The Sun. — London, England, 1852-06-15 00:00:00

I think' he was not to be blamed for that part of his arrange ment. We demand a payment of money from the Tuscan Government; they say, " We-give you the sum, but we give it as an act of generosity," denying the responsibility, and denying also that if any similar case should arise they would be bound to make good the injury done to a British subject. Well, if her Majesty's Government were satisfied the better Way_ would have been to say, " We take the money in our sense, and, whatever you may say to the contrary, if a similar case should occur again, we will compel pea to give compensation.— (Hear, hear.) We do not care a pin for your assertion, that you are net responsible: we tell you that you are, and that we will make you responsible."—(Hear, hear, and load cheers.) The present state of things is not one which need lead to any serious interruption of the friendly relations_ between this country and Tuscany—relations which the Tuscan Govern ment, evidently think we attach iefitaitely more importance to than I think is attached to them by any one in this country.—(Oh, and laughter.) Of course, we should be sorry to break .off friendly relations with Tuseany or any other Government, but somehow I think we should survive such an event.—(Laughter.) With regard to the state of Tuscany I will say that I quite agree with the Government in thinking it a matter of great importance to maintain tt principle of the independence of that country, but Ldo not think that you maintain its independence by compelling it to pay for something which has been done by another country.—(Hear.) It is, something like making Tuscany the whipping-boy of Austria.—( Hear, and laughter. ) I this that a better practical lessen might have been read by applyil in the present instance, to Austria.—(Hear.) The practical lesson read to Tusc an y is this—and it is one that is °pea able to all small st a t es • "You say you have practically so r rendered your independence, and have admitted a foreign garrison, over whom you Ilene no control; well, we will make you pay for the conduct of drat garnson." There is a moral hi that, but I am, not sure whether on European grounds the lesson would not have been better read to other. powers—( Hear, hear)—by saying to them, "If you taw advantage of your superior force to occupy with a garr son another state, mind you shall be responsible for the conduct of that garrison, and if • that garrison injures a British subject we will come to yon."—(Hear, hear, atid loud cheers.) Both lessons might be good, hut I am not sure that the latter would not be in a European sense tfie better of the two.—(Hear, hear.) I 'am very much in terested in the independence of Tuscany, and I must sety that these papers call the serious attention of the Home and the country to the unfortunate position of a large portion of the Italian. statese-e(Hear, hear.) . The Italians are a people endowed with very &eat and eminent qualities; they are gifted with great intellectual ability; they have 'shown themselves in former times not inferior as statesmen, and in political knowledge and cepa-• city, to the people of any other part of Europe, and it is lamentable to - see the 'present state of Tuscany, of the Roman States, and of Naples. —(Hear, hear.) . It is difficult to say in which of these states the greatest degree of misgovern ment prevails. The .Government of Austria desire that Use people of Italy should draw a coniparison favourable to themselves between that part of Italy which they govfrrn and that part which other Governments rule over; but, 'Eke the gentleman front the sister island, who complained to I:.'‘is bootmaker that whereas he bad ordered him to make oine boot bigger than another, he had only made one smaller than the other, so the Austrian Government, instead of making such a comparison that the Italians should say, - "Tile. Lombard and Venetian states are better governed than we are," only lead them to say that there are other states worse governed.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) I believe there is no 'example of misgovernment, of cruelty, of illegality, of violence, of abuse of power of every sort and kind equal to that which prevails at present in the Neapolitan and Ro man states.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and cheers.) It is a disgrace to modern Europe. In Tuscany things are not so bad, but the people are exposed perpetuelly to acts of licentious violence from a foreign garrison. This occupa tion of the Roman . States in particular, and of Tuscany, did not escape the attention of the late Government. It is evi dent that that occupation cannot cease except by a common understanding between the Government of France and the Government of Austria. The French would not evacuate Roes le until Austria had abandpped Tuscany, and in like manner the Austrians would not quit Tuscany until the French hied consented to leave Rome. We were told, indeed, that no- . thing of this sort could be, done until the month of May had passed, and there was much force in the arguments then toed, but the month of May has now gone by.—(Hear, hear.) I do entreat her Majesty's Government to turn their minds to this 'question. It is one that really concerns not merely the welfare and happiness of one of the most interesting pon tions of the people of Europe, but it is one which concert +s great international principles. I should hope. that he , r Majesty's Government, being on good and friendly terms with the two Governments mainly interested in the decision of this matter, will exert that influence which justly belongs to the Government of this country to persuade the Govern ment of France to put an end to the anomalous mid irregular state of things which now prevails in a great part of Italy.-- ( Hear, hear.) I shall be told perhaps that the state of the Roman States is such that if the French garrison return great disturbances would take place, but I would remind the Government of what passed in 1831 and 1832, when the five great Powers of Europe gave to the then Pope advice with regard to the improvement and the internal organization of his Government, which had it been acted upon would have secured, I am confident, the tranquillity of the States which he governs. Some such - arrangement might now with ad• vantage be adopted—(Hear) - but no practical steps has yet been taken with a view to those improvements then recom mended, and which are now more wanted than ever—(Hear, hear.) I have to apologise to the House'for the time that I have trespassed on its attention, but the question is one whic h I am sure most - engage the sympathy of every man in this country ; and I am persuaded that if the Government take it up in the spirit which I think they are disposed to do, some great good may yet be done By their interference. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I sin ex tremely glad that in the course of this debate we have been favoured with the opinion of the Noble Lord (Palmerston) the Member for Tiverton. Oa these subjects the Noble Lord is a.very high authority; and I am sure that the temper and tone with which he treated the questioq to-night will lend additional influence to the opinion he has expressed.— (Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, we have been informed by the Noble Lord (J. Russell), the Member for the City of Lon don, is a very high authority, because he understands the business of The department in question.—(Hear, hear.) One is rather tempted to ask the Noble Lord (J. Russell) why, under such circumstances, he turned the Noble Lord out (Cheers.) When he contrasts the abilities of his Foreign Secretary with the Foreign Secretary whose conduct we have now to defend, we cannot forget the remarkable circum stances under which the two Noble Lords separated.—( Hear. ) These cases, in which an individual injury —if I may use the expression—is experienced in a foreign country by one of her Majesty's subjects, although not so important at the outset as those in which the nationality of • the country. is concerned, are really, from .that very circumstance, the most. difficult and most troublesome cases to deal with. The Noble and Gallant Member for Middlesex ( Hr. Osborne ), who spoke in his usual airy tone—(Laughter) —told us, " It is very easy to settle these things. Look at the case of Mir. Russell, our consul at New Grenada. The people of New Grenada collected in great numbers, insulted and ill-treated him, and seized his papers; and the Noble Lord (Palmer ston) directly ordered a British force, which proceeded to New Grenada, and reparation was immediately given." Yes, but that was a case in which the nationality of the country was deeply concerned. • No doubt when a consul, Who, 'in South America, may . be looked upon as a euasi diplomatist, as representing in a degree the authority, if not. the Crown of England, is ill-treated by the people to whom he is sent, the remedy is very apparent, and when the means are at hand, as they always are in that quarter, nothing can be more prompt than the result which is obtained. But in the case in question there were none of these circumstances. The nationality of the country was not at all concerned; and although it was an outrageous, wanton, and cruel act, still, as Lord blalmesbury very properly said, it was an accidental one. And I was quite surprised at the elaborate manner 4a which the Noble Lord (Russell) attempted to show, by the use of these two epithets, that there was inconsistency in the language of the Secretary of State. In my opinion the words are perfectly consistent, and they clearly and accu rately describe the insult. Then we are told we did not apply for redress in the right quarter; that we °tight not to have gone to Tuscany, but to Austria for redress. - I shall not defend the conduct of the Government by reference to thatof Lord Granville, or any other Minister; whether right or wrong, it was founded on principles they had adopted after the most mature deliberation' and anxious in quiry. In our opinion, if, there be a state which maintains diplomatic relations with her Majesty, with those public rights there must be correlative duties; and it was our opinion that, as Tuscany is recognised and treated by us as an inde pendent state, an outrage to a British subject in Tuscany ought to be brought before` the notice' of the Tuscan Govern ment. The Noble Lord (Palmerston) has done justice to the courtesy which, throughout the business, has been exhibited by the Austrian Government. He says they behaved with great sympathy and consideration, and asks why we did not go at once to the stronger - power which vir tually committed this outrage. I have no doubt Austria would have been very willing that we should have sought is this instance reparation from her, as it would ' have been a virtual acknowledgment of her supremacy in Tuscany.— (Cries of "Hear, hear.") It would have been very agreeable for Austria that we should, without difficulty, have treated Tuscany as a medlatised Power. But that is hot part of the policy which her Majesty's Ministers wish to maintain with rererence to Italy. I think the Noble Lord (Palmerston) has treated this subject in a manner more superficial than becomes one who is so well acquainted with it. I think he might have foreseen that, under some circum stances, the power - of holding Tuscany responsible in this controversy might be of very great importance to'England, and that the time might come, and circumstance might arise—if Austria retained and wanted to retain her position in Tuscany—when it might be of the greatest importance to England to show herself in the ports of Tuscany in a Manner which might considerably influence the - decision of Austria on subjects of very great importance. But if, in the first instance of a misunderstanding taking place—because a convention has been entered into between Tuecany and Austria which we have never recognised nee acknowledged —we are to say practically, " Henceforth Tuscany is only a province of the Austrian empire, and we must go to Vienna for redress for injuries received in Tuscany"—that is a doc trine I could riot sanction ; and lam sure it would not be At t oantnhye that y ra t rate it principle;ki t . d ßo e u s twe lint and sanctioned by the Noble L or d if h e were i n a more respon siblethe they latepos were Gti o w o nv i .se—(ear.) I t e : n e t r .2c coursete seemw were r think that t idle at Vienna. Though we did not officially call upon Austrii to make reparation, we exercised that influence we possessed at that Coart in a manner which was calculated to facilitate and accomplish a friendly and satisfactory result. But I acknowledge I have heard nothing from the Noble Lord, for a moment to induce me to believe t hat it was the duty of a British Minister, under the circumstances—an out rage being committed on a British subject in Tuscany —to have sought satisfaction from •Austria.