider a reflection on his mode of worship; but speaking as a Protestant, and from his own observation, he must say that the manner in which worship was carried on in some churches of this metropolis, although it might appeal to the fears and superstition of savages, was an insult to the commonsense of the people, and it was a disgrace to the Protestant part of the community that they should allow it to be carried on. If the law did permit this it was a gross scandal that it should be so. If the law did not permit it, it was a re- flection on the heads of the Church that they did not put the law into operation. He thought that the members of the Church of England had a right to know whether they were in a Protestant or in a Roman Catholic Church. There was the case of St. George's-in-the-East, where the Government did that which was probably right—sent a body of police to pre vent a breach of the peace, because the service was so repugnant to the feeling of the people. And what had taken place? Why, that the Rev. Bryan King, the former Incumbent of that parish, had gone over to the Church of Rome. He said it was the duty of those who had the conduct of these matters in the Church to see that the law was carried out, and if the law did not prevent such practices, there ought to be a Committee of Inquiry into the subject. This led him to inquire, what did they remunerate the bishops so highly for—to the extent of hundred of thousands a year—unless it were to superintend the performance of religious service in the churches of the country? If the bishops were unequal to the task of controlling the clergy because of the insufficiency of the law let the law be amended. He was sure that there was in this country such a growing feeling on this subject that un less those in authority took up the question the people would help themselves to a remedy in spite of any police. He should support the hon. Member if he went to a division, but he would advise him to be content with having ventilated the question, and not press the Motion to a division.

then rose to move that this House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House, in order that the Chairman might be directed to move that leave be given to bring in a Bill for better enforcing the Law against illegal usages and ornaments in the Church of England, and especially in respect to the practice of Auricular Confession. He said that letters had reached him respecting several Protestant ladies who had been locked up in religious establishments, and he feared that the tendency in all these cases was that the girls lost their reason. As a sample of these institutions he would refer to the one presided over by Miss Sellon. He believed that many of these institutions were possessed of considerable revenues, which they obtained from persons who were induced to become inmates, and he hoped the House would allow him to intro duce a Bill on the subject.

said, that he could not consent to the introduction of a Bill of the provisions of which he was entirely ignorant. It might be desirable to amend the law with relation to clergy discipline, but this Bill appeared to be direct ed only against two particular practices, and as its introduction would lead to the renewal of discussions which were very much to be deprecated, he hoped that the House would not allow it to be brought in.

said, that in moving for the appointment of a Select Committee on the Leeds Court of Bankruptcy, it was not his intention to make any re marks in support of that Motion, which he understood the Government did not intend to oppose. He could not, how ever, sit down without alluding to a re mark which fell from the Attorney General the other night with reference to Mr. Wilde. Mr. Wilde had long been a member of the Bar; he was a nephew of the late Lord Chancellor Truro, and a relation of Sir James Wilde, the present Judge of the Probate and Divorce Court; he was also related to many gentlemen in the City of London, and had a large circle of friends, all of whom had read with great pain the remarks of the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman used the words "personal defalcation" in the same sentence in which he mentioned Mr. Wilde's name. He was told by those who had known Mr. Wilde ever since he was a young man that there was not a more honourable or upright gentleman in Eng land, and that even his most intimate friends had never known him to be guilty of any act which was in the slightest de gree tainted with dishonour. They were therefore astounded at the hard expressions, which fell from the lips of the Attorney General, than whom there was not, in or out of this House, a more honourable man, and they were anxious to learn upon what grounds or authority he made use of such expressions. He was sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would in justice to Mr. Wilde, to the House, and to himself, make a satisfactory explanation. In conclusion, the hon. Member moved for a Select Committee to inquire into all the circumstances connected with the resignation of Mr. Henry Sedgwick Wilde as Registrar of the Court of Bankruptcy at Leeds; the granting him a pension; the appointment of Mr. Welch to the said office; and whether he was to resign his appointment in favour of the Hon. Richard Bethell, and receive another appointment in London.

