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

Pa'sed him by and went to Beek for au opponent with whom se might contend upon equal terms. That, Sir; is the Preach feeling.—(Hear, hear.) Well, Sir, I will be told that this case is a, proof of the Austrian feeling. I don't believe any .such thing. I believe that the cowardly eonduet of this lieutenant in cutting down an unoffending British sub ject has met with as.inuch disapproval and disavowal on the part of his comrades in 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 ease at the time that he said the officer was fully justi fied, I ant convinced that a brave man like Marshal Radetzky Would have sympathised with the feeling of Prince Sehwar zenbere.--, who, when he was appealed to by Lord Westmore land, who said, We are both soldiers, and we never, lam sure, could have raised our swords against an unarmed man," and Prince Schwarzenberg, in a responsive feeling, ex claimed, "No, certainly, nothing of the sort could have hap pened to either of us." lam convinced, I say, that if Mar shal Radetzky had known the true facts, of the case he would sever have written what appeared in these papers: or what ever we may think of the policy pursued by the Austrian Government, no one who knows the Austrian feeling and the Austrian army can doubt their generosity and personal coura ge . Well, Sir, there was an outrage committed. By Whom? Why, by an Austrian officer in Florence. Who should be responsible? Prima facie I agree the Government Of the country in which the outrage was committed; but re aPonsibility is the companion of power. Those are respon sible for a thing who could have prevented ir, or who could Punish it ; but where there is no power there ought to be no res eeusibility. Sow, sir, the state of ,thar, Austrian gar rison. is this—that they are in Florence, as stated bymy llonourable and Gallant Friend, their .continuaace there depending on the Will of the Government of Austria, and not upon the will of the Government of Tuscany; and that is not now for the first time known by these dis patches, bat which the Government knew before I quitted °Mee. But then, were the Austrian troops amenable, while there, to the Tuscan authorities? It is perfectly well known they were not. Why, Sir, in the course of last autumn a rude insult was offered by a detachment of Austrian troops to the members of the grand ducal family. They were stopped in their carriage, and cern- Pulled to g e t out of it when taking a drive in the neigh bourhood of Florence; and into that carriage out of Which the members of the errand Duke's family were taken. they put a drunken comrade who was so drunk that lie was unable to return to the town. What did the Tuscan Government do in-this case? Did they punish this drunken tnani - TlO,tieey appealed to the commander-in-chief, and the delinquents were punished militarily by their own officers. Well, it being known that the Tuscan Government have no power or authority over the Austrian troops, it seems to me certainly that prima facie the Austrian Govern- Meat was the quarter from which redress should have been demanded. That redress naturally was of two kinds. In the first place, her Majesty's Government ought to have demanded the punishment of the officer, of whom this at least was known, that he, an armed man, had tut down an unarmed British subject. Well, Sir, the Austrian Government might have made a reply. No doubt they might have said, "There are certain regulations of the Austrian service which made it imperative on the officer, Mader the circumstances, to do what he did. Had he not done so we would have punished him." That would un noubtedly have been an answer that would have required fuither explanation. The English Government would have been entitled to say—" Show us your regulations; we can hot take it simply on your statement." But if the regula tions had been shown to bear out this assertion, and the Austrian Government could have proved that the officer had , no alternative but to do what he did, or be subjected to Punishment by his own superiors, then I must admit that any demand for the •punishment of that' officer could not with propriety have been pressed. But then you would have a right to say to the Austrian Government—" You may Make what regulations you like, provided they are not applied against a British subject ; but when your regulations are applied against a British subject, we think them unjust and improper, and we expect at least that you will make an apology for this injury on a British subject by the regula ti,ous of your service." And I mast say, from the handsome .manner in which this matter has been dealt with, as far as the Austrian Government has been concerned, I think that a great and generous Government would have made that *ethical would have been acceptable as an apology from one Government to another. Bur, then there I think I have a right to criticise the conduct of the last Government, be cause, whereas the Noble Lord has accused the present Go vernment of holding one language at Florence and another at Vienna, I must observe that, in making the communica tion to the Government of Austria, there were no instructions to Lord Westmoreland with regard to any application that he was to make to that Government. The dispatch distinctly s aid, "I have no instructions to give you." No application Was made to the Austrian Government. There, I think, an error was committed. The other part of the redress would have consisted in a demand for compensation to the individual injured; and that would have been a proceeding borne out by innumerable precedents. You may say, "It is unfitting that an injury to an individual, or the honour of the country, should be measured is pounds sterling;" but nevertheless the Power giving such a compensation makes ale admission that an atonement is due, and it is perhaps the only atonement that an individual can obtain Who has suffered a severe bodily injury. The last Government, then, in the first communications sent to Tuscany instructed Mr. Scarlett to demand " ample repa ration," and expressed the expectation of her Majesty's Go vernment that 'that reparation would be promptly given. But they emitted to state what 'that " ample reparation" Was to be, and in so far I think Mr. Scarlett was left in a situation in which I think the agent of the British Govern went ought not to be placed, because he was left to deter- Mine what the reparation was to be. .He was not told whe ther it was to be an apology, or the punishment of indivi duals, or a sum of money. He was left to judge what the nature of the reparation should be; and I think that was n ot a matter which ought to have been left to the dis ceei ion of an agent. It indeed reminded me of a conver sation I had not very long ago with an agriculturist in this country, who lamenting, like the Noble Lord, the u nfortunate condition of the farmer, in reply to my ques tam, " What would you have done for him?" said, " Why, givegive the farmer a fair chance." " But how ?" said I. the farmer a fair chance. "But how?" said I. Wh, give him a:fair chance," was the only answer I raid elicit—the man imagining that that was a sufficiently e telLigible description of the • precise remedy that 'gas necessary. In the same way, an " ample repa retion " seems to me a - convertible term, not of re 'definite quantity, but like the result of an alge enalecal problem that means " equal to nothing."—( Laugh -;et.) It seems to me that a demand might fairly be made "". the first place on the Tuscan Government.' There was a r esumption that they were liable tie make this compensa toll• It was impossible, indeed, to exact from them the pu tienment of the Austrian officer, because he was completely rYond their control, but they ought to make a compensa ten to Mr. M a ther. The Queen's Advocate should have ell consulted; the sum demanded ought to have been such e ue t he he recommended; and that sum having been demanded , ;I r e Gov ernm e n t oug ht to have abided by that demand...-. rear, hear.) Now I come to the present Government , a nd Must say that their course is still more open to criticism than that of the late Government, because they did what was L e rrunusual—namely, call on a sufferer to assess h i s own da mages. —(Hear, hear.) Well, he could not judge of what the fittin g com pensation for himself; that must depend on judgment of impartial persons, and the law adviser bf the rwee eves the proper person to give that advice.—(llear, "ear.) I must say that the Noble Lord the Member for the Ci ty of London was well borne out in his remarks on the curse pursued in forcing Mr. Mather' to name the sum !;ainst his own inclination and protest, and then showing nine up to the Tuscan Government as one who made an ex hrbitant demand. If that demand was considered exorbitant I cannot for the life of me understand why it was communi cated to the Tus ca n G ove rnment.