— ( Hear, hear.) The next cons id era ble point in this ease is, that referring to wh a t h a s been called the only means in which the Secretary of State en deavoured to obtain reparation for this injury. le .e not hing of 3r• say nothing M ather further than that he was a resp s ee"... table Englishman p l ac ed under circumstances of great diffi- culty, circu mstances which, from his previous habits of life little experience of . He a pp ears to have conducted' himself with discret ion and g ood sense; and Clucted he had had his conduct or language would, any attempt to cri ticise b o th in ta ate and good feeling.— I think, be wanting I a m to:d that the Secretary of (Hear, hear.) B u t when State 'has sent for 31r. Math er, an d proposed a pecuniary uttd, m indemnity tb settle the affair , I am bo that in that i ustice astate colleague and the Government, to say country an inent which gives to the House and(Hear, hear.) There impres sion which is not' very rate•— aceu . have placed on the is -- r .o. -appearance in the epee. we table of such an incident . There There is a statement by Mr. Mather, which I do t. wish .ticise • but I beg not to en • the House to v i ew the case as men o f the world and Members of Parliament, and - they w ill easily under stand that, at an interview between Mr Mather and the Secre tary of State, such a subject ' • might have been brought up and entered into with perfect propriety, on the part of the Mi n ister, and on the part of th e gentleman who was cow plhinina e.,ainst, the condu c t of a foreign power. I hav e hero the ' minute made by Lord Mahnesbary atter the inter view with Mr. Mather. I shall not read that minute, be. cause its COUteuts might introduce into this . d t 9 A 9 ill. • Plised him by and went to seek for an opponent with whom ! 1 , 1 ,e might contend upon equal terms. That, Sir, 'is the erench feeling.—(Hear, hear.) Well, Sir, I will be told that this case is a proof of the Austrian feeling. I don't believe In ,v such thing. I belieie that the cowardly conduct ef 'this lieutenant in cutting down an unoffending British sub ject has met with as much disapproval and disavowal on the Part of his comrades hi Tuscany, as under the circumstances they dared to show towards such an action. And I am Persuaded that if Marshal Radetzky had known the true facts of the case at the time that he said the officer was fully jueti- A ed, I am convinced that a brave man like Marshal Radetzky WoUld haye sympathised with the feeling of Prince Schwan _enberg, who, w h hen e was appealed to by Lord Westmore- L and, who said, We are both soldiers, and we never, I am sure, could have raised our swords against an unarmed man," a nd Prince Schwarzenberg, in a responsive feeling, e* - e ' l 'lned, "No, certainly, nothing of the sort could have hap- Pe e ned to either of us." I am convinced, I say, that if Mar t"' Radetzky had known the true facts of the case he would 'ever have written what appeared in these papers: or what ever we G overnment, think of the policy pursued by the A ustr i an evernent, no one who knows the Austrian feeling and the Austrian army can doubt their generosity an d p ersonal courage. Well, Sir, there was an outrage committed. By 'Vnn? Why,' by an .Austrian officer in Florence. Who should be responsible? Prima fade I agree the Government Of the country in which.the outrage was committed; but re alsonsibility is the companion of power. Those are respon 'ible for a thing who could have prevented ir, or who could Punish it ; but where there is no pewer there ought to be no e re aeonsibility. Now, Sir, the state of that Austrian gar "'eh is this—that they are in Florence, as stated by my H onourable and Gallant Friend, 'their continuance there d aPending on the will of the Government of Austria, and nat. upon the will of the Government of Tuseany t hat is not now for the first time known by these dis- P a atc hes, but which the Government knew before I quitted °Luce. But then, were the Austrian troops amenable, ‘ ° ,2 l ,i 1 e there, to the Tuscan authorities? It is perfectly autumn known they were not. Why, Sir, in the course of last eetanan a rude. insult was offered by a detachment of ikuutrian t roo p s to the Members of the grand ducal e at '', 4- They were stopped in their carria g e, and corn relled to get out of it when taking drive in the neigh wurhood of , Florence; and into that carriage out of Which the, members of the Grand Duke's family were I,akelt they put a drunken comrade who was so drank that Government Was unable to returnee the town. What did the Tuscan 'xevernment do in this case? Did they punish this drunken !Ilan N o , they appealed to the commander-in-chief, and t he delinquents were punished militarily by their own o fficers.VN'ell, it being known that the Tuscan Government h ave no power or authority over the Austrian troops, it **me to me certainly that prima facie the Austrian Govern lenent was the quarter from which redress should have been ..'elnantled. That redress naturally was of two kinds. In the first place, her Majesty's Government ought to s lave demanded the punishment of the o ffi cer, of whom i ' 4l a at least was known. that he, an armed man, had cut down an unarmed British subject. Well, Sir, the A ustrian Government might have made a reply. No doubt `POY might have said, " Mere are certain regulations of the dktistria n service which made it imperative on the oflicer, u nder the circumstances, to do what he did. Had he not Pie so we would have punished him." That would un rartber abtly have been an answer that would me have required ed explanation. The English Government would have b een entitled to say—" Show us your r egulations; we can not tak e it s i m ply on your statement." But if the regula ti°lts had been shown to bear out this assertion , and t he Austrian Government could have proved that the officer had 'le alternative but to do what he did, or be subjected to P u nishment by his own superiors, then I must admit t h a t 3Y demand for the punishment of that officer could not laelth propriety have been pressed. But then you would have _tight to • say to the Austrian Governnient—" You may Take what regulations you like, provided they are not applied a gainst a Banish subject; but when your regulations are a m PPlied against a British subject, we think the Unjust and °Proper, and we expect at least that you will make VI. ofdapolgy for this injury on a British subject by the regula ,,,ig4a your service." And I mast say, from the handsome the Austrian Government has been concerned, r think that a great and generous Government ,would have, made that ee lele would have been acceptable ,as an apology from one eeevernment to another. But then there I think I have a 'ight to criticise the conduct of the last Government, be ghae, whereas the Noble Lord has accused the present Go vernment of holding one language- at Florence and another t a _. " Vientla, I must observe that, in making the communica tioto the Government of Austria, there were no instructions ton Lor d Westmoreland with regard to any application that be 31 to make to that Government. The dispatch distinctly "I have no instructions to give you." No application " 4 Made to the Austrian Government. There, I think, an rot. was committed. The other part of the redress would in ave consisted in a demand for compensation to the individual b ; and that would have been a proceeding borne out fat precedents. You may say, " It is unfitting "af an injury to an individual, or the honour of the 'c ountry, should be measured in pounds sterling;" but n evertheles s the Power giving such a compensation makes V a l. admission that an atonement is due, and it is perhaps only atonement that an individual can obtain ref Who has suffered a severe bodily injury. The last ,n e vernnaent, then, in the fi rst communication's sent a Tuscany instructed Mr. Scailett to demand " ample repa ration," and expressed the expectation of her Ma j est y's Go vernment that that repii ra tion would be promptly given. Q at they omitted to state what that " ample reparation" e. ° N 3 to be and in so far I think Mr. Sca rlett was left in a' "faationi n which I think the agent of the British Govern eat might not to be placed, because he was , left to deter.; t ine what the reparation was to be. He was not told wile h t er it was to be an apology, or the punishment of indivi e,"„ala, or a sum of money. He was left to judge what the hre of the reparation should be; and I think that was 11,(.4 a matter which ought to have been l eft to the dis cretion or an agent. It indeed reminded me of aconver sationl had not very long ago with an agriculturist in. t he country, who lamenting, like the Noble Lord , the r afortun a t e condition Of the farmer, in reply to my ques e;°4, " What would you have done for him ?" said , " Why,l! the f ar mer a fair chance." " But how ?" said I. et :1 11 Y, give him ajair chaace," was the only answer I ie hid elicit—the man imagining that that was a sufficiently wetelligible description of the precise remedy that ee l" accessa. In the same way, an " ample repa ae.""ha " see ms to me a convertible term, not of 174 11 ,e definite quantity, but like the result of an alge e;'",cal problem that means " equal to nothing."—(Laugh es/9 It seems to me that a demand might fairly be made ;`:`• the first place on the Tuscan Government. There was a : te ennaption that they were liable to make this co m p ensa- Da• It was impossible, indeed, to exact from them the pu lhaleut of the Austrian officer, because heswas completely elJ e had their control, but they ought to make a compensa a:e4 te Mr. Mather. The Queen's Advocate should have as h e consulted; the rum demanded ought to have been such ne recommended ; and that sum having been demanded , the Governmeat ought to have abided by that demand.— thlusear,hear.) Now I coins to the present Government , and t say that their course is still more open to critici sm must that.of the late Government, because they did what was d e ll unusual—nael, call oil a sufferer to assess his own ie a mages.—(ilear, m hea y r.) Well, he could not judge of what Xhil fitting 'compensation for himself; that must depend on judgment of impartial persons, and the law adviser of the elverc l was the proper person to give that adv ice.—(Hear, : ar ') I must say that the Noble Lord the Member for the "Y of London was well borne out in his rema rks on the -spume pursued in forcing Mr. Mather to name the sum tlainst his own. inclination and protest, and then showing ee lh up to the Tuscan Government as one who made an ex 7eitant demand. If hat demand was considered exorbitant cannot for the life of t me understand why it was communi 'eeted to tke Tuscan Government.—(Hear, hear.) Now if it 4 4(1 been a subject of dispute between two foreign states of Musa weight, we might, if we had been mediators, have aten bound to convey to one the proposal of the other. If trance and Austria had been the parties, and France had asked for this 5,000/ , and we had been unable to effect a liininutioa of the claim, we should then have had to make known to Austria the demand of the other power, and we Should have been bound by impartiality to add, " We own 'that we think it more than you should be called upon to Pay=' But hi the present case, I cannot understarld why 'V. Mather was not told that the sum named by him was e Zorbitant - , and ought to be reduced by himself.