Sir, nobody can call in question the propriety of the discretion which the hon. Gentleman has exercised in not anticipating by a statement in this House the inquiry which the Lord Chancellor himself has desired should be entered upon. His Lord ship is of opinion that, although explanations have been given by me which he had reason to believe would have been completely satisfactory, the moment there was any appearance that any considerable number of Members of the House of Commons thought that the inquiry which has been moved for by the hon. Member would be in any degree useful or satisfactory it was most desirable that they should be gratified in this respect. I must own, speaking entirely for myself, that I should have been glad if the hon. Gentleman's own feelings had led him to omit from his Motion the words at the end which seemed to imply at the outset a question as to the truth of the answers which were given in this House. However, that is for the hon. Member to determine; he has thought fit to ask for such an inquiry, and that inquiry the Lord Chancellor is anxious should take place. With respect to myself, I can as sure the hon. Gentleman that nothing could possibly have been more surprising to me than to be informed, as I was by Mr. Wilde himself privately, that the words which I used on a former occasion were thought by anybody to convey directly or indirectly the idea of an association of his name with pecuniary defalcations. The words which I used were that complaints had been made in the Report of Mr. Commissioner Ayrton of certain irregularities in the office which was filled by Mr. Wilde, "not extending," I added, "I believe to personal defalcations." My reason for saying that was, that the expression "irregularities" being a vague one, no one could say what might be intended to be coverred by it, and as had no reason whatever to imagine that anything of that serious nature had been imputed to Mr. Wilde, I was anxious to prevent the possibility of such a construction being placed upon he words which I had used. I regret that I did not use a more positive form of expression than "I believe;" but the reason why I expressed myself so was that I had not at that time read all the papers, therefore could only speak according to the information which I had received in my communications with those to whom I resorted for information. I was not led to suppose that the irregularities imputed were of that serious character. I was desirous clearly to exclude such a construction, as far as I was concerned, and it is matter of very great regret to me to find that the use of the words which I employed for that purpose has been painful to Mr. Wilde or his friends. I will not now enter into the question whether the charges against Mr. Wilde were well or ill-founded, but the nature of the allegations were simply this:—He was alleged to have certified certain accounts as having been submitted to the Commissioner of the district and sanctioned by him, when, in fact, they had not been seen by him; he was said to have been in the habit of taxing the bills of messengers without calling for the production of vouchers for the money stated to have been paid; and he was said to have borrowed money from both official assignees and messengers of the court, to the injury of his official efficiency. I do not like to state these charges without mentioning, which I can upon the authority of the Lord Chancellor, that his Lordship was not dissatisfied with the explanation of Mr. Wilde as far as it related to the point of borrowing money. It appeared that he had borrowed only the very small sum of £25 from one of the messengers, and about £100 from the official assignee some time before, which he repaid while the inquiry was going on. I think that the Lord Chancellor will not be displeased at my stating, in the exercise of my own discretion, what I have from him, that he was not dissatisfied with Mr. Wilde's explanation upon that point. As to the other charges, for not taking proper care in checking accounts, which it was his duty to check, and irregularly certifying certain accounts as having been sanctioned by the Commissioners which, to the full extent, did not appear to have received that sanction, I should be sorry if there were anything exaggerated in these charges. I express no opinion as to the extent to which they were warranted, but most assuredly I do not understand that any charge of a pecuniary nature of any sort or kind has been brought against Mr. Wilde.

I think it very un fair that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have entered upon the opinions of the Lord Chancellor on the subject. I forbore to make any ex parte statements, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has not, I think, acted fairly. I may now be allowed to say that Mr. Wilde denies having done anything improper, and declares that he is able to explain away any charge that may be made against him. I have gone fully into the matter with him, and I believe that Mr. Wilde is innocent of every charge brought against him. He is ready to go before any Committee, and all his anxiety has been that a Committee should be appointed in order that he may have an opportunity of clearing his character.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) has acted quite right in not making any statement on this occasion. Whatever that statement might have been, and however accurate, it must have been an ex parte one; and I think it would be a great impropriety to make an ex parte statement when a Committee is to be appointed. I say nothing of the case of Mr. Wilde. I know nothing of the question relating to him; but it is due to an absent man to say, that from the admission of the Attorney General, and from what has transpired, the charges made against him seem of a frivolous character. What the House is interested in, and the country also, let me impress it on the Government, is, that the inquiry should be a real and bonâ fide inquiry. That the inquiry should be, as far as our forms and powers admit of, one of a judicial nature. And what I would suggest to the Government for their consideration is, and I hope that they will adopt it, that it should not be referred to a mere Select Committee, in which both sides of the House are represented. Upon a question of this kind the existence of party ought not to be admitted, and I think we ought to leave it to the Committee of Elections. Let the appointment of a Committee be left to the Committee of Elections. I think it should be composed of not less than seven and not more than nine Members, but this may be left for further consideration. The House, I am sure, will accept the judgment of such Committee with confident trust and satisfaction; and what is of more importance, it would act on the public mind in the same spirit. I trust, therefore, we shall understand that these matters will not be left to the mere routine method and be referred to a Select Committee in the usual manner; but that they will be referred to a Committee appointed by the Committee of Elections—the only course, I am confident, that will give satisfaction to the House or the country.

