The Sun.
London, England, 1855-04-21 00:00:00

THE' SUN, LON DS T` 'EVENING, APRIL 21, 1865.

it. You have arrived at the third of four comlitiorls, and
::pp to have something like of moral ce,t...!..,ty—
ir.t, th titis up )!1 the third point the nego i ,tien will
fail, if it is to fail ; and secondly, that you will know in a
few days wlyyther it is to fail upon that third point or not.
Under such eh,-;unistances I should have thought that the
budget, having boon delayed till the 20th of April, might
have been advantageously postponed till a somewhat later
period. Before I sit down I must add another sentence or
two. It is impossible for any person to overstate the mag-
nitude of the issues involved in the negotiations at Vienna.
I confess it pains me deeply to see and hear signs of levity
—I do not mean in this house, but elsewhere—with re-
ference to a matter of such tremendous importance. (Hear,
hear.) I apprehend that when these negotiations are con
chided, whether they terminate, which God may grant, in
peace, or in such a manner as to necessitate a prolongation
of the war, this house, in one form or other, will have to

pass its j ud gment upon them. It will be for you to determine
whether Ministers have conceded too much or toolitne,whe-
ther theyhave properly discharged their duty in regard either
to the acceptance or the rejection of terms of peace. Their re-
sponsibility cannot be described in language strong enough.
It is quite clear that you cannot come out of theSe con-
ferences as you went into them. It would indeed be a
sufficiently important matter for reflection if the only ques-
tion involved in the conferences was the continuance of the
war upon the former footing, and with the relation 4 to the
great European powers which you held before the negotia-
tions began ; but the high probability—the alinostceetainty
is, that if you come out of these conferences with no
other result, your relations to the other powers of Europe
will have been signally changed in the course of them. The
question which we may then have to decide, involving the
fundamentally new conditions under which we may be
called upon to pursue the war, will be a question of gigantic
importance. (Hear.) Ido not wish my vote of to-night to
be taken as my judgment upon 'that awful question. Do
not let it be said that by making a'pecuniary provision for
the year we have committed ourselves upon the subject of
the issue of the Vienna conferences. The more financial
disadvantage, whatever it is. of taking a loan at the pre-
sent moment, I am perfectly willing to face, rather than
interfere with the course pursuedby the Chancellor of the
Exchequer., but absolute freedom to pass a judgment upon
the conduct of the Government in respect to these negotia-
tiations, and upon the interest and duty of the country in
respect to its future policy, I feel it a solemn duty to re-
serve. (Hear, hear.) -
Sir F. KELLY did not think it necessary to trouble the
committee with many observations, especially after the able
and eloquent address of the right hon. member,for the
University of Oxford; but he could' not but listen with
much interest to the statement of the hon. member for
Wick, that this was perhaps only the first of a series of
loans to which they might be called on to give their consent.
'lt therefore became the committee and the house to with-
hold their consent on the present occasion, if they were satia-
fied that the plan proposed was vicious in principle and de-
trimental to the interests of the public. It appeared to him
that the scheme of the right hon. gentleman was marked
with every defect which could belong to a loan scheme.at the
present day, while on the other band it possessed not one of
the advantages which loans sometimes involved. It pos-
sessed the two conflicting and objectionable principles of
giving an amount of stock equal to the capital proposed to
be obtained, and of repaying the amount of the loan by ter-
minable annuities. Looking at the present rate of interest,
to borrow a sum of 16,000,000/. by the creationof an equal
amount of stock, is at once to be received as a false and
mischievous thing, a principle involving a large sacrifice of
the public interest. The loan was particularly ill-timed,
as a very few days would bring the negotiations at Vienna
to such a point as to enable those in London who were to sup-
ply the loan to have a more just idea of the probabilities,
and therefore of the terms on which they wonld'advance
money. While we were borrowing 16,000,0001. of money
we were giving an amount of stock at a moment when the
funds were 10 per cent. below par ; and we rendered it im-
possible at any future time to get the country out at a less
sacrifice than 1,600,0001. A far more advantageous bar-
saiu might have been made—a bargain by which' 40,0001.