—(hear, hear, and cheers.) think, therefore, that the course. a dopted by the present Government is open t o that ob j ection. ed I am sorry to- say that I cannot approve of the manner in which Mr. Scarlett executed his instructions, because he e vidently went , below the minimum amount which he was t old e e to" require. He was told, " The least you are to acce p t ' OO 4 and if you cannot get that perhaps you must have course to arbitration." Well, that was an intelligible in 7Taction, but he accepts less than half the sum , an d then ta kes es in part th e re l e a se of the two Messrs. Stratfords. (G ear, bean)" I think it would have been unfair that they , should ,have made up the difference, but the fact is, with re gard to th em , th a t th e y were acc used of that which was in it se l f an offence, that is to say, they had in their House a P r ivate printing press contrary to the law of Tuscany, and Was shown that they printed things of a tendency un favourable to the Government. But they were tried by au eAustrian court-martial at Leghorn, a protest being raised ''3" me when I was a member of the Government against the competency of the court. We find by a fundamental law of Tuscany that even the Tuscan Government cannot establish Inertial law by the supersession of the ordinary tribunals, _and of course much less could a foreign Government do so. We, therefore, protested at Florence and Vienna against the competency of the court, and consequently against the validity of the sentence. To throw the Messrs. Stratfords tato the bargain in the present case was, therefore, no great satisfaction to Mr. Mather—(Laughter)—and I think it 1 48 not, diplomatically speaking, a fair arrangement, inas much as we should have had them without loss to Mr. ather.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Then, I should say t hat Mr. Scarlett acted hastily and unwisely in this Netter and I also very humbly .think that her Ma ittre ' Government acted very hastily in sanctioning that .ar frgeinent. They seem to have been under the impressee . n -eat whatever a British agent abroad agreed to, whether in „..e.htiformity with or against his instructions, must necessarily " adopted by his G varnment.—(ilear, o hear.? Now, that is "t according to international principles- It the, you can . show the acts of an agent are contrary to his instructio d n . 3, you cite rydisavow him, and refuse to sanction his procee ne ar .) Therefore the Government would have been Perf ect , • • • e lk iy justified in refusing to agree if de by Mr. Scarlett.—(Hear, hear.) I confess that I think to the arrangement rather pecuniary compensation was to have of that la ther from Tuscany or from Austria, that in a case been demanded, re turn a sum of 500/. was altogether inadequate, from for the su ff erings of the individual, or as an a tonement eithermre- a r h one country to the Government of another.—(Hear, and loud cheers.) But then, Sir, I think that the Go retrulnent, having adopted that arrangement, and having ee . 3 ,.ented to take 5001. and the two Stratfords in exchange (Laughter) —l think they acted with great haste, and on emperfect examination of documents, when they disavowed W, • Scarlett in the last dispatch on the ground that he had b ecause the principle of the responsibility of Tuscany, Z'eceuse Mr. Scarlett did no such thing.— (Hear.) . What .% mistake Mr. Scarlett may have made in his anxiety to ri le to an arr angement, he did not ab an don the principle; waived the discussion of the principle, but be by no m eans ek e lradoned it, and he even distinctly re-affirmed it. If the eNoble Lord the Under -Secretary of State will look at Mr. aearlettes note to the Duke of • Castigliano of the 18th of larch he will see that it cont ains word for word the asser naa on the part of the British Government that Tuscany is res ponsible for what happened to Mr. Mather. When Mr. Scarlett and the Duke of Castigliano came to a final arrange.: Ine nt, it was ag reed that the latter thoul d offer 220/ and the Stratfords, and that the discussion on the principle of respon . sibili tY Should be waived. The Duke of Castigliano does not a dhere to the barin. He adheres in re g ard to the money, but "r perseveri ng ly reiterates in his n ote the principle that A. Us ean Y was not respo n sible. In Mr . Scarlett's re p l y , an ted the 18th April, he say s — "I accep t y our arrange meat ; but as you have thought it right to re-affirm your Principle of the non-responsibility ot' Tuscany, I think it right to-refer you to my - note of the 18th of March, in Which the principle of the British Government is laid . down Viet you ~re ,caponsible, slid I, ten you th :t Brit i sh Go verement maintains th at pr i nc i ple i n a ll integrity. I am, therefore, at a loss t o naderstand h ow the ° Government thought that Mr. Scarlett abandoned that PrhiciPles - and I • feeling, which I do not wish to encourage, or might hurt the feelings-of individuals not present; but I say most dis tinctly that, on that occasion, Lord Malmesbury did nothing rill said nothing but what any of his predecessors might, and probably would, have said ; and without the slightest reflection on Mr. Mather, I must say that the ques-• Lion was treated in a natural and proper manner, and in a manner quite distinct from what has been conveyed by this discussion, and in, some statements which I have seen. Two t p r o y in f t o s rwereinjurythdeonn.dise ,to cu a sse s d u — bj t e li ct e r: f p h ar e a r t m ion due ajooty, t a o n t d hecou the re parationn- due to the individual suffering. Lord Malmesbury very properly cut the first subject short. He said—" The honour of the country is under my custody, therefore we need not converse about that;. but it is my duty frankly and sincerely to; confer with you, upon the means by which some reparation may be made to your injured son."--(Hear, hear.) Therefore they naturally came to the mode, which is the only mode in which reparation could be made. I hear great delicacy expressed about a man taking money where an outrage of this kind : has been committed. Why, it is the only mode recognised in this country by which a reparation can be made. Why s gentletnen, in this country, on subjects in which their most delicate honour is concerned, appear before courts, and, accept pecuniary damages:—(Hear, hear, and , laughter.) Does anybsdy, suppose, ...when da mages are • tendered under such circumstances, that they are offered 'a reparation for-the, wrong complained of? They are offered because that is the mode by.which, accord ing to the custom of this country, a certain punishment can be inflicted upon the person who has done the injury, and at the same time a certain reparation offered to the person who is injured. And to pretend that there. is anything novel or monstrous in recommending that an individual in the posi tion of Mr. Mather, who has suffered as he, has suffered' at Florence, should, accept as,an avowed acknowledgment for a wrong inflicted by a Government of a fine from that Govern ment, is a proposition , which I think few on reflection would attempt to substantiate, and 'which I am sure the common sense of this country would, not fOr. a moment. entertain. First, then, as to the quarter in which we .applied for re dress, and which the Noble Lord :.(Palmerston),, notwith- Standing the many ingenious observations he made, would not, as a statesman learned in the international law, for a moment unequivocally deny _was the right qmarter ; and, secondly, as to the mode in which the satisfaction. was to be obtained trona that power. I maintain that the conduct of the Government was perfectly proper. Then I am told by the Hqn. Member_ (Mr. Osborne) that Lord Malmesbury showed great infirmity, of purpose. I see no infirmity of purpose; for,l find in his dispatches' he is con sistent itntrying to,nbtain the same end; and In his very first letter to Sir Henry 13u1wer, .of the 26th of April, he desires him not. to remit in any manner the principle ,upon which the demands are Made. Mr. Scarlett, writing on the 23d April; states that no objection had been made to the amount of 5001., which he had fixed positively as the mini mum of compensation. Yet,,under those circumstances, the Secretary of State still instructing the Minister, who he supposed had then arrived at Florence, Sir Henry Bulwer, and receiving information that the compensation fixed on had been agreed to—suddenly he finds that the whole circumstances are changed, that the principle is given up, that a much less compensation is accepted. The . Noble Lord says we are in error in supposing that Mr. Scarlett waived the principle of responsibility; but he dispensed with what the Secretary of State required should be an acknowledg ment of that principle; that was the:great compensation by the Tuscan Governinent: If it was a question between 2501. and 5001., that would certainly not be an object which would justify our having recourse to the measures that have been recommended. 4 was because the great object was not attained—that object being, in our mind, not merely this particular instance, but having reference to circum stances that may exercise a greet 'influence over the state of Europe, and'on this ,account we required and' desired this acknowledgment of responsibility,' with which we should have been justified in taking _the sum that has been ac cepted. But, says the Noble Lord (Pahnerston),." what could possibly have induced the, English Minister to let the Tuscan Government know that Mr. Mather hid fixed, upon 5,0001., and at the same time to acknowledge that the sum was exorbitant?" The reason is quite obvious:' The object of the Government was to obtain, if not a .considerable, au ample compensation for the sufferer, not with reference to the vindication of the national honour, but as a compensa tive to Mt. Mather for the gross insult, and by way of ac knosledgrnent on the part' of those who had committed the injury. The views of the Italians with regard to compen sation are very different from what are entertained in this country ; and it certainly was not indiscreet to let the Tuscan Government know that Mr. Mather demanded 5,0001., although the Government was not prepared to sanction such a sum, which they knew it would be quite "impractica ble to obtain. Of course, the Tuscan Government, hearing of that amount, would be 'inure prepared; and weie'more thatp e e p are was cl dn , tgt our I: to rto sumoffo e kr attention the'ptlhplace ocyesiOtnoo consented/., t the h n h e ic . hot stateto oah_ -give, ii y vol not ultimately,astill aht nhe da Noble did t bc aenL ; o for r as sured • remark able has cac th lhl e ea Noble Lord that he Only does justice to the feelings of Government when ho assumes that they look with great interest and with some anxiety to the present state of that important and interesting country. But the Noble Lord spoke in a tone ' as though the GoVerhment • were responsible for this. The state of Italy is no worse than we found it. - The' Noble Lord 'has been making these speeches on Italy for a considerable time; and very just are his observations, -and very genious his policy; but the state of Italy has not been im proved hitherto either by the councils or the conduct of the Noble Lord. —( Rear, hear.) The Noble Lord has not only made speeches on the state of Italy ; he has even sent some of his friends on a mission into that country.—(Hear, hear ) But when we see that after all the efforts of a man of the vast ability and experience of the N o bl e L or d the state of issued by the .Committee of Privy. Council on Education, and laid on the table tonight; and I think that the Noble Lord had better have read them before he delivered his speech _this_ evening:- (Hear.) But it is not true that we have altere I the management clauses. They remain ; but, consistently with the opinion we have always held, we have ventured, in two instances, to offer an alternative to those who wouldnig_ accede to the man agemen t c l a uses, which we have not disturbed, and which are still the clauses of the Committee of Council. Well,- if this alternative, is . one of which the House disapproves, it will take means to express its feeling; ' but--confident I am, not only that every person who is interested in the Church of England, but that everybody:who i s - sens ibl e o f the value of justice in public affairs, will approve of them.--(C heers-) I We are charged with having taken the vote, and then having introduced anew system. But what are the facts? The first 1 management clauses, A, B, C, and D, were dated on the2Bth of JuneslB47 ;._ and the vote (100,000 /4 was taken on the 26th of April.