—(Hear, hear.) Now if it had been a subject of dispute between two foreign states of equal weight, we might, if we had been mediators, have been bound to convey to one the proposal of the other. If France and Austria had been the parties, and France had asked for this 5,000/., and we had been unable to effect a dineinutioa 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." Bat in the present case,• I cannot understand why ear. Mather was not told that the sum named by him was exorbitant, and ought to be reduced by himself.—(Hear, hear,. and cheers.) I think , therefore , t h a t t he c ou r se adopted by the present Government is operi to that objection. 'Sad I am sorry to say that I cannot approve of the manner is which Mr. Scarlett executed his instructions, because he evidently went below the minimum amount which he was told to require. He was told, " The least you are to accept Ys 5 004 and if you cannot get that perhaps you must have Nurse to arbitration." Well, that was an intelligible in aetruction, but he accepts less than half the sum , and then tikes in part the release of the two Messrs, Stratfords.— (,ttear, hear.)• I think it would have been unfair that they should have made up the difference, but the fact' is, with re gard t o t h em, t h at they were accusedl of that whichl was in e t ts . e Itan offence, that is to say, they had in their House a nvate printing press contrary to the law of Tuscany, and was shown that they printed things of a tendency un eavourable4te the Government. But they were tried by an Austrian court-martial at Leghorn, a protest being raised by me when I• was a member of the Government against the ropetency of the court. We-find by a fundamental law of tecany that even the Tuscan Government cannot establish Martial 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 *alidity of the sentence. To throw the Messrs. Stratfords tOto the bargain in the present case was, therefore, no great sletisfaction to Mr. Mather —(Laughter) -.and I think it Was not, diplomatically speaking, a fair arrangement, inas betide as we should have had them without loss to Mr, kather.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) Then I shOuld say thet Mr. Scarlett acted hastily and . unwisely in thid ?hatter, and I also very humbly think that her Ma- Jester' s Government acted very hastily in sanctioning . that ar rangement. They seem to have been under the impression th 'at whatever a British agent abroad agreed to, whether in c onformity with or against his instructions, must necessarily ' adopted by his Goverunient.—(Hear, hear.) Now, that is ;It according to i nterna tional- principles. If you can show eat the acts of an agent are contrary to his instructions, you 'Vt disavow him, an re fuse to sanction his proceedings.- din gs. (hear, hear.) Therefore the Government wou ld have been Perfectly justified in refusing to agree to the arrangement Made by Mr. Scarlett. H e ar, hear.) I con fess that I think ie either pecuniary compensation was to have been demanded, ‘"er from Tascanv or from Austria, that in a case of that sort a suns in e of 500/. was alts inadequate , either ro for the sufferings of the individual, or as an atonement sna re one country to the Government of another.—(Hear, e eat. and loud cheers.) But then, Sir, I think that the Go vernment, having adopted that arrangement, and having consented to take 500/. and the two Stratforda in exchange it"( Laughter— ex am ination they acted with great haste, and on elimperfect of documents. when they disavowed ••r, • Scarlett in the last dispatch on the ground that he had ,ilsandoned the principle of the responsibility of Tuscany, r came Mr. Scarlett did no such thing.—( Hear.) What net mistake Mr. Scarlett may have made in his anxiety to •Vme to an arrangement, he did not abandon the principle ; waived the discussion of the principle, but he by no means ab andoned it, and he even distinctl y re-affirmed i t. If the Noble Lord the Under -Secretary of State will look at Mr. .Larlett's note to the Duke of Casti g liano of the 18 th' of " 4 4; a rch, he will see that it co ntains word for word the asser 'dm on the part of the British Government that Tuscany is Scarlett for what happened to Mr. Mather. When Mr. marlett and the Duke of Castigliano came to a final arrange.. RI: meat, it was agreed that the lat ter thould offer 220/. and the "Stratford and and that the discussio n on the principle of respon sibility should be waived: •The Duke of Castigliano does not adhere to the bargain. He adheres in regard to the money, T butA he perseveringly reiterates in his n ote the p rinciple that d~allicanY was not responsible. I n Mr. Scarlett's reply, dated the 18th April, he says—" I accep t y our arrange ment ; but as you have thought it right to reeaffirm your Principle of the non-re ons ibility of Tuscany , I think it right to refer y ou to m y note of the 18th of March, in 'which the principle of theßritish Gover nment is laid down th a t y ou are responsible, end Y. tell you that the British Go vernment maintain s that principle in all integrity. I am, therefore, at a loan to understand how the Government thought that M r , B °Arlett abandoned that Prilic i P le, an d I T 11 .E i think he was riot to be blamed for that part of his arrange- i 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 tak3 the money in our sense, and, whatever you may say to the contrary, if . a similar case should occur again, we will compel you .to give compensation.— ( Hear, hear.) We do not care a pin for your assertion, that you are not responsible: we tell you that you are, and that we will make you responsible."—(Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) The present state of things is not one which need lead to any serious interruption of the friendly relations between this 1 country and Tuscany—relations which the Tuscan Govern ment, evidently think-we attach infinitely more importance to than I think .is attached to them by an y one in this country.(Qh. and laughter.) Of c ourse , we s h o uld be sorry to 'break off friendly relations with Tuscany or any other Government, but somehow I think we should survive such an event.—(Laaghter.) 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 the principle of the independence of that country, but I do not think that you maintain its independence by compelling it to pay ,for something which has been done by: another countrv.—(Hear.) It is something like making Tuscany the whipping -boy of Austria.—(Hear, and laughter.) I think that a better practical lesson might have been read by applying in the- present instance, to Austria.--(Hear.) The practical lesson read to Tuscany is thi s —and it is one that is applic able to all small states - "You say you have practically sur rendered your independence, an d have admitted a foreign garrison, over whom you have no , control; well, we will make you pay for the conduce of that garrison." There is a moral in that, -but I am not sure whether on European grounds the lesson would not have been better read to other powers-(Hear, hear)—by sayiog to them, "If you take advantage of your superior force to occ u py with a garri 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 you."—( dear, hear, and loud cheers.) Both lessons might be good, but I am not sure that the- latter would not be in a European sense the better of the two.--( Hear, hear.) I am very much in terested in the independence of Tuscany, and I must say that these papers call the serious attention of the House and the country to the unfortunate position of a large portion of the Italian states.—(Hear, hear.) The Italians are ,a people endowed with very great 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 capa 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 mant prevails. The Government of Austria desire that the people of Italy should draw a comparison favourable to themselves between that part of Italy which they govern and that part which other Governments rule over; but, like the gentleman from the sister island, who complained to his bootmaker that whereas he had ordered him to make one 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, "The Lombard and Venetian states are better governed than we are," only lead them to say that there are other states worse governid.—(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 prevaits 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 perpetually 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 Rome until Austria bad abandoned Tuscany, and in like manner the Austrians would not quit Tuscany until the French had 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 used, but the month of May has now gone by.—( Hear, hear.) I do entreat her Mejeety'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 por tions of the people of Europe, but it is one which concerns great international principles. I should hope that her 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 and 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 these 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 which I am sure mist engage . the sympathy of every man in this country; and lam 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 am 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. On these subjects the Noble Lord is &every high authority; 'and I am sure that the temper and tone with which he treated the question to-night will lend additional influence to the opinion he has expressed.