a-year would have been saved to the country. But the
sreetest objection lay to the payment of interest on a part
of the loan. He considered 14s. 6d. per cent., as proposed
by the right hon. gentleman to be paid by means of ter-
minable annuities expiring at the end of thirty years, to be
an extravagant and unnecessary per tentage. To raise
money on terminable annuities at a time when the rate of
interest was high, when the price of public funds was far
below its average in prosperous times, was to make a bar-
gain for the public obviously disadvantageous in the ex
treme. The plan of guaranteeing for thirty years a rate of
interest which it was hoped would continue .but two or
three years longer, was very obviously disadvantageous,
for in a few years, when the resources of the country would
be mere developed, and the means of the country would
have increased, there would be means of raising money on
much more favourable terms than at present, and yet, in
consequence of the bargain now to be made, we should be
obliged during thirty years to pay a rate of interest founded
upon the state of the money market at the present mo-
ment, under all the effects of the existing war. He could
not doubt that with the credit of the country it would have
been perfectly easy for the right hon. gentleman to have
raised the loan at the current rate of 31.65. Id., or 3/. 75., or
31. Bs. per cent., and that for as long or as short a time as
Government might have found it necessary to retain the
money. They would thus have had the power at the end of
the war to pay off the money so borrowed, and then re-bor-
row the sum at a lower rate of interest. But instead of that
the right hon. gentleman proposed the double plan now
before the committee. He had required an advance of what
might be called a sum of 1,600,0001. upon a terminable an-
nuity of thirty years, not at 31. 6s. Bd. the present value of
money, but at 31. 14s. 6d., which was paying 8s percent.,
or 62,0001. a-year, for the difference between a perpetual
annuity and an annuity for thirty years" on the sues of
1,600,0001. 'lt had been stated that Pitt made leis loans
during the war upon the principle of the right hcin. gentle-
man, but it should be borne in mind thatf
' that statesman
never borrowed upon the creation o stock until he bad
exhausted all the resources of his genius, until all his
'efforts had failed to procure money on other terms. He
should abstain from dividing the committee on the ques-
tion, following the example of the right hon. mdmber for
the University ot Oxford, bepanse he felt that it was the
duty of every member of the house, engaged as they were
in a war requiring all the efforts and resources at their
command, to support her Majesty's Government in any
measures they might bring forward for the carrying on of
that war, unless they should feel them to bevicious in prin-
ciple and detrimental to the public interest, anti that it
would be a breach of faith in the house to sanction them.
The loan, although both vicious and detrimental, was yet
necessary for the purposes of the war. Pie should not, there-
fore, oppose the passing of the resolution, but he entered his
protest against the principles on which it was conducted.
Should they feel themselves again under the necessity of
once more resorting to the money market, he hoped it would
be upon other and more advantageous terms.
Mr. WILLIANIS could see nothing objectionable in the
proposal to increase the taxation of the country but ho did
not at all agree to the proposal to increase the national debt.
The right hon. gentleman had merely.followed the beaten
track of all former Chancellors of the Exchequer. They
had always resorted to loans. During the last years of
peace they had had an increase of 44,000,0001. of debt.
However, he remarked with pleasnre that now, for the first
time, had a Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted to get
his pound sterling for his pound of Consols. Had Pitt
adopted that plan, the national debt would have been
175,000,0001. less than it was. But the proposition to lay
aside one million a year, to pay off those 16,000,0001., was
impracticable and fallacious. On the sth Jan., 1818, the
amount of the national debt was 776,000,000/. ; on the sth
Jan., 1852, it was 765,000,000/. ; so that 11,500,0001.