-( Loud cheers.) . The clauses themselves did not appear until they appeared in-a bluebook, six months afterwards.-(Cheera.) In 1849 there, were some important alterations made in these clausee. They were signed on the 26th of May. It is true that th e vote (125,0000, was not passed till June 4, but the clauses were never laid on the table till they appeared in a blue book-in the month of the next. January. In 'fact, sWth the sole exception of the year when the pupil teachers were introduced, they were never laid on the table before the vote was taken.-(Hear, hear.) The noble Lord must not expect to shrink under the gsberdioe of Lord Lansdowne. Within the last eighteen months there bad been. inliportant alterations re lating to Roman Catholics; I,! resbyterians an d Jews, but these were never submitted to Parliament- (Hear, hear* ) The charge is one that affects our ch arac t er not only as Ministers, but as gentlemen, and .1 trust that such conduct , will never be that of nay Government 'Worn whatever side it may be recruited.-(toud cheers.) If I thought that we had taken advantage of the House of Commons-if I thought we had cheated the people thro ug h the representat i ve s of money to Support a eystem whi c h ' they looked upon w ith dislike-I should have conceived that there was spiri t enough in the House, even atthia. per io d - o f t h e session, to have expressed their reprobation of such conduct.-(Loud cheers.) The Nolite.Lord maybe, assured that we shall go to the country, with no undoin such a manner as will allow us t o ' meet the peop l e w i t hout () shame; and ihatever the Noble Lo r d m a y say of t h e c hange .eonfidedde, I t rus t, bat at least of our opinions, I shall be prepared to vindicate them before my' Conetitueats, iii 'a manner that I trust will entitle me to maintain their good opinio n . I deny that there has been at any time since the unfortun a t e Year 1846, the circum stance of which I deeply deplore, I deny that there has be en any attempt on our part to ' change th e pos i t i on w hi c h we then took. Hook now, and shall ev er l ook, on the c h ang es which took place in 1846, both. as regard s the repea l of the corn-laws and the change in the - sugar duties.s.l shall always look upon those measures as totally' au thorised.- (Cbeele.)' I opposed them, as most of my f r i en d s around me opposed them, from fear and appreh ens i on of the suffer ings which those changes would produce ; an d t h a t suffer ing, though it may be limited to particular c l asses, h as been far greater than we anticipated. I deny that after th e se laws were passed I, or those with whom I h ave acted, h av e wished to recur to the 'sae laws whi c h regulated t h ose u n industries.-(Cheers.) I cannot recall a speech-I defy anybody to quote any speech that I ever made, or any uttered, ma coursel ever eV as desirable your charge against Lord Derby? you say he recom mendedseenntednedce suchthat or Possible. What is a'tixed 'duty, and that now he has intimated that the country will not support such a policy. I s a fixed duty a recurrence to the law whieh reulated the importation of corn before 1816?. my Why, se Lord Derby had declared that he counselled a recurrence to - those laws, do not you think you would be ever ready to refer to his speeches, and that night after night you would din your quotations in our ears'? I defy yon to produce a single sen tence of the kind. ' When we come to this question of a fixd ditty, on which you have tallied so much, 1 say I will not pin my career, my political career, on what is not a prin ciple bat a measure. .1 shou'd be very glad as a financier if there was a moderate fixed duty -on corn. I admit that, and I see plenty df great . authorities opposite me who have often and often advocated it. But if I find by circum stances which I do not wish now particularl y to describe (lronical cheers) -by acts whichl have no wish now to de • nounce, that a. fiscal proposition is invested with a pecu liar odium, that it would be' one of the unwisest things a Minister could do to propose ' such a t ax, whether rightly or - wrongly, I . cannot- see th at I am bound to propose it.• Why, I could offer authorities in favour of duties ' on - corn, not from my own bench, but from ; writings you perpetually quoted-men whose political opinions entirely agree with Yours, distin guished writers; members of the political economy club-- not merely the writings of Mr. M 11 11 h '-a-- 0 8-, and whom once you always quoted, though now you shrink from his authority-but to the writings of Colonel. Torrens, to the pages of Mr. Mill,. I might appeal to scientific pages, and you would find it difficult to quote others against Me. But in governing mankind we must look to something beyond mere scientific propriety; and if a measure, though it n;utY be recommended by the highest scientific authority, is one that the popular will repudiates, I do not think that- any Minister is bound to propose it. But what is this mea sure which you seem always wishing us to propose? which you with such anxious wishes seem so zealo us that we should introduce? It-is, after all, nothing but a coun tervailing duty, not merely viewed in its financial light; it is a countervailing duty against certain inequali t i es of taxation. And if you can remove these inequalities of taxa tion, and redress the fiscal injuries and injustice which you believe to exist, without having recourse to an odious means, but by a means which is not odious, why I think that we are acting in strict consistency with, all that we have said; that we 'are acting in perfect unison with all that we have counselled, if we adopt the course which we think gre ferable, and which we believe to be popular. Why session after session,. at th e d es i re an d w ith th e sanction of my friends, I have repeatedly urged upon this House a variety of means, all of the same character, by which this result might be obtained without' having recourse to this unpopular method, which yon in your secret heart seem so anxious to have recourse to. Is it anything inconsistent in me or in those with whom I act, that we should now counsel that course which for four years, and against great Obsta.cles, we supported?" Our wish is that the interests, which we be lieve were unjustly treated in 1846, should receive that justice that they deserve with as little injury to others as is possible for human wisdom to . devise. I call it reconciling the interest of the consumer and producer when you have not permitted the consumer to flourish by Placing unjust taxes on the producer, while at_ the - Same time you are re solved to support no tax which would give to the pro ducer an unjust and artificial price for his Pre aue tion. These are the views_ which we supported , in oppositiod-these are thb views which we are resolved, if possible, to carry into effect. It is but justice to those c l asses t o whom you acted unjustl y in 1846, and we wish to do justice to them 'without 'altering th e s y ste m which now byeitlthe beliails.eve support tht ill - raed country. The Noble Lord thelicy Me w mbe be r forth of London talks of oar being a party without a principle.' Well, he seems to be in opposition without' a cry -(Cheers.) He confesses that nothing is left,-- oe N * no movement, nc, agitation whatever is left.' The Noble Lord, with the ima gination of a poet-for he is still a poet, at his last gasp , to my great surprise, discovered a resource-something w e must rally round; we must rally rou n d a P the a otheptof that pro- Gentleman has'emblazoned' on ills sta Pm'. ndard the •nscriWion, 1 1 " No confidence in the Derby scnistr "- ' hY' Y (Cheers. ~ a year ago, upon that seine standard w • as emblazoned, Do not trust' the Noble Lord the m -anther for the City."- (Cheers. ) Sir; we shall survive that av t of confidence*, and if the only way in which the Igoble Lord thinks he can make the present Government unpopular, mode by, Popular it the only which he thinks he can upsetthepres;nt Administration is by showing to the country that it d o - ~ seess t he con fidence of the Right 'Hon. Baronet e t s h n e o Member for Ripon, why, then, Sir, I must express My heart ' fidence that at this time next year we shall'still havey*con honour of serving her Majesty.-(Loud cheese.) the Lord D. STUART said he wish ed the' attention - eti to recall of the House to the case of Mr • kt . sure, if • ether He was 'Hon. Members would read 'the di 9 . they would say that if had been Lord Malmeabir_ patches, J court to Tuscany and to Austria at the ..-IT B desire to pay -'cPens of re of this country, and to do all he could to inure the character of Mr. Mather, he could not-have ,donethan he had actually done. Thelßight Hon. tha, better the Chancellor of the Exchequer described what' t Gentleman d in Tuscany ~ n unhappy squabble." Di d had .occurred as a that Phraseology bee*" a British Minister? All that fir. Mather demanded from the British Government was redre se, h a' was nothing in his conduct to criticise ' unles s ird t & hie . yielding so readily to the wishes of Lord m aim were b _ _ ry (Oh, oh.) What chance was s thereof; success, WhenesthellPOreign'Secre tary to d taken such. an ex aor The effect P Tuscan was to determine the l c.,.. cry course. --` Qtrve r ent not to make adequate reparation: t was all very well for the Right Honourable Gentleman totalk f y The o- respecting the indepen dence of foreign states. Ilonouranle Gentleman did not take that' view sons ® Yea when he fi , re ago, de fended the assault on acow. i t let n th 'km3 , re ected the inde pendence of Tuscany, tun als o roe act t,' ts•' If the ho nc mist on foreign resP tbr British su jec this matter, the -Ur of England was not to vindicated in this it eott„, be osition than h a rry had cries ed at a more disgraceful D pied. • 's dispatch ever befo ep As to Lord Malrnesbary probably tils speakin of them as a whole, he Mast say that before suc h an extraordinary set of state papers were never Present d to Parliament. Nor was this the only outrage committer:l e itish subjects in Tuscany. The dispatches eo usme on Br ne e d by a statement that British subjects were subjected , t - outrage id Tuscany than in anyother country. to mere Lord the Member for Tiverton was at th e . '" ~_ n the Noble office the honour of the country . w as m ;,l!ed of the Fore i gn- Tuscanris, subects were protected-(011 I and Di v .- tined and Blt .o n y, in Rome, in Austria, and j a _c9 e -but now, 1 , tries En coun , continental glishmen were liable to insul t no dress . while our Foreign- o te tce Rad there was hope of re it now was.-(Ohl and Divide.) Wos constituted as to . The motion was then agreed _ . and tb . Committee of Supply was, brought up. f the Colonel report. o Colonel SIBTHORP opposed the vine f or the of clerks and , other expenses :atteraliu g the ~ payment • sxational Ex hibition. _ The Howe then divided, when there a ppeared Fore the v0te...116 :..... .._ ..- Against it - .............. . . . .......... 23 Majority for the vote .. ........ ...„ ee The House then went into . Committee _,,. vv d of Consolidated Fund°l ay s an Means, and the Surplus and Transfer of Aids were voted. t Several orders of the day were post o o oed. , NEW ZEALAND BILL. - that-.this Bill be read • time on the motion a third time on Thursday, , ~; - Mr. A:GLIQNBY said the effect of that would be, that one stage would be. passed lvof ithout discussion --and there subject was the of the position the New Zealande - which would be broughtforward. onspany nderst d Sir AKINGTON was u to oo t -° °ay, that there were some few verbal alterations t nit be made in the Bill, and that there would be ara s o r pP j erZ .A. 17 discussion. After a few. words from M no . tice that on I ' Mr. ADDERLEY gave _ posonement ot all the clauses he would move the. 7.land Company, and having reference to the New their reference should the gentle to a Select Committee, persist in insertinga representing that company in the Houseu terbnry settlement, clauses giving them control over Mr. Gladstone After an ob servationssi tone as to. the propriety of piste from M • .