I should like to know how the Government feel as to what the right hon. Gentleman proposes. I am quite sure this ought to be a judicial inquiry, and that the country will not be satisfied if this is made a party question. I therefore hope that, in order to withdraw this question from party considerations, we shall have some intimation that the Government accept the proposal.

I have no hesitation in saying that the Government entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) that this inquiry ought to be thorough, searching, and impartial, and if the House is of opinion that it will be best conducted by a limited number of Gentlemen nominated by the Committee of Selection the Government will be ready to adopt that course. I apprehend, how ever, that notice should be given by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand), and if that is done, and the House should concur in the proposal, there will be no opposition on the part of the Government.

I am glad that this inquiry is to be granted by Her Majesty's Government. The present case, however, is not the only one affecting the high legal personage in question. I regret very much to say that there are painful rumours connected with another case of a similar kind, in which a highly respectable gentleman has been attempted to be forced out of his position. That attempt, however, has failed, and that gentleman has successfully resisted an inquiry for which there was no foundation. That inquiry having been instituted without sufficient cause naturally excited much sympathy on the part of friends, and some excitement in the county in which he was a resident. I will not, however, go into that case on the present occasion, and I will only express a hope that the Lord Chancellor will come out of the inquiry unstained. At the same time, it will be perfectly impossible to allow all these rumours, which I trust are unfounded, to circulate without full and searching inquiry.

Sir, as a member of the professsion the head of which is concerned in this inquiry, I must express my hearty concurrence in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) and my satisfaction that the Government have acceded to it. It is an inquiry in which I and every other Member of the legal profession feel the deepest interest. I have been long on terms of intimacy with the noble and learned Lord in question, for whose great talents I have the deepest admiration, and whose character I most sincerely hope will come clear out of the inquiry. It is not a light matter that such imputations should be cast upon the head of the profession to which I belong. There is nothing in which the country has a greater interest than that the administration of justice should be pure and the head of it above suspicion. I support the inquiry because I act on the belief that these imputations are unfounded; but I agree that such an inquiry ought not to be conducted by a miscellaneous Committee selected in the usual manner from both sides of the House, and which might be open to party considerations. I would even suggest that no Gentleman of the legal profession should be on the Committee, for the inquiry would be one—affecting as it does the character and position of the head of the profession—in which it is impossible that any of us could sit with satisfaction to ourselves or advantage to the country. In the hands of a Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection an impartial inquiry will take place, which will, I hope and believe, re move those suspicions which have so long attached to the noble and learned Lord's name. On the other hand, if it should turn out that there has been a practice of driving out of office persons who are capable of remaining in office and discharging their duties for the purpose of replacing them by the friends and connections of the noble and learned Lord, no man will more decidedly join than myself in condemning practices so discreditable to the head of the profession, and so calculated to bring the administration of justice into reproach.