wes all the reduction that had been effected. The right
hon. gentleman had omitted one important source of taxa-
tion, viz., the imposition of the probate and legacy duties
upon property belonging to corporations, colleges, univer-
sities, and properties of that kind that now escaped. The
late Mr. Hume used to say that either the country must
put down the debt or the debt would put down the coun-
try. It would be seen that the latter alternative would
come to pass, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer not
being able to make ends meet, that is, by raising taxes
enough to pay current expenses.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished to
say a few words with reference to what fell from the right
hoe. member for the University of Oxford. In negotiat-
ing the loan then under the consideration of the house,
the Government had strictly followed the precedent of
former loans. The Government would gladly have adopted
some other means of providing for existing exigencies, but
they found it impossible to resort to any other course, It
would be utterly impossible for any Government to come
down to the House of Commons and arrange the minimum
o f terms on which they would transact public negotia-
tions, which, in order to be successful, must be transacted
in private. The practice of former times bad, therefore,
been adhered to. It necessarily followed that, a provi-
sional contract having been made, they must ask the house
to accept the terms contained in that contract. But with
regard to the provision to which the right honourable
gentleman referred—viz., the application it was pro-
posed to make of a sum of money for the periodical
repayment of the loan, that was not one of the essential
conditions of the contract, and if the house did not ap-
prove of it, it would he quite proper for them to modify
or alter it on the second reading. If the house would con-
sent to allow the resolution to pass, he would undertake to
say that that provision should not be considered on the same
footing as those parts of the resolutions which were matters
of contract with the lenders. With respect to terminable
annuities, the hon. and learned gentleman opposite was
under a false impression, if he supposed that the course'
now taken by the Government was a novel course. So far
was that from being the case that the whole amount of ex-
isting terminable annuities, amounting to a million and a
half, were created merely as terminable annuties upon
stock. From 1773 to 1816 there were thirty-one loans, of
which ten were aided by long annuities. The slave com-
pensation loan, in 1839, was also aided by long annuities.
Therefore, that mode of loan was strengthened by prece-
dent. He confessed that where a Government borrowed
1005., and received only 701., 801., or 90/. there was a posi
tive disadvantage • but he did not see how, her Majesty's
Government cagsoraioturaßl.wpATlietHabhaeerotehabineajerladleocsshtyeeeordafaritfndocdthoaannedgsy received really 100'.
in money for 1001, in sunk.
coffee,
affleoren. upon Hat hnEedY theswuW increaseio.ennaai t taxa-
tionaisiobnunoct.uhhteacwsa
rtea,hrya t
sacrifice was being made; if the ypueroemtoearrptmptdieople was being
loaded with additional taxation ? He would ranch rather
that 23 per cent. shouldeeblelhoarittooposed, instead of the pitiful
additionregretted otfhla
tptehrecent. n T would
the Exchequer
be showing
have
and nobleness in their warlike professions, He very much
iicw•
ce
hot
nlryri nc.i)
ee:E
lit3nlleAostsrto,it misunderstood his right hon. friend (Sir F.
hose,oolthe
foyLstiethEhoeeb saidEswexr principleobservations
Exchequer
ouocnaf id
e hner and resources
taxation, byw hich he
country,
ahhnea
entirelyl d
gone
oo rn eof the
it
into
concurred. t
he Exchequer
marketl f p
nh de-
pea-led to have
raised this sum at the existing rate of interest—say 2i per
cent.—that would continue only so long as the war lasted.
If peace was soon made, there could be little doubt that
the Three per Cents. would go up to 100, and the country
would then be relieved of the percentage above that rate,
but which, under the present plan, it would have to pay
for thirty years.
Mr. WILKINSON said it appeared to him that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had made great sacrifices. He
considered the Chancellor of the Exchequer was justified
in taking the stock which was most in demand, and in
making the best bargain ho could, but it was not quite
clear to bins that this best bargain would not have been
Three per Cent. Perpetual Annuities. He also thought it
would be very difficult to induce the country to become so
rvei,riteueomnisnagsthteoalnanyuibtyiesanmoiw proposed.ilion a year for the purpose of
conviction that tthe
Exchequer every credit
character, but he
his measures were of the best possible
Mr. JOHN MACGR
was compelled Ef
for °
sincerityß gve thein the Chancellor
tied a loan in the manner
the present state of affairs justi
form of it an
and he objected both to the
now proposed, Ho did not think that
public competition,
to its not having been with
The French Government had tried this experiment_8
bdeieffnerthfrrooniwnhoimpen to
signal success, and if the Government had treated th
country with proper confide nce they Would have obtained

the lean on much better terms. Montesquieu had observerl
it t? 1- ' I h,:r!