-- he third reading was fixed for Thursday next. NISI PRIUS OFFICES BILL . ugh Committee pro forma This Bill went throe . APPOI OP _OVERSEERS sTethisTT- . . BILL. .. through This Bill abso went Committee. ENCUMBERED- ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL. this Bin be read a second tim e On the motion that the postponement I - Mr. BUTT suggested which was agreed to.' " SAVINGS PAS S , (IRELAND) BIL L :. Committee. , • This Bill passed through _ DISABILITIBS REPEAL BILL Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER moved the third reading of this Bill. - - - Mr. II•IULLINGS opposed the stage on the ground•of the lateness of the Wirt - • ' ... . Italy is rather aggravated than not, her ilzijesty's Govern ment are sensible that they must proceed with very great deliberation.— (Hear, hear.) That the time may come when the fairest part of Europe may not be possessed by the hostile garrisons of 'foreign countries is a result which every man must desire who has the least sympathy for freedom ; or who feels grateful for what Italians have done for modern civilization.—(Loud cheers.) I do not think it is necessary to say more upon the subject that is before the House. It has been introduced by the Noble Lord the Member for the City, the head bf a Government which in my opinion is greatly responsible fur the affair in which Mr. Mather is so much concerned.—(Cheers., The affair is a painful one, because every one must feel for one of our fellow-subjects, when he is injured, and when he is one of such tender years, and who appears to have be haved with such good feeling throughout the whole trans action.—(Cheers.) But it is not a question on which, even with an impending dissolution, you can impeach a Govern meut.—(Cheera.) No one knows that better than the Noble Lord the Member for the City himself—',Cheers)—because after due reflection, when the subject had been certainly announced, if not upon the paper, the Noble Lord added a very interesting postcript to what was announced to the House.—(Laughter.) I must not follow the amiable ex ample of the Noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who left it unnoticeff; nor can I leave the reply to my Noble Friend the Member for Stamford. —(Laughter.) I, am bound myself to notice the elabo rate attack of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord has taken a review of what has occurred during the brief pe riod that we have sat on these benches. We have heard from him a statement of that kind before this session. The very first night that I had the honour to take my seat, the Noble Lord'rose and opened his batteries.—(Laughter, and Hear, hear.") The Noble Lord has sometimes re curred to the attack, but his drum has been muffled, and his fire has been slack.—(Laughter, and Hear, hear.) And now we have his last effort, but I believe that it is a forlorn hope, and that he will not take the citadel.— (Re newed laughter.) Amongst other documents he has criti cised an address which I have•recently issued to my consti tuents, and he would seek to convey to the House that I. have declared that the abrogated corn laws were only passed` in order to pay rent.—(Hear, hear.) I wish the Noble Lord, who has read many ex tracts from dispatch es ( thou g h with the context they convey to me a very diff erent iins pression from that which he sought to convey)--but I wish he had done me th e h onour to quote from my address any passage that would have suppo r ted that statement.—( Hear, hear.) I have stat e d, an d I a m always ready to say, that the laws that are passed with the view of maintaining rent are laws that cannot be tolerated.;—(Cheers.) But I have never said that the corn-laws were passed with that object— (Cheers)—and I must do the Noble Lord the justice to add that he never said it. But Honourable Gentlemen have said it every night of their lives, and therefore it was in reply to them' that I wrote the sentence to which the Noble. Lord seems in •a very- mistaken manner to refer. (Cheers.) I say that laws passed to maintain the amount of rent paid in this country cannot be tolerated, but, at the same time, laws that inflict upon the 'land of this country burdens, and imposts, and regulations, which other pro. perty and other industries do not bear, are equally unjusti fiable.—(Loud cheers.) If I at any time have recommended a revision of taxation with a view to equalise the bur dens on the land, I have never recommended such a measure as a compensation for rent, which the Noble Lord has quoted as if they were words from my own' mouth. But it the consequence of our legislation— and I take it only as an incident—is a considerable diminution of the rents of the country—if it can be shown that there is a pres sure of taxation upon the land which is not shared by the other great properties of the country,.—l am not wishing to enter into an argument—l am only assuming the facts, to notice what I consider to be the misrepresentation of the Noble Lord I say that, assuming what I have .said, there is a legitimate claim for the property the value of which is depreciated, and which can be shown to be un justly taxed, for redress and relief.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord has also stated that he is not aware, although I have referred to the great things that the present Government bas done (and of which I was not conscious that I had), that we have really done anything of any consequences except the passing of the Militia Bill—which he could not pass.— (Loud laughter.) " What," says the Noble Lord, " is the Militia Bill? —I make you a present of that; and the next great measure on 'which you plume yourselves so much, you only stole it from our'Commission; and when you intro duced it, you made such changes in it, that, had it not been for my trusty, friend the Right Hon. Member for Tiverton, you would have marred all its beauties."—(Laughter.) But it these Bills for the reform in Chancery pass, they will in my mind confer one of the greatest blessings which society has experienced ; and no matter who may be the Minister and what may be the Parliament—neither the Parliament nor the Minister that passed it will be forgotten.—(Cheers.) But there is something more. I remember that on the 15th of March, when the Noble Lord appeared in the new Oppo sition of which he was the recognised leader, he came for ward and said, that it was incumbent on me to declare the measures which it had been thought necessary to peas; and when I mentioned that measure of Chancery reform in the catalogue of those I meant to try, the Noble Lord received the intimation with a derisive scoff.— (Cheers.) He was supported by all the sections of that new opposition, and, more than all, by that section which, though the following is small, make up for the bulk of numbers by their fidelity— by those that follow the Noble Lord the Member for Tiver ton, who said that ,he trusted the country would not be i N t ot c i r ibil e se di L t o for rd i t t h , e except Member o when h e Tiverton.—(Loud v a e r c t h o a D. n em barked in a Ch ancer y su it.—(Laughter.) Well, there is a prospect of that Bill b e i n g carried; but I do not claim any a great good to the country we did it, in spite of thoree do — ce ( w i jas cheers. off oud red us ) " Well then," says the Noble Lord, "there is another subject respect to the agriculturaels which with which of great importance. your equivocal conduct with you interests besides the false you have have arrayed yourself, besides troubledmost t and disturbed every thing,queusntsmoonstitutional manner your plumage ta s what have you have acted in a done education."--- in tampering with the great (Hear, bear.) Now, this indignation on the part of the wlLaeneLto arouse all those mournful questions which, with almost a ord,and all broken heart .have been , addressed to, us by the Honourable for Chichester?—(Laughter.) I am, here to f aiember, e end the conduct of the Government. The Noble Lord says that for party—nay, for a higher object—for bindings parpo we have been tampering with the established system of esdeite" tion.—(Hear, hear.) Yes, you shall hear.—(Cheers ande laughter.) The Noble Lord, cannot hear of education and religion being used for party purposes. , Does , he remember t h e appr, priation clans. ? —(Cheers.) He shrinks with horror trout the repetition of such maneeuvres ; but the Noble Lord has had recourse to the same unjustifiable course. seems that there have been certain, management clauses Mr. R. PALMER explained that the object was to relieve persons of the Jewish persuasion fromcertain extraordinary disabilities under which they at preaent laboured. The Bill had been introduced in the other /louse by Lord Lyndhurst, of whose judgment no one could have any doubt. Under these circumstances he must press the stage. Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the present passing of the Bill would intercept a trial now in progress in the courts of law. He should, therefore, move that the Bill be read a third time on Friday next. Mr. R. PALMER suggested that Monday should be sub stituted for Friday, which was agreed to, and the Bill post poned accordingly. The Protestant Dissenters' Bill passed through Committee pro forme. The Public health Act (1818) Amendment Bill was read a second time. _ The Thames Embankment Bill passed through Committee. The County Courts Further Extension Bill was read a third time and passed. The Representative Peers for Scotland Act Amendment Bill was read a second time. MAYNOOTII COLLEGE. On the motion for the adjourned debate, Mr. 11. HERBERT moved that the House adjourn. The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place ; and cn returning, we found Mr. S. HERBERT speaking. He pointed to the state of the benches on the Opposition side (the Ministerial benches being full, and the Opposition benches very thinly occupied.) The absence of Members proved the unexpectedness of this discussion, at least on the Oppo sition side, and at the same time suggested the impro priety of the Government consenting to allow any divi sion to be taken. Lord Jahn Russell was absen, for in stance; yet that Noble Lord had an amendment on the motion, proposing that a Commission should be appointed instead of a Committee to conduct the inquiry; and, as it was a farce to suppose that any Committee could sit that session, of course Mr. Spooner meant to alter his motion, so that the vote should be, whether or not the management at Maynooth was a tit subject for inquiry. With such benches a division would be no test of the opinion of the House. Mr. SPOONER should certainly take the division. He had heard' of no such amendment as that attributed to Lord John Russell; it was nut on the paper. He himself could not alter his motion ; he had no power. This question of ad journment was interjected. It was the wish on that (the Government) tide to divide on the main question.—(An al tercation then took place between Mr. Spooner and Mr. Megan ; Mr. Megan affirming that Mr. Spooner had stated, early in the evening, in the lobby, that he would not bring the question on that night, and Mr. Spooner insisting that, he had been entirely misunderstood.) Mr. ELLIOTT said that this was a trap for the House. Of course no one on the Opposition side had expected that the division would take place that evening, and hence the thinness of the benches.—(oh, oh.) After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE and Mr. V. Sclet.m, who denied that he had ever spoken against time, and who taunted the Government with "not coming out" on this occasion, Admiral STEWART said that in voting for the adjourn ment, he did not wish to be understood as pronouncing any opinion on the main question. Mr. P. HOWARD did not think anything would be gained by continuing the debate at so late an hour. He never knew anything to be gained by an attempt to take the House by surprise. Mr. SCHOLEFIELD said that in the present state of the House it would be impossible to take the real sense of the House on the question. Mr. HORSMAN wished to know the intentions of the Government. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that if the House did not agree to the adjournment, the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork would of course continue his speech, and with every respect to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman it was his intention to go home when he began. Sir B. HALL said he would certainly pair off with the Right lion. Gentleman rather than listen to the speech of the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork.--(Laughter.) Mr. R PALMER said that he intended to vote for the inquiry, though not on the ground put forward by the Hon. Member (Mr. Spooner), but a division taken at that hour of the night would not faithfully represent the opinions of the House of Commons on the question.—( Hear.) He therefore thought that the debate ought to be adjourned. The House then divided, when there appeared — For the adjournment of the Hou.se ... 29 Against ... 133 Majority ...-101 Mr. MAGAN then moved the adjournment of the debate. Blr. SCULLY protested against the debate being then continued, and recommended Mr. Spooner to withdraw his motion. —(Laughter.) Mr. SPOONER said he would not object to the ad iourn ment of tke debate, not wishing to put the House to ncon venience. After a conversation, in which Mr. Elliott, Sir J. Young, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Newdegate, and Mr. R. Palmer, took pert, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER suggested that they should then adjourn, and out of consideration to the Speaker, meet this day at one o'clock. The House then adjourned at Three o'clock. Lord CHICHESTER said the alteration had the effect of more perfectly carrying ont the principle of the clauses, and in contravention of it. ROUSE OF LORDS, June 14. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Five o'clock. MAYNOOTH. The Earl of WINCHILSEA gave notice that in the course of the next se ssion of Parliament he would move for a Committee to inquire whether the moral and reli gious principles inculcated at the College of Maynooth are not subversive of all Protestant government. Lord BROUGHAM said that the course proposed by the Noble Earl was certainly better and fairer than that taken—he would not say where—but certainly not in their Lordships' House. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the farmers of Sussex, complaining of the present mode of messing the property-tux. GREAT WESTERN, SHREWSBURY, &c., RAIL- The Bishop of OXFORD said the question was whether an important alteration had been made before the vote was taken. Now this important alteration was made when the vote was brought forward. It was now said that this was carrying out what had been determined on before. The al teration was that schools receiving aid should accept the management clauses. He thought the Government made important alterations after the vote was taken. Lord LANSDOWNE said what he asserted was that no alteration in principle was made in what had been done. SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS (CONVENTION WITH FRANCE) BILL. Lord BROUGHAM rose for the purpose of implor ing his Noble Erieud opposite to re-consider the propriety, which he strongly urged upon him, of withdrawing the Extradition Bill, on account of that which afforded him the best con ceivable opportunity for doing so—namely, the total change which had taken place in the French law upon this very :,object of extradition since the convention with France was entered into. The Earl of MALMESI3URY said it was not at all necessary that he should keep their Lordships waiting for the announcement which he should have felt it his duty to make in the course of the evening, had his Noble Friend not made the suggestion. He begged to say that he had come down to the House with the intention of informing their Lordships, at the proper moment, that her Majesty's Go vernment had thought St to withdraw the Bill alluded to for the present.— (Cheers.) Bat he could not make that an nouncement without stating that it would be extremely dangerous at the present moment for the Government to continue the existing Act of Parliament under the new law which had been passedin France. He could not yet under. stand the full bearing of that law, but, as far as he did understand it, it seemed to him that the French Govern ment might reclaim any criminal in any part of the world, whatever might be the nature of his offence, and although that offence might not have been committed on French ground.—(Hear, hear.) Lord BROUGHAM —And though he be not a Frenchman? The Earl of MALMESBLTRY—And though he be not a Frenchman. WAY. Lord BEAUMONT rose to mrive the suspension of the standing order, No. ISS, sect. 1, with regard to the Great Western, Shrewsbury, and Birmingham Rail way, end Shrewsbury and. Chester Railway Amal gamation Bill. This standing order, known by the name of the " What-in:litre order," was to the effect that in the case of an Amalgamation Bill, the consent of four-fifths of the proprietors should be obtained at a meeting held for that purpose. When first created it bad required only the consent of three-fifths, but within the last twb years it hod been extended to four-fifths, In the case of the present Bill, which had been passed by the Commons without opposition, as being a Bill of the greatest importance, but when it came to their Lordships' House, it not being denied that four-fifths of the proprietors had not consented to it, although three-fifths had, the Committee of Standing Orders had no other course to report but that the stand ing orders had not been complied with. He thought that this was a case where their Lordships might, not only without danger, but even with advantage, suspend this standing order, because this question was no less than whether there should be only one means of communication between London and the Mersey, between London and Ireland— whether all the traffic, and all the important transactions conducted between those two points of the kingdom should be confined to one single mean 3 of communication, and whether the possessors of that means of communica tion should be the possessors of a monopoly. Lord LYNDHURST said that this standing order was made to protect the minority against the rage for specu lation among the majority, but it had never been in tended to stand in the way of any great public advan tage. He believed that on the ground of public policy, and for the benefit of the public at large, their Lord ships were justified in complying with the motion of the Noble Lord. Lord REDESDALE said that this was the first time any attempt of this kind had been made to set aside this standing order of their Lordships' House; and with all respect to the Noble Lords who had preceded him, he must say they had not shown such an acquaintance with the subject, and even with the rules themselves, as justified them in recommending to their Lordships the dispensing with the standing order. With respect to the question of the public interests involved, his impression was, that if the amalgamation—the public value of which seemed to be so much insisted upon—were effected, so far from there ensuing any competition between the Great Western and the North-Western Companies, an arrangement would be come to between them, the effect of which would be to establish a complete monopoly. In the Committee on Standing Orders the case of the petitioners for the amalgamation broke down on their own evidence; and now they came before their Lordships asking that the case should be tried on its merits—a coarse which their Lordships, he thought, could not accede to. For unless they supported the standing orders of the House, they would open a door to jobbery such as they would never close. After a few words in explanation from Lord LYND HURST, The Duke of RICHMOND said they should not discuss the merits of the Bill on-the. case for the Standing. Orders Committee. If they threw over the decision of the Standing Orders Committee, they would never get persons to attend that Committee all day, when they knew that their Lord ships could u g h o readily induced to set aside their decision, founded thou it was upon so useful a standing order as this was. Lord BEAUMONT said if they did not suspend the stand ing order on the present occasion, the maintenance of that standing order was in jeopardy; for it behoved them to see that that order operated for the purpose for which it was in stituted, instead of acting as an obstruction to a just decision of an important case upon its merits. Ile admitted that the standing order had its advantages, and if .their Lordships agreed t,) h i s motion on the present occasion, he would always being lightly dispensed with. adLvocatd its not otlG I,IAINI felt a great repugnance to withdraw ing Lord ma tter of a private nature from the Selec t Com mrit-ee-to the decision of the House, for obvious reasons. He did not say that a case had not been made out for departing from that rule, bat the proof MILEL rest upon the party cell o them to make that departure. They were called uinpgonn; on n an allegation of a fraudulent proceeding in, shares, to snap n d the standing' orders. That allegation, made on one aid®, denied ou the other. He wanted to know, then, ;i - cl - had or had not the Standing Orders Committee an opportu nity o f e xercising their judgment upon th e truth or false hood of that allegation? Lie understood that the Committee bad had that opportunity, and that it had not thought r upon investigat the allegation, to repor in favour proper of the J ustifiableness of suspending the standing order. if t h a t were so, he was against s us p endin g it. The Earl of ST. GERMANS said that the question to which the Noble and Learned Lord (Brougham) referred was fully considered by the Committee, and they decided a t there was nothing sho wn to j ustif y their recommendin g that the standing order be dispensed with. He agreed that the breaking down of the monopoly was desirable, but the }louse had no right to call upon the shareholders to make a sacrifice of their own interests for that purpose. Besides, setting aside the standing orders would form a bad pre cedent. Lord BEAUMONT said the question to which the Noble a nd Learned Lord referred had come before the Committee, a nd the evidence produced by the alleging party amounted to this, that 15,466 voted altogether; of those, 10,257' voted for t h e amalgamation, and 5,209 were in the minority against it ; and of that minority 230 votes were traced to the 'North Western Railway Company; and the decision of the Committee therefore was, that as only 230 votes out of s woo votes were traced or proved to be in accordance with the a llegation, they were not justified in recommending that upo n that allegation the standing orders shouli be dis pensed with. Lord BROUGHAM—The answer of the Noble Lord was perfectly fair, perfectly candid, and perfectly f a t a l t o hi s own ca ".—(Laughter.) After a feW words from Earl FORTESCUE, The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that after the state ment of the Noble and Learned Lord (Lyndhurst), as to the preyi9OPTQcodieg4 Affectin Chid tritAgactiQu, whether the an En; M-A, man sere in Lou- Lord BROUGHAM—A.Ye, don.—(Hear, hear, and sensation.) CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved that the House go into Committee on this Bill. He said the practices which had taken place at St. Alban's were not confined to that borough, and the present Bill had been brought forward to extend to other boroughs, where corrupt practices prevailed the remedial processes which had been adopted in that case by issuing a Commission. He thought it would prove a salutary check to corrupt practices to have hanging over boroughs a searching inquiry, not only into any partichi election complained of, but into previous elections, through which the general character of the borough might be ascer tained, and if found delinquent it would be disfranchised. Ile believed that the measure would have the effect of taking away one of the reproaches which, in the eyes of the people of this and of other countries, attached to the Constitution of this country, and that by timely and constitutional means. That was the basis on which the measure was framed, and he could hardly believe that the Government, or their Lord ships, would refuse to go into Committee, with the sincere desire to accomplish an object so desirable.