Sir, I am not going to offer any opposition to the proposal that this matter should be referred to a Committee to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. I do not share in the absolute belief in the impartiality of such a Committee which appears to prevail; but that opinion, I know, is cherished with the fondness of a religious belief, and I should be sorry to disturb it. I shall be glad to see this impartial Committee when it is nominated, and I will indulge in the charitable hope that it will realize all that is expected of it. But I own I am alarmed at the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins). His proposal to strike out all the lawyers would simply be braining the Committee—it would simply be taking out all its brains. At all events, it would be taking out all the brains that are available for this purpose. What possible idea can we have of a judicial inquiry from which all lawyers are excluded? Who is to cross-examine? Who is to probe the case—who but those whose regular training and talent in the performance of the duties that are necessary to the discovery of the truth, which do not come to a man instinctively, but only after long study and experience? In addition to the five or seven impartial Members I should prefer to have two thoroughly partial lawyers, whose duty it would be to conduct the case on either side. Because I do not see how the case is to be proved at all, or how these charges are to be followed home, if you merely throw them down before the Committee and tell the Members to make the best of them. There is another point which I would also suggest. The Government must be well aware of the truth of what the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Heygate) says, that these are not the only rumours which have been current. Several of these bankruptcy appointments have been subjected to imputations precisely similar. I do not suggest that those imputations are true, because I have, of course, no knowledge on the subject; but there is a strong primâ facie case on their behalf, and I do not think the public will be satisfied unless these charges, especially those which have taken a palpable form, are referred to this Committee. Another reason is that, if the promoters of this case are to be believed, the issue may be whether the Lord Chancellor is to be believed or the Hon. Richard Bethell. That I am told is the issue that will be presented to the Committee. Everybody knows that in issues of this kind you have to look to private character and other corroborative circumstances to judge between the wit nesses whose testimony is opposed to each other. For that purpose it is necessary that the Committee should have the power of examining into the mode in which the Lord Chancellor has made other bank ruptey appointments which have become the subject of public animadversion. Be cause, if it turn out that his general appointments have been pure, it would afford a strong presumption in his favour in the present case; and, on the other hand, if it should turn out that a general system of nepotism bordering on corruption has been going on, there would be a strong presumption that the evidence in this case which bears against the Lord Chancellor is reliable I hope the Government will consent to extend the basis of the inquiry so as to include one or two other prominent cases, and I hope also that the constitution of the Committee will be such as not only to insure an impartial judgment, but a thorough investigation.

Sir, I really think we are going a little too far in the matter at present. As the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ferrand) had given notice of moving for this Committee, I came down like other Members who were interested in the subject, to hear his statement. I was rather surprised to learn, when I came to the House, that the Government had consented to the Committee, and thought that nothing could be more fair and ready than the statement of the Lord Chancellor that he courted inquiry. The hon. Gentleman opposite very properly abstained from making any statement in moving for the Committee. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) made a suggestion with which I entirely agree, which was received in a very proper spirit by the Government, the Home Secretary stating that they desired the inquiry should he searching and judicial, and therefore they agreed to the nomination of the Committee by the Committee of Selection. I think it would have been better if the discussion had ended there. But the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), not satisfied with leaving the matter to the Committee of Selection, made a suggestion that there should be no lawyers upon the Committee, whereupon we have the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) rising immediately afterwards and declaring that the Committee would be useless with out lawyers, and he hoped that the inquiry would be extended beyond the case referred to in the notice of Motion to other cases which had been spoken of in public. If, as is supposed, we are approaching the end of the Session, it is certain that the inquiry thus extended would not be brought to a close until the very end of the Session. It appears to me that in the first instance this particular case should be submitted to a Committee, which, after a judicial inquiry, will report to the House, and upon that report a discussion will arise upon all points connected with the appointments made by the Lord Chancellor, and it will be competent for any hon. Member to make any other matter the subject of a separate Motion. I do not think we ought to over burden this Committee with a number of cases, which would lead to an inconveniently protracted inquiry.

I am at a loss to understand the crime imputed to the Lord Chancellor. I have always understood that Lord Chancellors are in the habit of exercising great patronage, and that they favour their relations. If anybody believes that they exercise it for the benefit of strangers, or of merit, he must be very innocent indeed. It happens that at the present moment there are three sinecures of £8,000 each which have been enjoyed for half a century, and one indeed for nearly a century. Talk of exercising patronage for the benefit of relatives! Why the practice has been associated with the history of the country since the time of Bacon. I believe that the present attack upon an individual is suggested more by political motives than by justice.

The hon. Gentleman has wasted a vast deal of virtuous indignation, but he does not seem to notice that there is a vast distinction between a Lord Chancellor who simply exercised his patronage in favour of his relatives, which, no doubt, had frequently been done, and a Lord Chancellor who took a course by which offices became vacant in order to fill them up by the appointment of his relatives. It is a slur upon the profession of which the able and learned Lord is the head, and a stigma upon the many eminent men who have preceded him in his high office, to say that such a course as I have described must have been followed by them. I am not going to prejudge the case, nor to refer to rumours that are current, but I would say, cast off all party and personal feelings, let the matter be fully and impartially inquired into, and then the opinion of the country will be that the proper course had been taken to ascertain the truth or falsehood of statements affecting the conduct of a high officer of State.