of Colllllloll.i became intro Conl ni.t than 1110 Ot;vei
—in other words, when they were saddled with apathy
and he much regretted to see so small an attendance when
the measures were being discussed which would injure the
real interests of the country. Posterity was not being
treated fairly, and it would say that it was not rosponsible,
forit was not represented—(laughter)—and that the tax was
saddled upon it without its consent by those who engaged in
measures to which it was not a party. If ever there were
measures which exhibited little practical wisdom with re-
spect to future events they were those of the Chancellor of th,,
Exchequer. If the house agreed to them the country would
not, and he would do all he could to make the country
take up his opinions. He believed that Government be-
longed to the fatal number whom the gods had in their
anger determined to destroy, but whom in their mercy
they hal first deprived of their senses to prevent them
feeling their sufferings. He protested against the resrdu-
tion, which he was afraid would he only the commeoce
ment of a series of loans • and he must 1,0 dissent from
the other parts of the budget. He had consented to arrest
the decline in the tea duties in the present state of affairs.
but he was opposed to any increase in them.
Mr. MUNTZ observed that the hon. member who bad
just sat down had said that posterity would object to be
taxed. The question was what would posterity say if
they allowed Russia to override and take pissession of
every country in Europe, to approach their shores and de-
stroy their trade and commerce. (Hear, hear.) He bad
great objections to leans, because money 'easily obtained
was in most cases wastefully expended ; but this was an
exceptional case, and there had never been a war in which
posterity was more interested. On this occasion, therefore,
he was not prepared to object to a loan, but he did object
to the principle upon which it was contracted. He ob-
jected to taking a large portion in stocks which could not
be disposed of until the whole was paid off, and be must
ask why was not the principle of terminable annuities
adopted ? Even if the present and the next generation
paid something more, it would be better that the loans
should have an end, as all such debts ought to have. He

must also protest against the principle- of contracting a
loan and then asking the Hou:e of Commons to agree to
it. With respect to the rest of the budget, he had many
objections, eApecially to the paltry increase in the coffee
and sugar duties, and, bad as the income-tax was, he
would rather extend it than make any alteration in these

ta.ses.
In reply to a question from Mr. HILDYARD,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that
the increase in the income-tax would apply to both classes
of income above 1501: and below 1501. _

Mr. MASTERHAN, who was almost inaudible, was un-
derstood to say thatitofar from having been improvident, he
was surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had i
obtained such favourable terms, and he therefore thought
the house ought to have no hesitation to confirm the ar-
rangements as far as they went.
Mr. THORNELY objected to the appropriation of a
million a year to the extinction of the debt. He was per-
fectly satisfied with the existing arrangements for that
purpose.
Mr. MALINS regretted to find the war so expensive, but
he approved of the plan which the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had adopted to supply the deficiency. The: prin-
ciple which he had urged last year had been so far adopted
that a very fair compromise had been effected between the
principles of direct and indirect taxation. He thought the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had exercised a very wise dis-
cretion in coming forward at so early a period to supply
the deficiency, and, if it was necessary to carry on the war
for a long period, he trusted that Government would meet
the extraordinary expenditure by a mixture of direct and
indirect taxation and moderate loans. He had merely
risen to express his gratification at the budget.
The resolutions were then agreed to, and the Chairman
was directed to report progress.
The house resumed, and the report was ordered to be
received on Monday.
INTESTACY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was passed through committee.
AFFIRMATIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was also passed through committee.
STOPPAGE_OF WAGES (HOSIERY).

On the motion of Mr. PACKE, the following, 'members
were appointed to inquire into the stopoage of wages in
the hosiery trade, viz. :—Mr. Packe, Mr. Wickham, Mr.
Cobbett, Sir Henry Halford, Mr. Cheetha.m, Sir Joshua
Walrnsley, Mr. Ingham, Lord John Manners, Mr. Gardner,
Mr. Mundy, and Mr. Biggs.