—(Hear.) The Earl of DERBY said th e o bj ec t o f th e Bill which had jest been explained by the Noble Marquis was one which he was sure would meet with the general concurrence of their Lordships, as it hail already met with the general con currence of the other House of Parliament. No one of their Lordships could wish that the system of bribery and corrup tion which had of late years, he was sorry to say, largely increased, should remain unchecked. It would even be ne cessary, for the repression of that system, that they should consent to measures of a somewhat exceptional character, and not legislate, as hitherto, upon indiyidual cases, but by which, under general power s, Parliament might inquire the conduct of delinquent borou g h s. But nasmuch as this Bill was of an exceptionable c haracter, as it established a new tribunal, and invested it with extraordinary powers, they were bound the more narrowly to scrutinize the nature of these powers, the exigencies and circumstances under which they were demanded, and the manner in which they were to be applied. By the Bill the Commissioners would be invested with the same powers as the Special Come missioners appointed to inquire into the boroughs of Sudbury and St. Alban's. They would have power to call before them all parties, and examine them upon oath; to require the production of all papers and documents, and even, in the case of parties who had hitherto been exempt, such as can didates, Members, solicitors, and agents, to cAI upon them to give evidence which may criminate themselves, with the view of taking ulterior proceedings for the disfran chisement of corrupt boroughs. These were extraordinary powers, and opposed to the previous practice of Parliament ' in such matters. Hitherto special Commissioners had been appointed with definitive instructio ns to examine and report n upon individual cases ; but in fut ure an unnamed and un known Commission was to hav e th e power of making such inquiry, armed with greater po wers than any previous Com mission, and that too appoint e d so l e l y by the Rouse of Commons. That was so great an innovation, that he h urge its importance upon the att en ti on of eir Lor st Ps ° . For the first time it was propo se d to h and over c e u to the House of Commons, upon an a dd ress to thesivelY the power of appointing a C omm i ss i on with such Crow n, extensiv e and extraordinary ju r i s di c ti o n o f powers. He they were bound to' resist such a provision and require that the House of Commons, havingre:i taken oe oi. that the initiative, should ask for the concurrence House in any address to the Crown.— .av, hear.) One strong reason against giving this Commis' asked for was, that it was not named. illinei" the power they were specially named in the Bills b 1 1 ordinary cases appointed, even when the Government yh which they were of Parliament. He r o th e y ne i t h er had ad the con fidence the information nor the check, and that he thought would induce their Lordships to refuse investing the House of Commons alone with the power of constituting such a tribunal the Bill was this—it was founded • Another objectiont cor ruption in towns, cities, and obroughs. But its on evidence of get included counties, divisions an d universities. The words by which these latter to counties, be be lieved, not in the original Bill, but Were included F, a ll no tice, afterwards. Re, therefore, prove but introduced, that it vas was of op unjust to classify counties, pecially the universities, e of bribery had ever been made w divisions of counties, •, against which no eel and, ee -1 elitist whicn bribery had been proved.ith the class of places that respect, to Hewould ' • ss — al form ' and restore the Bill to its origin omit the reference to counties and universities. proposcrine, therefore, in further, that the proposed powers wen_t ecia Hy beyond what the ex igencies of the by giving the Commissioners the e required, att ac e l s! e nd inquire into any ' power to go u eans they might, election they ti su if they 1 ILeasediought proper. Kdo the last or the two last elections, and go back , omit inqUirY . _,. when years, to a period antecedent t Bill o r " vv. when another gene o the Reform '' t nee for the purpose retion of electors were i n nd was sys t e m e atic bribery. What' of proving he continuous a proposed was, that t he power o f f examination should be confined t o t h e n ext previous election, and on bribery being ni j a si n might then proceed to the proved, that the Coln— election previous, an d so on, ° but never in any case to omit c,e, to pm cm the election of 44 electiop, ph 'AI Wit" 11 4:bj a ected lal a il lsi ke ta e t . pow ter which the Noble and Learned Lord had referred to as 1846 to inquire into that of 1841. having been used by one cf the great railway companies had it confounded with bribery, which been . exercised iu this 'instance or not, it nevertheless op- ' treating, which had never been so defined. The of pear ed that it was in the power of a great company to make Commons had always drawn a distinction between the us t e w US3 of this standing order as an instrument not to ad- i and the practice was, that while the proof of bribe d' o, vane ;e their own legitimate interests, but to defeat the sub- qualified the person against whom it was proved from hord sten tial interests of ethers, and of the public; and, there- ing a seat, treating merely disqualified for sitting for the fore, if their Lordships should decide that night that they ; borough in which it was proved to have taken plaee. Re.. were 3 no t justified in going into the merits, he trusted that no ' sides, it depended very much upon the feeling of the Come lon ; tin le would elapse before their Lordships reviewed this mittees of the House of Commons to say what treating wa s . sten tlini ; order; for he believed that, in its present state, it In Serne cases they had declared treating to be prov e d n t affu tded . a great temptation to powerful companies to enter cases where no one would say that any moral wrong what oPo, 3 at ;reeraeuts with other companies for the purpose of ever had been committed. He did not mean to palliate thee, este blia ping mo nopolies. kind of corruption which was scarcely less injurious in its L era BROUGLIANI having expressed a hope that his consequences than the worst farm of bribery, namely. Nob le : Friend would not divide the House, the drinking, which was a disgrace to so many elections T ho motion was negatived without a division. and to the country at large.— (Hear.) But in the case of muiu rEs OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION.—MA- country voters who came half a dozen miles or more, and NAGE,NIENT CLAUSES. who partook of the refreshment which he would have had at itig b . t as tothtveh ~ ,74,e: t h m e a m rq o u t i i i on b t f h L at A t N he s o p r o de ‘ r v of E th , e day be now read, his own home unless engaged upon election business, he who spoke very indis- could not consent to place bribery and treating on the same t w it: l : it :Tr:ea tin cti3 ' was understood to say that he wished to set himself footing, and believed that a grave injustice would be done if Al( ere , Privy Council night last in that • it were so.—(Hear, hear.) The amendment he should Pr ivy regard to the alteration made by the Committee of therefore propose would be, that the consent of that House Council. It was stated b , the Noble Earl the other should: be had to any address to the Crown fur inquiry into ni, itt , that ye al. ;none had mad Le of of the late Go- the case of delinquent boroughs; that counties, divisions of wi th reference t e alterations in the management clauses counties, and the universities be emitted, and the Bill confined at no material alt of . i o Jewish schools after the vote by Parliament to cities, towns, and boroughs; that the Commissioners, in tie grant for the Year, said, order to prove that continuous bribery and corruption ex theratidns had but he had in general terns ye rnment after the vote had been made by the late . Go- sted,should be . limited to the next previous election, with he dan opportunity of referring been taken, and he had since oil, the retrospective power proposed to be given in the Bill such precedent, at dso far from the proceeling to the exact circumstances, of taking any election they choose; and that treatiugsaould put on the seine footing as bribery, while every the to be done to discourage and prevent it. In pa pats y on their Lordshipsc,ontrary would be proved by the thing ought _ ngs of the Privy Council afford- not be table. propcsing these amendments, be trusted it would not be let ter, dated Bth - Jan u They contained a art', to th. Jewish Com- considered that he was actuated by any wish to impede the mi ttee, to the effect that ......, progress us impair a measure which was intended to meet a co aid. be made satisfactor ' unie" an art angement m tat would be made by ish'teo i h T h em, no arrange- great evil. But the innovation on the powers of one of the ni fired; but at the same time he b - —e y w °"ld be be- three eetates of the realm which it proposed was, in his egged to di as they could nut co rear in, and the suggee lie ved it was from mere inadvertence that Say that tee be- opinion, Er . l.ln . a Noble Lord had been made,and 1 th e staden , en , , . • t tions were iastifiel by the reasons he had adduced to their - tL, . ,i , le waseatistie 'as turance last Friday that no alterations aboard"sl with his Lordships.—(Hea9 ARGYLL thought that the amendment to un tit au opportunity had been afforded to their be made The Duke of ore of detail, but would alter the H. >rise, and especially to the other House of Pee7"LardshiPs* exempt counties was not . ju, tging of the propriety of that change. H e "' t ient, of' whole principle Bill. By making en exception of of the .. . ,_. rested upon t-te 'eon was implied against all other authority of the minutes on their Lordships' tabl3, SS r be counties a charge of co,, option he conceived to be a misrepreeentatiou of what had occurrede what constituencies. Re did not see much force in the other al un that with reference to rotations proposed; but he hoped that , under his cognizance, as the head of the Council, and he .reconsidered by the Govern rig I adverted to it - only for the purpose of setting hi tn S t • 'zesPing counties would be rig let. , It went, and that they would not press it. he had merely rho Rail of DERBY said, that after what had fallen from The Earl of DERBY, in exptanation, said had been the ; Noble Marquis, he was cure their Lordships would give r introduced to restore the Biil to the Etate in which it hit nan opportunity for explanation.—(Hear, hear.) On I.,btc by the late Government.—(Hear.) Bill did not Fri clay night last he had the honour of receiving a private inaree eSifA.NLEY (of Alderley) said that the It not a from the Noble Marquis as to whether a minute had vided *v a better power of the House of Commons. only uptroa ber in issued by the Committee of Privy Council, without, particular 4 r machinery than the present for carrying o ho , cover, intending to raise any discussion upon it. The borough would_ had Bill for the disfranchisemenbt ofuanby No ble Marquis did put the question, and he simply detailed under the consi—de--ra-ad been always the case— bebrought the circumstances, and it was with some surprise that he mitted that but litttira of their Lordships' House. He ad - the eived an expression of disapprobation, not with regard counties, but he thou little corruption had been practised in to the substance of the minute, but to the mode and time of a new machinery forgcheckingestablishing corruption, counties should for the charge that he had purposely abstained from laying persist in his amendment for the Noble Earl would not this minute on the table of either House of Parli amen t unt il L or d REDESDALE thou r g e h t t it excepting coun ties. amend the vote had been obtained. The Noble Ma rqu is wen t on to ments proposed by his la oble desirable that the e F state that no important alteration had ever beed mad e by th e Th ey were a ll , he believed, desi r iend should be adopted. o late Government until it had been submitted t o P ar li ament C onservat i ve party ought above r al i l is to ch ec k b r ib ery . The to previous to asking for the vote. I n deed, h e wen t f urt h er, as they suffered ten times more than others be desir ous , i na smuch and stated that no alterations of any impo r t ance h a d b een o f it. C ons id er i ng the immense powers from the practice male without first obtaining the sanction of P ar li amen t. s t owe d i n th e Bill on t h