— (Hear, hear.) The Neble Lord, we have been informed by the Noble Lord (J. Rust-ell), the Member for the City of Lon don, is a very high authority, because he understands the business of the departm6nt 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 Foreigni Secretary whose conduct we have now to defend, we cannot forget the remarkable circum stances under which the twONobleLordsseparated.—(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 (Mr. Osborne), who spoke in his usual airy tone—(Laughter)—told us, " It is very easy to settle these things. Look at the case of Mr. Russell, our consul at New Grenada. The people of New - Grenada callected 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 dinibt when a consul, who, in South America, may be looked upon as a quasi 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 thanthe 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 Malmesbury very properly said, it was an accidental one. And I was quite surprised at the elaborate manner in 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, ought not to have gone to Tuscany, but to Austria for redress. I shall not defend the conduct of the Government by reference to that of 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 din 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 in 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 mediatised Power. But that is hot part of the policy which her Majesty's Ministers wish to maintain with reference 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 ioreieen 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 circumstances 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 eonaiderably 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 Tuscany and Auitria which we have never recognised nor 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 not sanction ,• and I ane sure it would not be theN e oble Lo ifenrdy rate he ware in aor B s i a b lf: p i sanct ioned o b n y . .....(Liar.) At eitdoes n m ots e espeermtohn st the late Government acted on that principle;and Ithink they were Wise in the course they took idle at Vienna. Though we did, not But we were not Austria to make reparation, we exercised officially tils call upon possessed at that Court in a manner which wast influencewe calculated t to facilitate and accomplish a friendly and satifa But I acknowledge I have heard nothing froni satisfactory result. l Lord, for a moment to induce me to believe that it was ob h e e duty of a British Minister, under the circumstances—otut rage being committed' on a British subject in Tuscany —to h ave sought satisfaction from Austria.—(Rear, hear.) The next considerable point in this case is, that referring to what has been called the only means in which the Secretary of State endeavoured to obtain reparation for this injury. I say no thing of Mr. Mather further than that he was a respec table Englishman placed ' circumstances under of great dif& swhich, from his previous habits of catty/ circurastanc l x erience of. He appears to have had had litt e e p life, he co nd uc t e d himself w ith discretion and good sense; and ticise b his conduct or language wou any attempt to e rt th in taste and good feeling. ld, -- I think, be wanting o told that the Secretary of State (Hear, hear.) But has sent for Mr. blather,' when I am and proposed a pecuniary indemnity to 'settle the affair, am bound, in justice to my tbat is a ' colleague and the Governmen t, to sa y thaty an state mentmpres- which g i ves to the House and co sion whichvery ac is not cura te,—( Hear, untr he ar.) i Th ere is no appearance in the paper. we * have placed on the table of such an incident. ' There is a statement by Mr. Mather, which I d wish but I beg not to criticise; o the House to vi • f the world and ew the case as men o Members of Parliament, and they w ill easily understa nd that, at an interview between Mr. Mather and th e Secre tary of State, such a subject • . might have been brought up and entered into with perfectthe art of the • Minister, and on the part of pr e oiet on p t h gen tl eman who was cone vi:,ening aeaiest the conduct of a f, • I have ret ,, n power. here the minute made by Lord. Maltuesb ° after the inter view with Mr. Mather. I shall u ary not read that minute, be cause its cateut4 might introduce into this debate ill I - SUN, feeling, which I do not wish to encourage, or might hurt the feelings of individuals not present; but I say most dis tinctly tat, on that occasion, Lord Malmesbury did nothing anal said nothing but what any of his predecessors might, and probably would, have said; and without the slightest reflection' on Mr.' leather, I must say that the ques tion 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 statementsevhich I have seen. Two Points were then discussed—the reparation due to the coun try for injury done to a subject of her Majesty, and the re paration 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 toyour injured son."—(flear, 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 mod© recognised in this country by which a reparation can be made. Why, gentlemen, in this cou,ntry, on subjects in which their most delicate honour is concerned, appear before courts, and accept pecuniary damages.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.). Does ahybsdy 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 pose; tion of Mr, Mather, who has - antlered as he has suffered at Florence, should accept as an avowed acknowledgment for a wrong inflicted by a Government of a fine from that Governe ment, is a proposition which I think few on reflection would attempt to substantiate, and which I am sure the common' sense of thisecountry 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 bo obtained from that power. I maintain that the conduct of the Government . was perfectly proper. Then I am told by the Hon. Member (Mr. Osborne) that Lord Malmesbury showed • great infirmity _of purpose. I see no infirmity of purpose; ,tor I find in his dispatches he is con sistent in trying to obtain the same end ; and •in his very first letter to. Sir Henry Bulwer, of the 26th of April,' he cleeires 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 500/., 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 Government. 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. It was because the great object was not attained—that object being, in our mind, not merely this particular enetance, but having reference to circum stances that may exercise a great 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 (Palmerston), " what could possibly have induced the English Minister to let the Tuscan Government know that Mr. Mather had fixed upon 5,000/., 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, an ample compensation for the sufferer, not with reference to the vindication of the national honour, but as a compensa tion to Mr. Mather for the gross insult, and by way of ac knoeledgment 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., hatb s po h u bfrla see c al tep h tethaoacwar a hl sum, etolaeadhsdn,at tg amtoohieuneo tro.u w sof inauo h ettkmo,rt i c erpt h utwhlhe otae t ioec h oyuuen e l y diesoioo k n;bi n tsh:he e although the Government was 'not prepared to sanction o ap u nr l edpbaree d,Government,quitean a i . n i w pc hearingrr a e c m ti o ca r e ewenwemT itu r e swe , u asi l yt t . i i l m :T a anht t he e da l N y t lo d rboae i l d menL ; aor f kr o d r ntli s ee t idge a I I t et state of a4gteii yve l ne t as sure the Noble Lord that he only does 'justice to the feelings of Government when he assumes that they look with great interest and with some anxiety to the present • state of that important and interestin g country. B ut the Noble Lord spoke in a tone as .though the Government were responsible for this. The alto 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 .in onions his policy; but the state of Italy has not been im proved hitherto either by the councils or the conduct of the Noble Lord. —( Hear, 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 Noble Lord the state of Italy is rather aggravated than not, her Majesty'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.—(Load 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 of a Government which in my opinion is greatly responsible for 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 oar fellow-subjects, when he is injured, and when he is one of such tender years, and who appears to have be. hayed with such good feeling throughout the whole trans action.—(Cheers.) But it, is not a question on which even with an impending dessolution, you can impeach a Go:vern.