WOOLMER FOREST.
Mr. WILSON obtained leave to bring in a bill for dis-
afforesting the forest of Woolnier, and the bill was subse-
quently brought in.
THE SEBASTOPOL COMUITTEE.

Mr. BENTINCK moved, pursuant to notice, that Mr.
Jolla Ball be discharged from further attendance upon the
Army before Sebastopol Committee; that Capt. Scobell
be added to the coin mittee. He merely wished to state in
the first place, that in bringing forward this motion he in
no way meant to disparage the hon. gentleman whose
name was involved in it, but it appeared to him to be per-
fectly impossible that an hon. gentleman who was a mem-
ber of the Government could tome upon the committee or
its report with the same impartiality as if he sat below the
gangway, the place which the hon. member for Carlow
occupied in the early part of the session. Besides, the
house had held it of the utmost importance that the coin-
nuttee should be impartially constituted, and therefore he
submitted theta committee appointed to inquire into the
conduct of the Government could not be considered im-
partial while a member of the Government was upon it.
He might be tokt, indeed, that the present was not the
same Government as the one whose conduct w s to be in-
quired into ; but, in reply to that objection, he must re-
mind the house that there were 8 members of the present
Cabinet who were members of the late Cabinet, and there-
fore there were 8 members of the present Government
whose conduct would be involved in the report which
would issue from the committee now sitting upstairs. In
addition to the matter of impartiality, it was of import-
ance that the naval element should be introduced into the
committee, and that was why he proposed to nominate the
hon. member for Bath.
Mr. F. HUME seconded the motion.
Mr. ROEBUCK fully concurred with the hon. gentle.
man as to the propriety of discharging the hon. member
for Carlow from the committee, but he thought the bon,
member was going somewhat beyond his province in no-
minating the member who should supply his place. It
would be remembered that the nomination of a portion of
the committee was loft to the Government, and amongst
those whom they selected was the honourable member for
Carlow, but the honourable member having been ap-
pointed Under-Secretary for the Colonies, he had become
incompetent to discharge his duties—(a laugh)—as a mem-
ber of the committee. If hon. gentlemen allowed him to
finish the sentence they would have been deprived of their
laugh. (Hear.) As he began the committee, so he should
continue to support it, and since, by arrangement, it was
left to the Government to nominate a portion of the coin-
mittee, and one of the members whom they selected was
the hon. member now proposed to be discharged, he
thought, ih all fairness, they ought to have the power of
naming his successor. (Hear.) But it was said the naval
element was wanting in the committee ; he did not think
it was ; but the committee had, amongst other matters, to
inquire into the clothing of the army, and therefore he
thought a tailor might have been proposed just as well as
a sailor. (" Oh, oh," and laughter.) Hon. members might
cry " Oh, oh," but he wanted to know, if the argument
was good in the one case, why should it not be equally
good in the other? He wanted to know why it should be
necessary to have a sailor on a committee appointed to in-
quire into the state of the army before Sebastopol ? How-
ever, he understood that the Government intended to pro-
pose that the hon. member for the county of Limerick
should supply the place of the hon. member for Carlow ;
and, in aceJrdance with the arrangement to which he bad
already referred, he thought the matter ought to be left in
their hands.
Mr. LIDDELL asked upon what ground the Government
could claim the right of appointing a member of this com-
mittee? Who first called fur the inquiry ? Why, the
people; and Parliament, responding to the appal of the
country, consented to the appointment of this committee
to investigate the conduct of those whose mismanagement
had destroyed one of the noblest armies that had ever left
our shores. And yet they were told that by arrangement
the Government had the right to appoint a portion of the
committee. Ho protested against such an eAtraordinary
doctrine, and thought the house would best discharge its
duty by disregarding the arrangement, if there was any,
and filling up the vacancy themselves. (Hear, bear )
Mr. ROEBUCK explained that the exiting committee
was appointed upon an understanding with himself (no, no)
and the right I.on. gentleman the member fa. Buckingham-
shire, and which understanding gave the Government the
right to nominate a portion of the committee. (Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said it was the uniform practice
of the house, when a committee was to be appointed to
investigate matters of such deep and great importance as
those which had been submitted to this committee, that
the members to serve should be selected by the mover of
the committee iu communication with the Government of
the day. Not that the Government wero al ways to ap-
point the persons to serve on the committee, but it was
only right and proper, when matters were to be investi-
gated in which the conduct of the Government was con-
cerned, that only such persons should be appointed, who,
by their impartiality, by their competence, by their ability,
were the best qualified to perform the duties and execute
the task confided to them. It was in that sense, and in
that sense only, that according to the established practice
of the house the Government and the hon. and learned
member for Sheffield agreed in communication with each
other upon the persons who should form the committee.