e Commissioners proposed to be be h Though the case of the Jewish. schools would not afford him most desirable to provide th a t t h ey should g thought it was a precedent of the sort, yet he was quite sure th a t i n th e d e - a dd ress t o th e C rown on t h e su bj ect of bribery, named in a " duration made by the Noble Marquis he wa s s p ea ki ng i n thi n k th a t th e a lt era ti ons proposed could be He did not c error of the facts of the case. Recollect the cha rge , th a t it an i nvas i on o f th e p r i v il eges of t h e other House. It was th bad never been the practice to make alterations in th e m i- d u ty o f th e i r L or d s hip s t o t a k e care that the sanction of nutes of Council after obtaining a vote from Parliament. both Houses should be given to the application, of the Act The Noble Earl here proceeded to give in detail certain alte- in each particular case. rations of the minutes by the late Government, which nega- The Duke of NEWCASTLE wished that the Noble Earl tived, he contended, the assertion of the Noble Marquis. had. followel the usual practice and bad given notice of his The management clauses were not laid before Parliament amendments on the second reading. If it had been proposed when the veto was taken in the succeeding year. The ma- in the Bill to deprive their Lordships of any privileges they nagement clauses passed after the vote was taken of the fol- possessed, he should have concurred with the Noble E ar l lowing year. He had stated cases in which alterations were in his objections to .it; on looking, however, carefully at made alter the vote was taken, and not laid before Perlis- the terms of the Bill, he found that it proposed to confer no tnent Until the fleet session. He hoped he had said enough new power on the House of Commons. Before any address to show that Government had n o t a c t e d with ou t precedent, could be moved on the subject of bribery and corruption, a. at the same time he was not disposed to withdraw from the Select Committee must have reported on the case. He felt cognisance of Parliament any of those proceedings. H e was certain that, Seeing what had occurred in Monmouth, no not aware when ho made the stateme n t wheth er the vote Noble Lord in that House would wish to screen such corrupt was taken. The object which induced the Government• to practices from the fullest investigation. bring the measure forward, was that the National Society Lord BROUGHAM thanked his Noble Friend near him was to meet the next day, and they thought they would be (the Marquis of Lansdowne) for having redeemed his pledge generally satisfactory to all moderate Churchmen, and calcu- made in 1847. He (Lord Brougham) entirely approved of lated to reconcile them on points upon which there had been a this measure, with some slight exceptions. At the same great difference of opinion, t i me it could not be denied that by this Bill they were The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he placed implicit making a great change in the law, as well as a great alte reliance on the statement made by the Noble Earl, and ration in the position of witnesses. He thought the Noble begged to say there was no intention of imputing to him any Lords who preceded him had not at all exaggerated the want of good faith. If the Noble Lord thought the altera- object of this Bill. The effect of this Bill would be, tions made were in opposition to the pledges given to Parlia- that for the first time witnesses could be compelled to ment, he would have been justified in the observations he had give testimony, whether these witnesses were principal made, but the alterations made in the management clauses parties or accomplices, or neither, and to answer Were to carry out the principles upon which the minutes were all questions, produce all documents, papers, and books, as based. __ _ _ well as all the written evidence , although the answer to such questions and the production of these papers might have the effect of criminatmg the party so interrogated—(Hear, hear) —and the only protection given to these witnesses was, that they might trust to the tribunal before which they were sent to be thus searchingly examined, and which tribunal would be empowered to give the party a certificate of in demnity against all civil and criminal proceedings.—(Hear, hear.) In the event of the parties giving false testimony, they were denounced by this Bill with all the terrible pains and penalties attending corrupt and wilful perjury. Those horrid and foul crimes of corruption and perjury—the commission •f which was so disgustingly and notoriously prevalent during contested elections—alone influenced him (Lord Brougham) in supporting a measure the object of which was to create so novel and powerful a tribunaL—( Hear. ) For his part he had no objection that the inquiry should extend back to at least the-jest seven years; but he regretted that the measure did not embrace intimidation, which it was of the greatest im portance should not be overlooked.— (Hear, hear.) As to treating, he did nut see why it should nut be regarded as bribery, because it was a mere cover and shift to bribe voters whilst fn a state of beastly intoxication, as was well known to all those who enjoyed the honour of carrying through contested election.—(Hear, hear.) He (Lord Brougham) remembered an instance, limb) , years ago, of the grossest corruption in the way of treating. In one borough the ex penses were between 50,0001. and 60,00)l. ostensibly for beer; and when complained of, the answer made was, that in a borough at the other side of the estuary the cost must have been greater, as the tickets distributed there were for wine instead of beer.—(Laughter.) It might be said, " why will you seek to prevent men coming a distance getting refreshment ?" He (Lord Brougham) replied that, unless you stopped it altogether, and shut the door against it at once, there was no other way to terminate the evil. He doubted not, when it should be generally known that all parties would be subjected to a most rigorous cross-exami nation—not alone as to whether they gave money, or to whom they gave it, but as to their belief and very supposi tion on every matter connected with the election—the effect would be to discourage and diminish those foul practices of bribery and corruption ; because then it must be evident that the characters of those who solicited the suffrages of any constituency were certain to be at the mercy of their agents and supporters.—(Hear, hear.) The Earl of HARROWBY observed that, whilst support- sae Earl of minas, ~..,.. 5....,....__ _____, Ong the measure, their Lordships should be careful hovithey exalted into a conventional offence that which public opinion did not stigmatise with reprobation. The LORD CHANCELLOR said the towns and cities had been found guilty of bribery , which , in fact , was the and universities. Upon every principle of justice, counties and the universities ought to be g in t t o rod th u e cin co g a t n h ti i es s Bill ; but that was not the case w re i a th son re rd for a excluded. Their Lordships did not usurp any privilege of the Commons, because every investigation with regard to a seat of that House must originate in the Commons. If their Lordships allowed such large powers to this Commission, they would give up their rights. If theßill passed in its pre sent form this House would have no power of i s _ suing a Commission, which was to be constituted of barristers of seven years standing. lie had the greatest respect for the bar, but he should know what their antecedents were, and whether the competent to discharge those duties upon a Commission Y 'were by which the powers of that House were abrogated, Bill was passed, the parties might come t House, but was there any probability that they o the bar of that and if they did, in what position would their would do so; placed when they had to deal with a C Lordships be by the Crown ? With reard to retrospective Commission appointed he thought there ought to g be a trospective inquiries, quiries. If they were to pees limitthe to such stale in to have a crusade against past off Bill, why were they wounds that had been healed ? There enc and open up old it. With regard to treating it ought to be a bar to rea sonable refreshment Should be e ught to be checked, but _ treating ought to be made the allowed. The matter.:?! They should not make treat' sulject of a separate Bill. what treating was. He mg an offence until they ee _____, by his Noble Friendthought the amendments proPw v " ought to Lord TRURO said be agreed to. the object of Bill to acquire the means of presenting such previous inquiry should as the House of cases legislative inter ference, •an object decide called for d to desire to accomplish. Ile waswhich all parties proles?! _. asked not aware that anything "'" to be done by the Bill encroach upon the pri vileges of their L which would of Commons asked their Lordships, in The House,. the ower of in quiry in fact, to participate in quiry demanded that narti and to refuse . mind which for the purpose; . in the public mind cipation would create impression „...,,, h ,sake, would very much re- Yium he, for their Lordships . in fact, to the gret. There objection, propo sitions the could be no Address to the Crown on the of Bill, for an or the appointment of part of the H ouse o f Commons, conducted in an the Commission. If the inquiry was Persons, it was competent improper manner, or by P P ? int - Per Tile r appointment ' of barri for their Lordships to reject. lr. meant not the disqualification stets of seven years' stand in l ' g standing and upwards, but of of barristers of eight year s barristers who had been called to the bar for not less than ~,,e u d Learned Friend had objected to seven years. His "Dyn a eo) could see no justice in setting the time, but he (r 4" ni, t , because it was impossible to say any limitation to theelections' or what number of years were ne what number of f the p f h Bill • aired into or urposesany 1 cassary to be ing . b To limit the time would, therefore, be particular borotc b tof the Bill. All former measures had to defeat t" () the requisite powers. This Bill, it was allowed, fallen short , o e f impediments. It was, therefore, for their presenteu t p o show themselves as desirous as he believed them LordshiPs tting an end to the bribery and corruption that to be of P. , s m Cited to prevail in many parts of the country. Be wasi a~ - 1 uently, be grieved if they rejected the measure, should , er 1 the amendments. it or marred few y words from the LORD CHANCELLOR in After a explanation, I,or- CRANWORTH said he considered that legislation o n this subject would be a nullity if a Commissian were not n o itted to issue except on an addressfrom both Houses. tr lin of • • that it would be far better to leave the He was opinion decision to the discretion of the Crown. — (Hear.) Their Lordships then went into Committee. The Earl of DERBY said he still thought the amendments proposed would be beneficial. With respect to bribery in counties and 'universities, this Bill would be a dead letter; but the general object of the measure was dis franchisement. The amendment he had now to propose was in the first clause, and it was to the effect that an ad dress to the Crown should be the address of both Rous t s, and not of one. Lord CAMPBELL feared that the amendment would ma• terially damage the efficiency of the Bill. Earl GREY expressed his astonishment at the amend ment now proposed, after the Bill hed bean adopted by the other House of Parliament, The object of the Bill was to obviate the risk, which at the present moment practically existed, of a difference oi opinion between the two Houses as to whether inquiry should issue or not. If the amend ment were carried he thought it would be idle to proceed with the Bill. The propos • 'at appeared to him to be only an indirect mode of getting r.d of the Bill altogether. The Earl of DERBY had been prepared to ascribe the present measure to a conscientious desire to put down bribery and corruption, but a new light had been thrown upon the subject, when it was contended that the measure was framed with the sole object of avoiding a conflict of opinion between the tWO liPtleg,s, A simila r ar gu nnt might be advanced 1 4 T , E S U N, LON DON, EVENING, JUNE 15 185 Q.,