- ' ment. = (Cheers.) No one knows that better than the Noble Lope 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 unnoticed; 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 r e view of the, 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- 1 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, heeo I wish the Noble e Lord, who has read many extracts from dispatches (though with the context th ey con vey to me a very different hue 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 passaged:let would have supported that stateinent.--( Hear, hear.) I have stated, and lam 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 tiable.—(Loud cheers.) If lat 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 if 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, fbr 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 has donte(and of which I was not conscious that Bead), 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 if 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 measurewhich it had been thought necessary to pass; and when I mentioned that measure of Chancery reform in the catalogue et 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 em barked In a Chancery suite=—(Laughter.) Well, there is a prospect of - that Bill being carried; but I do not claim any great credit for it, except th a t w h en a chance was offered us do this great good to the country we did it, in spite of the Noble Lord the M n Well then," says Member for Tiverton.—(Load cheers.) of great important®. thelleeible Lord, "there is another subject respect to the agricultural your equivocal conduct with interests--besides the false plumage with Which y i o lav uhave arrayed y ourse lf, b es id es your false ref orm , you thing, you have act e d in a e troubl e d an d di stur b ed every . - in tampering with the most unconstitutional mann e r great question of education."— (Hear, hear.) Now, what have horror from the repetition of such manoeuvres ; but the , Noble Lord has had recourse to the same unjustifiable course. this indignation on the part of th e e those mournful questions which, with aim have been addressed to us by the - Hon e o e u for Chichester?—(Laughter.) I am here conduct of the Government. The Noble Lord s party—nay, w i‘ e To tine to arouse all Noble Lord, and all a b lroken heart r t a o L i Member, for a higher object—for hustings purpose, o defend the that for have been tampering with the established system of r) educa tion.—(Hear, we tion.—(Hear, hear.) Yes, you shall hear.—(Cheers ancad laughter.) The Noble Lord cannot hear of education and religion being used 'for party purposes. Does he remember the appropriation clause ?e-(Cheers.)' He shrieks with It emu t h at there boire 'been certgon ;augment clituoco TUESDAY issued by the Coininittee of Privy Council on Education, and laid on the table tonight; and I think that the Noble Lied had better have read them before he delivered his speech this evening ;-• (Hear.) But it is not true that we have altered the manageMent cl auses . Th e y remain.; but, consistently with the opinion we have always held, we have ventured, in two instances, to o ff er an a l terna tive to 'Ohose who woutd - not - accede to th e management c l au ses, which we have not disturbed; and, which are s till the clauses of the Committee of Council. Well, if this alternative is one of which the. muse disipproves, it will take means to express its feeling; but confident I am, . o not England, t only that every person who . i s i n t erested in the Church but that everybody wh o i s sens ib le o f the valueof justice in public affairs, will approve of them.-(Cheers.) We are charged with having taken the vote, and then having introduced a new system. Rut what are the facts? The first management clauses, A, B, C, and D, were dated on the2Bth of June, 1847; and the vote 000,000/0 was taken on the 26th of Aptil.-_-(Lond cheers.) The clauses themselves did not appear until they appeared in A blue book, six months afterwards.-(Cheers.) In 1849 there were some i m p or tant alterations made in these cl auses. They wer e signed on the 26th of May. It is true th a t t h e vote .(125,000/.), was not pasbed till June 4, but the cl ausee were never laid on the table till they appeared in a 'blue book in the month of the ne xt January. In fact, with t ne sole exception o f t h e y e ar when the pupil teachers were i n t ro d uce d , t h e y were never laid on the table before th e vote was taken- -( Hear, hear) The Noble Loid m ust not expect to shr i n k un d e r the gaberdine of Lord Lansdowne. Within the last eighteen months there had been important alterations re lating to Roman • Catholicise Presbyt er i ans , and Jews, but these were never submitted to. Parliament.- (Hear, hear.) , The charge is one that affects our 'character not only as Ministers, but as gentlemen, and. I trust that such conduct will never he that of any Government from whatever side it may be recruited.-(boud cheers.) If I thought that we had taken advantage of the House of Commons-if I thought we had cheated the people through the representatives of money to support a system- 'which -they looked upon with dislike-I should have conceived that there was spirit enough in the House, even at this period: of the session, to have expressed their reprebatimo uch conduct.-(Loud of cheers.) The Noble Lord may b e , assured that we s h a ll g o to the country, with no undue.confidereete, I trust, but at least in such a manner as will allow ads to m e et th e people without shame; and whatever the Nobl e L ord may say of the c h ange of our opinions, I .shall be p repared to vindicate th e m before my constituents, in - a ma nner that I trust w ill en title -s me to maintainstbeir good -opinion. ' I deny that there has been at any time since the unfortu nate year 1846, the circum stance of which I deeply deplore, I deny th a t there has been any attempt on our part to chan ge the position w hi c h we then took. I, look now, and e hall aver look, oilthe changes which took place in 1846, both as r egards the repea l o f the corn-laws and the change in the sugar duties-'I shall always look Upon those measures as t otally unaut h or ised.- (Cheers.) I opposed them, as most of my fr i en d s around me opposed thane, from fear and appreh ens i on o f the suffer ings which those changes would produ ce . and that suffer ing, though it may be limited to. particular classes, has far greater than we anticipated. I deny that after these la s w 4 laws were passed I, or those with whom I have acted, have wished to recur to the same laws which regulated those industries.-(Cheers.) I cannot recall a speech- I defy anybody to quote any speech that I ever ma d e , or any sentence that I ever uttered, in Which I recom mended such a course •as desirable or possible. What is a policy. Is a your charge against Lord Derby? mended a fixed duty, and .that now he has intimated that e h n c o e t t s a op t p h o e r t You say he recom mended of combefore 1846 ? Why, if in cWilhiCh regulate.' the or Lord Derby had declared that he counselled a recurrence to those laws, fined be c o d u u n t t y r y e roc u r will r do not you think you. would he ever ready t o re f er to his speeches, and that night after night you would din your quotations in our ears? I defy you to produce a single sen tence of the kind., When we come to this question of a fixd duty, on which you have talked so much, i say I will not pin my career, my political career, on what is not a prin ciple bat a measure. 1 should be very glad as a financier if there was a moderate fixed duty on corn. I admit that, and I see plenty pf great authorities opposite m e who have often and often advocated it. But if t - find by circum stances which I do not wish now parti cu l arly to describe (lronical cheers)-by acts Which I 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 tar, whether rightly or wrongly, I cannot see that I e 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-oleo whose political opinions entirely agree with - Yours, distin guished writers, members of the political economy club not merely the writings of Mr. M'Calloch, and whom once you always quoted, though now you shrink from his authority- but to the writings of Colonel Torrens, to the e pages of .Mr. Mill, I might appeal to scientific e Pges, and you w ould find it difficult to quote others against me. But in governing mankind* we must_ 10Qk to something beyond mere scientific propriety; and if a measure, though it may 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. BO what is this mea sure which you seem always wishing us to propose? which you with such anxious wishes seem so zealous tnat we should introduce? , It is, after all, nothing but a coun tervailing duty, not merely viewed in its financial light; it ~ is a counterv a ili ng duty against certain inequalities of taxation. And if yon can remoye these i nequalities 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 a c ti ng i n s t r i c t cons i s tency 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 pre ferable, and which we belieVe to be popular. Why session after session, at the desire and with the sanction of my friends, I have repeatedly Urged uptin this House a variety of 'means, all of the same charatter, by which this result might be obtained without having recourse to this unpopular method, which you 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 obstacles; 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 decor an unjust And artifici a l • price for his Prod" - • u m _These are the views Which we supported in oppositien--these are the views 'which we are resolved, if possible, to carry into effect. It is but justice to those classes to whom you acted unjustly in 1846, and we wish to do justice to them without altering the system w hi c h . now prevails. I believe the country will suport these views - I believe that that temperate Poli c y will be ratified by the country. The Noble Lord the Member for the city of 'London talks of our being a party without a principle. Well, he seems to be in opposition wi thout a cry--(cheers.) He 'confesses that nothing is beat without 0 . inion, no movement, noole agitation whatever is left. , p. - e Noble Lord, with the ima gination of a poet-far he is still a oet, at his last gasp, to 4 my great surprise, discove re d a resource-something we mus t ~ 'rally round; we must rally round the apothegm of that pro found gentleman the Member for Rs n ; That Right lion. 