As the question is to be referred to a Select Committee, I do not think it is desirable that this discussion should be prolonged. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) in a manner which became him, made no statement in moving for the Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) also abstained from discussing the subject. I regret that the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) should have enlarged the discussion, and I think it would be better now to agree to the Motion at once.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) objects to extending the inquiry, because it would occupy too much time; but that is hardly a view which the House ought to adopt, although it appears to me that there are serious reasons why the Committee should not proceed beyond the question which is immediately before us. I think it would be a dangerous thing if upon vague insinuations unaccompanied by facts, such as we have heard from the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Heygate), the House was immediately to set about inquiring into them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud says, that if you embark upon an extended inquiry it would not be finished until the end of the Session, but that is not a reason for not extending the inquiry if it be needful. My objection is that the House ought not to be carried away by all sorts of rumours, and that we ought not to recognize any facts to be inquired into until some hon. Member holds himself responsible for their presentation to the House. When any grievance has a solid foundation there is no difficulty in finding some Member to bring it before the House.

said, he rose to move the second reading of the Bill introduced by him to amend the law of libel. The time had, he believed, come when the law of libel should be so altered as to remove anomalies which he hoped to show existed in it. The subject was one that could be considered in the present day apart from party politics, because the time was long gone by when the law of libel was used as an engine to stifle opinion or urge party views. A Bill was introduced by Mr. Fox, which had become the Magna Charta of the press of this country. That Bill took away from the Judges the right of saying what was a libel and transferred it to the jury. Various unsuccessful at tempts were made between 1830 and 1837 to amend the law of libel, but nothing was done until 1843. In the year 1843 a Committee was appointed to consider the law as it then existed, and on their Report a Bill was introduced by Lord Campbell, and was known in the profession as "Lord Campbell's Act." It effected several beneficial alterations in the law, but it did not carry out all the Amendments which the noble and learned Lord wished to see adopted. In 1856 an action for libel was brought against the proprietor of a Durham newspaper, for publishing a speech delivered at a public meeting, and excited considerable attention. In consequence of the decision in that case, Lord Campbell introduced a second Bill, which did not pass. Several of its provisions were embodied in the present measure. As the law now stands, a party who considers himself libelled might proceed either by civil action or by indictment in a criminal court against the defendant. He had divided his Bill into two parts; the first related to criminal proceedings, and the second to civil proceedings, but he did not propose to interfere with the jurisdiction of the Queen's Bench in granting criminal informations in cases of libel. Criminal proceedings involved a stigma on the person charged, and a malicious person anxious to carry out malicious views might resort to criminal proceedings, whereby he closed the mouth of the defendant, who, if he could be examined, might be the only person who could speak to the truth or falsehood of the charge. The defendant had no right of challenge; the prosecutor had. It was a harassing mode of proceeding, and might be kept hanging over the head of a party for an indefinite period of time. It also involved the person proceeded against in a great expense. Often it had been made an engine of oppression. These were anomalies which ought no longer to exist. In Scotland there could be no private prosecution for libel. There the aggrieved party must proceed by civil action for damages, a course which, if adopted in this country, would give the defendant an opportunity of being heard in his own defence. He did not go so far as to propose the abolition of criminal prosecutions for libel, because there might be cases in which the proceeding by indictment was the preferable one. But he proposed this limitation, that no criminal prosecution for libel should be instituted without the consent of the Attorney or Solicitor General. He also proposed that in every prosecution for libel the defendant should be admissible as a witness. There was a Bill before the House for making this applicable to all cases; but in cases of libel such a provision was especially desirable, for the prosecutor had the power of instituting a civil proceeding, and he might adopt the criminal process merely for the malicious purpose of closing the defendant's mouth. So far with regard to proceeding by indictment or criminal information. With regard to civil proceeding, the main provision of the Bill was to make persons who delivered libellous speeches at public meetings where reporters were present, answerable to the party libelled—instead of the newspaper proprietors—as if they had written and published the libel themselves. There was a great distinction, as was well known, between the law of slander and the law of libel. He did not think that distinction ought to be allowed to continue in cases where a party made a libellous speech at a public meeting for the very purpose of publishing it to the world.

said, it had been suggested that it was very desirable, when an hon. Member was displeased with the state of the House, that he should rise in his place and publicly make that statement. He was displeased with the then appearance of the House, and he begged to call the Speaker's attention to the circumstance.