Those who had watched the proceedings and conduct of
the committee would agree with him that the choice eves
well made, and that only those members had been selected
who were the best fitted to be entrusted with the difficult
and delicate investigation which had been confided to them.
From the moment, however, that the hon. member for
Carlow accepted the office of Under Secretary for the
Colonies, it was quite impossible that ho could continue to
be a member of the committee. His. official occupations
would have interfered with his attendance on the com-
mittee, but it was not so much that as his belonging to the
Government that disqualified him from continuing a mem-
ber of the committee? Now, his honourable friend the
member for Carlow was the only Irish member on the com-
mittee, while he thought it was understood when the com-
mittee was appointed that it was only right and proper
that there should be at least one Irish member on the com-
mittee. Therefore he should propose that the hon. mem-
ber for tho county of Limerick should be appointed in the
stead of Mr. Ball, and that being the choice of the Govern-
ment—a choice which the hon. and learned chairmen of
the committee did not object to—he should have no alter-
native but to oppose the appointment of Mr. Scobell with
the view of nominating Mr. De Vere on Monday. (Hear.)
Mr. F. FRENCH said the inquiry was one which had
been demanded by the nation, and accorded by the House
of Commons; and it was the luty of the house to see that
the inquiry was an impartial one. Now that could not be
if the members were to be left to the selection of the Go-
vernment, or if the house refused to place a member of the
naval profession on the committee, which, he believed, had
become absolutely necessary.
The motion for the discharge of Mr. Ball was then
agreed to.
Mr. BENTINCK then proposed that Captain Scobell
thato
mdmweajasomeltsintbenGweettr
hoh,wttvortoehei
had
nucalohsadmre?
was Government
ds
rpioti
osueomungei:
lothntthq:
anetuh r e havei
nt the theiraP appointment ne et o f
conduct.a
should be placed on the committee in the room of Mr.
Ball. He had never heard so monstrous a proposition as
kkianimendget
nhwte whetherrt
middle
ilndtaleengoseefn experiencetilets
com•he
hon, member for Limerick, whom it proposed to put in the
place of Mr. Ball, had only been a member of the house
—the characters of
in-
terest foe the report of thtscis:
PylcorwoltimlaishPmt tealieortaelotsie e
s
many public men Cependel upon it, and nothing could be
more absurd than that they should chobee as one of the
committee an hon, member who had not had the advantage
of more than two or three months' parliamentary
expo-
rience.
Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND said it was at all times
e
xceedin - select competent persons to serve

nn corrirniffoPq. Tho r!ornrirdooil, x,1.7 i.ll-I'y too,

E.; ea, tee
siseuiestaece of appointing members who were unable to
give their full attendance upon the committee, or who did
not understand the question to be inquired into, and,
therefore, in order to make themselves masters of the rub
ject, they asked all sorts of questions, until there was no
end to the printed evidence. Now, under these eircum-
-tancee, he and his hon. and learned friend consulted with
:he various heads of as many parties as had heads—(a
laugh)—as to the persons who might be agreeable to them,
or who were in their opinion the best qualified to serve on
the committee. In that way it was arranged that a cer-
tain number should be apnoiuted by the right hon. gentle-
man opposite (Mr. Disraeli), and the same thing was done
with regard to the Government. Now, the gentleman
who had just been superseded was one of those nominated
by the Government, and the house was, in his opinion,
waned by the original agreement to support the Govern-
',ant in their nomination of his successor.