'Gentleman has emblazoned on his standard the inscription, "No confidence in the Derby ministry ."- (Cheers.) Why , a year ago, upon that same standard was emblazoned "Do not trust the Noble Lord th e Member for the City ."- (Cheers.) Sir, we shall survive that want of confidence, and e if the only way in which the Noble Lord ord thinks, he can mike the present Government • un p o pular if the only m ode by which he thinks heean upset the present Admin i stra tion is by showing to the country that it does not posses s the con fidence of the Right Hon. Barollet th e Member for Ripon, why, then, Sir, I must express re ° 4 Y hearty h ono ur of that at this time next year we shall still Mare the - of serving her MiOsty.-(Loud cheers.) , Lord D. STUART said he wished to recall the attention of the House to the case of at, Mather. He was sure, if ' Hon. Members would read :the dispatches, that if had been Lord Malre es h u ,, they to pay court to Tuscany and to Austria at the expense•T' desire of AL.:, country, and to do all he could of the dignity this to i e the character o f Mr. Mather, he could not havenjur Right d ac tually done. The Hon, done b e tter than he ha Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer described what had d in Tuscany as "an unhappy squabble." D i d' occurre become a British Minister? All that Mr. Mather hraseology demanded from the British Government was redress, and there was nothing in his condabt to ' criticise unless it were his yielding so • readily to the wishes of L er , ss - ne Malesburoa-(0h, oh.) What chance was there otsucces s ; , - _ h Foreign Secre • • d taken such an extraord• " tary ha . Wen t e re the T can I , e uatY, course? The effect • was to determine I tie - oieivernment 'not to make • adequate reparation. t was all' v 11 for the Right Honourable Gentleman to talk of eery we the he 1 deuce of foreign states. Tlie Ri oeo respecting iu e "‘ Honourable Gentleman did not take. that view some Years ao; g when he de- fended the assault on racow. e s - they reapected the inde dence of Tuscany, let them also in ' t f reign respect pen subjects. If the hon e Ins on o for British of En g land was not to in this matter, the -tir be vindicated it car of h a d arrived at a position than more disgraceful 14 ' 1 ever before occupied, b 's As to Lord Malmes a'dispatchprobably u' speaking of them as a whole, he must s-y , that er such an extraordinary set of state Opers were nev before P r esented to Parliament. Nor was this the only outrage eo mr ,„ - "lted on British telbjects Tuscany. The ; dispatches cona nie in statement 'that British subjects were subject y uced by a re eutra4 ° in Tuscany than in any other country. ~ w t , p e more Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton was at th e u ri the f the Foreign office the honour °film country w as sad inai _ a _O British subjects were protected-e(Oh I and u and b ie t ee ined batnow, in Tuscany, in Rome, in Austria, and . i n 'La ,countries, were liable to oth ) econtinental r C • Englishmen insw. while our Foreign- o fe ee It, and there was no 'hope of redress and __.. . _ , -' was constituted as it now was. --iv' e.,, (Ohl . l-'' 6 ' to ° The motion was then agreed , aria ... up, the report of the 'Committee of Supply was brought the - ' Colonel SIBTHORP opposed vote f or • of clerks and other ;attendingexpenses al yment the N Ex hibition. there The House then divided, when appeared :...... - Fore the vote... a . s ................ . . - 1 16 . .' Against it ............................ . .. ' 23 - - Majority for the vo e ..: . . ...... . 93... • The House then went into •Cornmitse e Consolidated` e. °' Ways and Means, and; the Surplus of Fund and. Transfer of Aids were voted. - - were postponed Several orders of the day '• ' - NEW ZEALAND BILL . . read On the motion that this Bill be a third • time 'on Thursday, - Mr. A.GLIONBY said the effect of that would be, that without discussion would be passed the New one stage s--and there of ew Z was the subject of the position _ealande Y ompan brought forward. which would be . Sir J. PAKINGION was s to be understood to MY that there were some few verbal alterations aSSI made in th e - Bill, and that there would be an opportunity for disc • from Mr. J. A. SMITH, On. After a few words gale notice that- on th e Mr. AVIDERLEY tonetuen third rea di n g p . t of all the he would move the pc ) : Company, clauses' having and New 'Zealand reference to thetheir reference Committee, sho gentlem en re to a Select should the presenting ' in the House persist in inserting clauses gg he Canterbury settlement. • Aster ruin b them control over t err• GlOdstone as to the propriety Of an no S s . servation from --• . th e third reading e fixed . --t° 1 . . certain clauses, was for polling 'Thursday next. NISI P R/US • OFFICES BILL - . hrough This Bill went t Committee pro fo rma. AP POINTMENT OF OVERSEERS BI LL. This Bill also went through Committee. ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL. ENCU MBERED ENCU - ES is Bill be read a seemed time ' On the motion that this the postponement P ' Mr. BUTT suggested __. 0 , t h e stage , which was agreed to. Nees ( mIRELAND) BIL L SAVINGS •B. &h CO REPEAL This Bill passed throug s REPEAL BILL. DISABILITIE Mr. ROUT PALMER moved the third reading of 1 this Bill. - Mr. MULLINGS opposed the Stags on the ground of the I litteizeo of the kW : • LON DO N, E ENING, Mr. R. PALMER explained that the object was to relieve persons of the Jewish persuasion from certain extraordinary dislbilities under which they at present laboured. The Bill had been introduced in the other House 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 Proteitaat Dissenters' Bill passed through Committee pro forma. The Public Health Act (1848) Amendment Bill was read a second time. • The Thames Embankment Bill passed through COmmittee. The County Courts Further Extension Bill was read a third Vine and. passed. The Representative Peers for Scotland Act Amendment Bill was read a second time. - • ALAI - NO(ITH COLLEGE. On the motion for the adjourned debate, Mr. H. HERBERT moved that the House adjourn. The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place ; and on 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 John Russell was absent, 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 fit 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 not on the paper. He himself could not alter hie 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. Mayan; 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. SCULLY, who denied that he had ever spoken againit 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 au 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 knew' 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 bis intention to go home when he began. Sir B. HALL said he would certainly pair off with the Right Hon. Gentleman rather than listen to the speech of the Hoe. and Learned Member for Cork.—(Laughter.) Mr. It PALMER said that he intended to vote for the inquiry, though not on the ground put forward by the Hon. Member (Mr. Spooner), hiut a division taken at that hour of the night would not faithfully repres ent 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 House 1 29 Against ••• Majority ••• Mr. MAGAN then moved the a djournment of the debate. Mr. SCULLY protested' against the b deate being then c ontinued, and recommended Mr. Spooner to withdraw his motion. —(Laughter.) Mr. SPOONER said he would not object to the adjourn ment of the debate, not wishing to put he House to incon venience. After a conversation. in which Mr. Elliott, Sir J. Young, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Newdegate, and Mr. R. Palmer, took part, 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. SOUSE OF LORDS, June 14. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Zve o'clock. MAYNOOTIL • The Earl of WINCHILSEA gave notice that in the coursers& the next session 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 propo3ed by the Noble Earl was certainly-better and fairer thaw that taken—he would not say where—but certainly not in their Lordships' Houi . e. The Doke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the farmers of Sussex, complaining of the present mode of assessing the property-tux. GREAT WESTERN, SEIREWSBURY, &c., RAIL: JUNE WAY. Lord BEAUMONT rose to move the suspension of the standing order, No. les, sect. 1, with regard to the Great Western, Shrewsbury, and Birmingham Rail way, and Shrewsbury and Chester Railway Amal gamation Bill. This standing order, known by the. name of the ", Wharneliffe 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 meetinglield for that purpose. When first created it bad required only the consent of three- fifths, but within the last two years it had been extended to fourfifths; 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 or 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. Ile thought that this wee 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 means of communication, and whethet 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 tile 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 whiph 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 course 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 be so readily induced to set aside their decision, founded though 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 jeopardy ; for it behoved them to see s tanding order was in that that order operated for the purpose for which it was in ititated, instead of acting as an obstruction to a jast decision of an important case uis merits. He admitted that the standing order had itsadvantages, and if their Lordships agreed to his motion on the present occasion, he would always advocate its not being lightly dispensed with. Lord BROUGHAM felt a great repugnance to withdraw in any matter of a pirate nature from the Select Com - ! mitg tee to t he decision of the House, for obvious reasons. He did not say that a case had not been made out for departing from that rule, but the proof must rest upon the them to make that departure. They werecalled ing upon upon, on an allegation of a fraudulent proceeding in shares, to susoendthe standing orders. That allegation, made on one w as denied on the other. Be wanted to know, then, side, h a d or bad not the Standing Orders Com mittee an opportu nity of exercising their judgment upon the truth or false hood of that allegation? He understood that the Committee had had that opportunity, and that it had not thought roe upon investigating the allegation, to report in favour oft he justifiableness of suspending the standing order. If that were so, he was against suspending it. The Earl of ST. GERMANS said that the question to *Wall the Noble and Learned Lord (Brougham) referred was fully . cons idered by th e Committee, and they decided that there was nothing 'shown to justify their recommending that the standing order be dispensed with. He agreed that the breaking down of the onopoly was desirable, but the House had no right to Cal f upon the shareholders to make saerifice 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 and Leareed Lord referred had come before the Committee, and the evidence produced by the alleging party amounted to this, that 15,466 voted altogether ; of those, 10,257 voted for the 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 s3O votes out of 5,209 votes were traced or proved to be in accordance with the allegation, they were not justified in recommending that upon that allegation the standing orders shoull be dis pensed with. Lord BROUGHAM - The answer of the Noble Lord was perfectly fair, perfectly candid, and perfectly fat a l t o hi s own (Lauhter.) After a few words from Earl FORTESCUE, The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that after the state , meat of the Noble and Learned Lord (Lyndhurst), as to the proTiMPigeoHdiggil AffeCtin tralcti9u, wing= the 18.52. power which the Noble and Learned Lord had referred to as having been used by one of the great railway companies Ind been exercised in this :instance or not, it nevertheless ap , peered that it was in the power of a great company to make use of this standing order as an instrument not to ad vance their own legitimate interests, but to defeat the sub stantial interests of others, and of the public; and, there ' fore, if their Lordships should decide that night that they were not justified in going into the merit's, he trusted that no long time would elapse before their Lordships reviewed this standing order; for he believed that, in its present state, it afforded a great temptation to powerful companies to enter upon agreements with other companies for the purpose of establishing monopolies. Lord BROUGHAM having expressed a hope that his Noble Friend would not divide the House, The Motion was negatived without a division. MINUTES OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION.—MA NAGEMENT CLAUSES. On the motion that the order of the day be now read, • The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, who spoke - very indis tinctly, was understood to say that he wished to set himself right as to what had occurred on Friday night last in that xnl).leirogrittahvsymtatheiennatotrahettrien:dnatocttthe alteration made by the Committee of l' 9 ' .l a t se e e ra sta tio te n d s urrnitt of Priv y y Council of the late Go bin the the Noble management clauses othe r with rule, once to J of the grant for the , verament after rho vote ha d l terms said, that no material alterations 3ear, but he had in genera ewisla schools after the vote by Parliament had been made by the late Go had an opportunity of referring ing any such precedent, the c ontrary and so far from the preceei Ss of the Priv,y to the exact circumstances, . been taken, and he had since proved by the would be papers on their Lordships' t able . letter, dated Sth Jartua y a b'ee . They contained a mittee, to the effect tha t the Jewish Com eourici I 'afford could be made satisfactory Ili:" an arrangement meat would be mad e b y which t hem, no arrange nefited ; but at the same time he be ~eTey.s w °uld be be lieved it was from mere inadverteng I.l2:'that he ba the Noble Lord had been made, and he teas st ag tatement of assurance last Friday that no alterations slLtil3d witb a b d i e s until an opportunity had been afforded to their L ba Ti ns House, and especially to the other House of Perli °rje judging of the propriety of that change. He rested 'i u rb s ent ' t -- authority of the minutes on their Lordships' table, as tioonsvhbet he conceived to be a misrepresentation of what had occurred under his cognizance, as the head of the Council, and he , had adverted to it only for the purpose of setting himself right. The Earl of DERBY said, that after what had fallen from the Noble Marquis, be was sure their Lordships would give him an opportunity, for explanation.—(Hear, hear.)-` On Friday night last he, had the honour of receivi ng a pr i vate note from the Noble Marquis as to whether a minute had been issued by the Committee of Privy Council, without, however, intending to raise any discussion upon it. 'The Noble Marquis did put the question, and he simply detailed the circumstances, and it was with some surprise that he received an expression of disapprobation, not with regard to the substance of the minute, but to the mode and time of laying it upon their Lordships' table. He was not prepared for the charge that he had purposely abstained from laying this minute on the table of either House of Parliament until the vote had been obtained. The Noble Marquis went on to state that no important alteration had ever been made by the late Government until it had been submitted to Parliament previous to asking for the vote. Indeed, he went further, and stated that no alterations of any importance had been made without first obtaining the sanction of Parliament. Though the case of the Jewish schools would not afford him a precedent of the sort, yet he was quite sure that in the de claration made by the Noble Marquis he was speaking in error of the facts of the case. Recollect the charge, that it had never been the practice to make alterations in the mi nutes of Council after obtaining a vote from Parliament. The Noble Earl here proceeded to give in detailcertain alte rations of the minutes by the late Government, which nega tived, he contended, the assertion of the Noble Marquis. The management clauses were riot laid before Parliament when the vote was taken in the succeeding year. The ma nagement clauses passed after the vote was taken of the fol lowing year. He had stated cases in which alterations were made after the vote was taken. and not laid before Parlia ment until the nest session. He hoped he had said enough to show that Government had not acted without precedent, at the same time he was not disposed to withdraw from the cognisance of Parliament any of those proceedings. He was not aware when he made the statement whether the vote was taken. The object which induced the Government to bring the measure forward, was that the National Society was to meet the next day, and they thought they would be generally satisfactory to all moderate Churchmen, and calcu lated to reconcile them on points upon which there had been a great difference of opinion. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he placed implicit reliance on the statement made by the Noble Earl, and begged to say there was no intention of imputing to him any want of good faith. If the Noble Lord thought the altera tions made were in opposition to the pledges given to Parlia ment, he would have been justified in the observations he had made, but the alterations made in the management clauses were to carry out the principles upon which tho minutes wee based. _ _ Lord CHICHESTER said the alteration had the effect of more perfectly carrying out the principle of the clauses, and in contravention of it. 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 whet 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 imploring his Noble Eriend 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 subject of extradition since the convention with France was entered into. • . The Earl of MALMESBURY 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 Howse with the intention of informing their Lordships, at the proper moment, that her Majesty's Go vernment had thought fit to withdraw the Bill alluded to for the present.— (Cheers.) But 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 passed in France. He could not yet under. stand the full bearing of that law, but, as far as he did understand it, it see medto or h i i m m in th el at in th a e o F y re p n a c rt h Goofvetrhne ment might reclaim any 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 Frenchmah ? The ar E 1 o f MALMESBURY—And though he be not a Frenchman. * . Lord BROUGHAM —Aye, an Englishman he re i n Lon 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 n p g art o i v eo er boroughs lection a complained d ni the remedial processes w hich had been adopted in that case by issuing a Commiss i o n . He thought it would prove a salutary check to corrupt practices notpractic only into any estohave hangi searching inquiry,, but into previous electi ons , th rough election o which the general character of the borough might be ascer tained, and if found - delinquent it would be disfranchised. He 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 the object of the Bill which had just been explained by the Noble Marquis was one which he was sure would meet with the general concurrence of their Lordships, as it had 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 individual cases, but by which, under general powers Parliament might inquire into the conduct of delinquent boroughs. But inasmuch as this Bill was of an exceptionable character, 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 b e a ppli e d. By the Bill the Commissioners would he invested with the same powers as the Special Com 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 call upon them to give evidence which may criminate themselves, with the view of taking ulterior proceedings for the die fran chisement of corrupt boroughs. These were extraordinary powers, and opposed to the previous practice oneferePaahnrdaldiarembepeorenntt Hitherto ine s t p rn ec o i t a io l n C e o t m o in ex is a si m an i but in future an unnnmed and un known appointed suchindividual matters . wi th definitivecases ; known Commission was to have the owe fony ai t e h ir ate Lor o d u ehi se of inquiry, armed with greater powers than P any rof making mission, and that too appointed solely nCornmemiotensi.mpoThrtaatnweeasupsoongrtneaet anatteinnntioovnatoi 1111 extensive Crown be had For the first tithe it was proposed tolns the power of appointing a Commission withHseunc to the House of Commons, upon an address overt exclusive and extraordinary jurisdiction of powers. they were bound to resist such a tho ught that that the House of Commons, having initiative, should ask for the concurrence taken the House in any address to the Crown..:-( li of that strong reason against giving this Com Ter, hear.) One asked for was, that it was not named. Inssion the power phraonvdhiiopnruevlicisrcerlciouninlethro they were specially named in the Bills b n ordinary t h v cases appointed, even when the Government of Parliament. Here they neitwheorulhdadlittyhhaewd the check, and that he thought to refusninvesting the House cities, andinf h t i h o e - rm cn a n t e i ti - o d n w e n n e o c r e r e of co • induce their Lordships ' the Bill was this—it was founded on power of constituting such a tribunal, Another objection tf , ruption in towns, on evidence of great For The words by which these l att er counties, and un ,boroughs, But its Pr° 631°124 alone with the included counties, division icersities. lieved, not in the original Bill, were included w is qe . , ut no tice, afterwards. , but introduced , is g e., o ut "'t_ u , ° it v aa He, therefo re , , had ever. been made, with thas:Be: fP°Pini°t' . I"' unjust to classify counties , e and, es pecially the universities, l bribery had been divisions of cowl proved. lie would PM° c against which no c hsrg ainit which laces afheretore, in further, that the restore the Bill to its or g omit the reference ties. lie objected s in : e i ' f o ' i f ni:n h bribery , he missionersd what the ex ent heron . . igencies of the e- posed powers w to counties and universities. c i:illy 131: giving the uire into any ought proper. thee required, and on e,n n power to go b ' au means they might, election th antecedent to the Reform if they pl y, omit inquiry last election of provin g bi ll, twen ty years, to a period es and go ha„ - or when another gene , confinedelection p t o r e the vio u n:e r x retion of el ectors 1 0 - . to * the last or the two existence, for the purpose d systematic bribery. What mg continuous tal r of examination should be he propo se d was, that t h e pews- . on, Proved, th at the c o mmission i n 6 • might then proceed e to the No n; but never in any case to omit I a 4 eleCtiQP j A . i°414119.1 to P s pr, WA QM the electleA of andt wper_erve :win el: ti l an . d onbrib brib e ry being which was a legal offe nce. 1816 to inquire into that of 1841 . He o bj ected, also , that treating,it w hi eh withhsd never bribery,been so defi ne d . Tne House of eryhodliBd - Commons had always drawn a distinction proof of brib ery two, qualifiedand tpractice personw was, againstt h at w w h la n i ni l e itw the a s proved from hog a seat, treating merely disqualified ter sitting f o r 1 borough in which it was proved to h ave t a k en place. the Be aides, it depended very much upon th e f ee li n g of the e- Com mittees of the House of Commons to say w h a t treating w In some cases they had declared treating to be proved in cases where no one would say that any moral wrong what ever had been committed. He did not mean to palliate that kind of corruption which was scarcely less injurious in its consequences than the worst form of bribery, namely, the drinking. which was a disgrace to so many elections and to the country at large.— (Hear.) But in the case of country voters who came half a dozen miles or more, and who partook of the refreshment which lee would have had at his own home unless engaged upon election business, he could not consent to place bririery and treating on the same footing, and believed that a grdve injustice would be done if it were so.—(Hear, hear.) The amendment he should therefore propose would be, that the consent of that House should: be 'had to any address to the Crown for inquiry into the case et delinquent boroughs; that counties, divisions of counties, and the universities be omitted, and the Bill confined to cities, towns, and boroughs ; that the Commissioners, in order to prove that continuous bribery and corruption es sted,• should be. limited to the next previous election, with out the retrospective power proposed to be given in the Bill' of taking any election they choose; and that treating should not be put on the same footing as bribery, while every thing ought to be hone to discourage and prevent it. In proposing these amendments, he trusted it would not be considered that he was actuated by any wish to impede the progress 'or impair a measure which was intended to meet a great evil. But the innovation on the powers of'one of the three estates of the realm which it proposed wan, in his opinion, such as they could not concur in, and the wereeugges tioTns justified by thereasons he had adduced to their Lordships.—(War:) The D u ke of ARGYLL flsught that the amendment to exempt counties was not ode cf detail, but would alter the whole priociple of the Bill. By making an exception of counties a charge of corruptio n was im p lied a g ains t all other constituencies. He did not see much force in the other al terations proposed; but he hoped that that with reference to exceptin g coun ties would be reconsidered by the Govern ment, a n d th a t th e y would not press it. The Earl of DERBY, in explanation, said he had merely proposed to •restore the Bill to the state in which it had been particular °Eject. introduced b y Lord STANLEY (of Aldetley) said that the Bill did not increase th e Power of Commons. It only of the House pro voted a lieu the late Government.—(Hear.)' abetter machinery than the present for carrying out a Ever Bill for the disfranchisement of any borough would under the consideration Lordships' House. He ad mitted that but littl e of their —as had been always the case— be brought counties, but he e persist in his amendment ;oPed thought that when they .,. were establishing a new machinery for eh • should not be excluded. Re hecklng corruption, counties corruption had been practised in They were all, he believed, de si rous Lord REDESDALE thoug ht elf excepting counties. Conservative party ought above to amend ments proposed by his Noble t it desirable that the b checke desirous, bribery s the Noble Earl would not .Friend should be adopted. be named in any as they suffered ten times more than to be stowed in the Bill on ihe Commissioners, proposed to be shersui should be thought it was of it. Considering the immense others from the practide ' ' considered as most desirable to provide that they address to the Crown on the subject of bribery , of the Act sanction ll Ite d id lv s anl The atchhohoe the the Noble Ear think that the alterations proposed could dutyan i u o v f a s t i ehne their f Lordsh i pst privilegeshe to o f taket h e othercai.e thliaotbiet hods Houses should be given to the application in each particular case. The Duke of NEWCASTLE wished that , carefully at had followel the usual practice and had given notice of 124 1 amendments on the second reading. If it had been proposed in the Bill to deprive their Lordships of any privileges they possessed, he should have concurred with the Noble Earl in his objections to it; on looking, however, the terms of the Bill, he found that it proposed to confer no new power on the House of Commons. Before any address could be moved on the subject of bribery and corruption, a Select Committee must have reported on the case. He felt certain that, seeing what had occurred in Monmouth, no Noble Lord in that House would wish to screen such corrupt practices from the fullest inv e stigation. Lord BROUGHAM thanked his Noble Friend near him (the Marquis of Lansdowne) for having redeemed his pledge made in 1847. He (Lord Brougham) entirely approved of this measure, with some slight exceptions. At the same time it could not be denied that by this Bill they were making a great change in the law, as well as a great alte ration in the position of witnesses. He thought the Noble Lords who preceded him had not at all exaggerated the object of this Bill. The effect of this Bill would be, that for the first time witnesses could be compelled to give testimony, whether these witnesses were principal parties or accomplices, or neither, and to answer all questions, produce all documents, p a p ers , an d b oo k s, as well as all the written evidence, although the answer to such questions and the production of these papers might have the effect of criminating 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 of 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 last 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 not see why it should not be regarded as bribery, because it was a mere cover and shift to bribe voters whilst in a state of bcaetly intoxication, as was well known to all those who enjoyed the honour of carrying through contested Llection.- I (Hear, hear.) He (Loid Brougham) i remembered an instance, many years age, of the grossest corruption in the way of treating. In one borough the ex peases were between 50,0001. and 60,0001. 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 Be (Lord Brougham) replied that, unless you etopped 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 eupposi tiou 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.. ing the measure, their Lordships should be careful how they 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 reason for introducing this Bill ; but that was not the case with regard to the counties and universities. Upon every passed d er of ie.. principle of justice, comities and the universities ought to be excluded. Their Lordehips did not usurp any privilege of the Common s, _ 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 Com m i ss i on, a g r a ohnCedtgat to 0 o pen b ise a i ue bar pn old were b to in its pre sent they form would give thfa up the Houseir rights. would l h f a t v h ee B n i I 0 1 suing a Commission, which was to be constituted of barristers of seven years' standing. Re had the probability t ut co y greatest. respect for the bar, but he should know competent their antecedents were, and whether they w co h m fu p h et th en e t p to ow d e is r c s ha o r f ge th t a h t os H e o d u u s t e ie4 l 3 ,,e t th th e e ra p an art y ies , H if they did, in what position would ey would do so; HBiollusewee, passed, wa placed when they had to deal with a Co their Lordships be to have a crusade against past offen eP ee n s ab wounds that had been healed ? There ou g ht by the Crown? With regard to 11/mission appointed he thought there ought to be a limit retrospective inquiries, T h e at t th o e ( t or ' 0 1 th thi at s quiries. If they were to pass the t° such stale in quiries. BM. wh were it. With With regard to treating it sonable refreshment should b e ought to be checked, but rea treating ought to be made allowed. The matter of They should not make tr the subject of a se& ey &ra te Bill; what treating was. a eating an offence until defined by his Noble Friend e thought the amendments propose d by ht Lord TRURO said the te be agreed to. means of presentin g to acquire the .e object of the Bill was Commons b 6such eases the House of Com mons 3 ' previous inquiry should as ference an object w hi ch decide called fo leglst desire to accomplish. He w ch all parties Pr° was asked to be done by th was not aware that an y thing au h upon the pri vileges of their e ß ill Which would encroach commons asked Lordships. The their Lordships 'Housein the power of in quiry demanded in fact, to participate and to refuse that parti cipation would for the impressionpurpose; in the public mind which b e, for th eir an sake, would very much re gret. There c eir Lordsb o tT ect i se , in fact, to the propo sitions of the Bill , d i r n a n o Address to the Crown on the Part of the House °4_ a na, or the appointment of the Commission. ° ~_ Inqu i r y was conducted in an If we es,. persons, it was competent improper manner, cr by in 2 l o °' a 4 • st he appoint meat ef for their their Lordships to re i eet ' i r ,eant not the disqualification stars * of seven years',etandifestan standing di and upwards, but of of barristers of eight yearscalled to the bar for not less than barristers who had been 1 i.nd Learned Friend had objected to Seven yea rs . His le obi© - c ' d Truro) could see no justice in setting the time, but he lrertime, because it was impossible to say any limitation tot election or what.number of years were say - What number of e d into for the purposes of the Bill in any teaser to be incltr To limit the time would, therefore, be particular objectberoo4 of the Bill. All former measures had to defeat t" the requisite powers. This Bill, it was allowed, fallen short of , se pediments. It was, therefore, for their d o 0 presented show themselves as desire= as he believed them Lordships to. an end to the bribery and corruption that to be of put e tin d - 0 prevail in many parts of the country. He was : admitt consequently, be grieved if they rejected the measure, should , h the amendments. or mar red it Y words from th e LORD CHANCELLOR in Air a few e" I6nati° 'INWORTH said he considered that legislation Lord Cls on t his sebject would be a nullity if a Commissian were not' ee lted to issue except on an address from both Houses. Tie w as of opinion that it would be far better to leave the 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 Houses, and not of one. Lord CAMPBELL feared that the amendment would ma. teriallydamage the efficiency of the Bill. Earl GREY expressed his astonishment at the amend ment now proposed, after.the Bill had been adopted by the other House of Parliament, The object of the Bill was to obviate the risk, which at the present moment piastically existed, of a difference of 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 proposal appeared to him to be only an indirect mode of getting rod 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 w as contended that the measure was framed with the sole object of avoiding a conflict of opinion between tho tWO kin e 54 A si •• ar g ent Might be atlyeaced 4 . Ai milic