tuirel WALC)TT ssid the observation of the hon
,rel le trued member for Beth about "a tailor and a sailor"
was disrespectful to the profession to which he had the ho-
nour to belong, and expressed his opinion that the country
would he very ill satisfied unless some member of the naval
profession were placed upon this committee.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the demand for a naval member of
the committee arose from a confusion of the offices of judge
and witnesses. The committee tad examined, and were
ebout to examine, naval witnesses as to the state of Bala-
klava harbour ; and upon their testimony any member of
the house having common sense could form as correct a
judgment as could a member of the naval profession. This
committee had been formed upon an understanding. (No,
no, and hear hear.) Could there be a man in the house
who did not know that such a proposition as that of this
committee was always made upon an understanding ? He
could not have carried the committee or appointed any
member of it without an understanding. He went behind
the Speaker's chair, and entered into correspondence with
gentlemen on both sides of the house, and endeavoured to
tome a committee which should give satisfaction to the
country at large. He hoped the committee had discharged
its duties to the satisfaction of the house ; but that would
soon be seen. He adhered to his first position, that as the
member withdrawn had been nouliated by the Govern-
ment, his place ought to be supplied by one similarly
nominated.
After a few words from Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR,
Captain SCOBELL said that he hoped the house would
not in this matter trouble itself about his feelings, because
he had no desire to be upon this committee. The noble
lord (Lord Palmerstou) had said it was necessary to have
upon this committee men of impartiality. Did he mean
to impeach his (Captain Scobell's) impartiality ? No, he
dared not ;ho could not. He might be a little more in-
dependent than the noble lord liked, or he might be defi-
cient in ability ; but if he was appointed a member of the
committee he should act as any man in the house.
Lord PALMERSTON said that he should sorry that
the hon. and gallant member should remain under the im-
pression that he had meant in the slightest degree to im-
peach his impartiality or his ability, or least of all his
independence. He could assure his hon. and gallant
friend (if he would allow him to call him so) that what
he had said had no reference to him personally, but only
to the general question of the understanding which took
place as to these appointments. What he meant to say
was, that communications between the proposer of a com-
mittee and other persons were necessary in order to ensure
the selection of persons competent, from their imparti-
ality, their intelligence, and other qualifications, to inves-
tigate the matter referred to them. That observation
applied to the genera] question, and not the .least in the
world to his hon. and gallant friend. (Hear, hear.) He
believed that, on the score of impartiality and intelligence,
his hon. and gallant friend was as well qualified as any
member of the house to sit upon the committee. The
ground on which he thought that Mr. De Vera was a fitter
person to be chosen was that the only Irish member had
been withdrawn from the committee, and he thought, con-
sidering how deeply Irish men and Irish matters were con-
cerned in the investigation bei'ore this committee, there
ought to be at least one Irish member belonging to it.
Mr. MUNTZ said that if, as some hon. members seemed
to insist, the Government was to have the filling up of this
vacancy in the committee, they ought to do it without re-
ference to the house, and without asking members to stul-
tify themselves by voting for a gentleman of whom they
knew nothing, because the Government recommended him.
Mr. M A.GUIRE said it would be unfair to the country
that the Government should be allowed, with the con-
nivance of any party, to pack this committee. He was
ready to waive his nationality and vote for the bon. and
gallant member for Beth. In reply to the question of the
hon. and learned member for Sheffield (Mr. It)ebuck) as
to whether this committee had discharged its duties with
satisfaction to the public, he expressed his opinion that
the committee dealt with the matter with too much deli-
cacy, and that the country would not be satisfied without
an inteeiry into the conduct of Lord Raglan. He would
gladly support the motion for the nomination of Captain
Scobell.
Mr. BENTINCK contended against the doctrine that
when a committee was formed the Government should be
consulted ou its constitution, and he especially objected to
such a form of nomination iu the present case.
The house then divided—
For the nomination of Captain Scobell 6B
Against it
Majority
The motion for the nomination of Mr. De Vere was post-
poned to Monday.
The house adjourned at it o'clock to Monday.