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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 21, 1855.

it. You h,,ve arrived at the third of four conditions, and
you appear to have something like a moral certainty—
first, that it is upon the third point the negotiation will
fail, if it is to fail ; and secondly, that you will know in a
few days whether it is to fail upon that third point or not.
Under such circumstances I should have thought that the
budget, having been 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
eluded, 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 judgment upon them. It will be for you to determine
whether Ministers have conceded too much or too little, whe-
ther theyhave properly discharged their duty in regard either
to the acceptance or therejection 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 relations to the
great European powers which you held before the negotia-
tions began ; but the high probability—the almost certainty
—is, that if you come cut 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 mere 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 pursued by 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 th 3 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,
It therefore became the committee and the house to with•
hold their consent on the present occasion, if they were satis
fled that the plan proposed was vicious in principle and do
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 hand 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 16,000,0001. by the creation of 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 would advance
money. While we were borrowing 16,e00,000/. 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-
' gain might have been made—a bargain by which 40,0001.
a-year would have been saved to the country. But the
greatest 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 centage. 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 more 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 31. 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 1,600,000/. upon a terminable an-
nuity of thirty years, not at 31. 6s. &I. 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 suae of
1,600,0001. It had been stated that Pitt made his loans
during the war upon the principle of the right hon. gentle.
man, but it should be borne in mind that that statesman
never borrowed upon the creation of stock until he had
exhausted all the resources of his genius, until all his
efforts had failed to procure money on other t rms. He
should abstaitifrom dividing the committee on the ques-
tion, following the example of the right hon. member for
the "University of Oxford, because 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 forwael for the carrying on of
thet war, unless they should feel them to be vicious in prin-
ciple and detrimental to the public interest, and 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. He should not, there-
fore, opi ose 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. WILLIAMS could see nothing objectionable in the
proposal to increase the taxation of the country but he 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 44.000,000/. of debt.
However, he remarked with pleasure 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,e001., was
impracticable and fallacious. On the sth Jan., 1818, the
amount of the national debt was 776,000,0001. ; on the sth
Jan., 1852, it was 765,000,000/. ; so that 11,500,0001.
weir all the reduction that bad 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
hon. 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 had, therefore,
been adhered to. It necessarily followed that, a previ-
sional contract having been made, they must ask the house
t,.) 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 fur 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 be 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 be supposed that the course
now taken by the Government was a novel course. Solar
was that from being the case that the whole amount of ex-
isting terminable annuities, amouutiec to a million and a
half, were created merely as terrnineble annuti,s 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
1001, and received only 701., 801., or 901., there was a peel
tive disadvantage; but he did not see how her Majesty's
Government could be a loser if they received really 1001.
in
nioMmo npßE:fYtohrWolBo °Cot
staple
TlionHasrottriojkiece.:edf to any inpctrieoaose,
sinuothheastazaa:
coffee, and sugar. He had henarde°angsnremat deal about carry-
ing on the war with energy_ and determination. What
loaadsacrifice
todbei,ealifooth?e
Hpooorwpoeooldple
nriefidnew iwthasadbdeii
at hnadt
nobleness
eenr cent,aa in
regrettedwau lwould
da thattray the Chancellor
w e
althTha imposed, instead of
taleheoiurldwarlialtce professions.
t He very much
addition of 1 per cent.
as
e
returned to the principleofwould be showing hardihood
muchtwh pitifulr beinga t er
Mr. BAILLIE said the Clntadonfrces°ellourl:
indirecte Etaxation, r bs should
own lhdi which hv have
to have misunderstood hise rightcoe fshtnohnfe. theEfrix oachnooduqn(osterity.r
ap-
pealed.
F
Chancellor of the Exchequer hadn gone
eleir concurred.t If the
raised this sum at the existing rate of interest—gay Kelly) in w hose observations he
rtehte mark2et and
cent.—that would continue only so long as the—weair 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.
considered the Chancellor of the Exchequer was justifie
in taking the stock which was most in demand, and
making the best bargain he could, but it was not qu'e 3
clear to him that the best bargain would not have bee a
Three per Cent. Perpetual Annuities. He also thougOt it
would be very difticulteto induce the country to become so
virtuous as to lay by a million a year for the purpose of
redeeming the annuities now proposed.
Mr. JOHN 3IACGREGOR gave the Chancellor of the
sat
Exchequer every credit for sincerity in the conviction t hat but he
his measures were of the best possible character,
was compelled to differ from him. He did not think t 1
the present state of affairs justified a loan in the Inane er
now proposed, and be objected both to the form of it ail '1 I
to its not having been thrown open to public conipetitiot It!
The French Government had tried this experiment e
signal success, and if the Government had treat' it the
country with proper confidence they would have ''

the loan on much better terms. Montesquieu had observed
that the English consti ution would fail when the Hour.,
of Commons became more corrupt than the Government
—in other words, when they were saddled with apathy
and he much regretted to Rea so small an attendance whet
the measures were being discussed which would injure thd-
real interests of the country. Posterity was not beim
treated fairly, and it would say that it was not responsible
for it was not represented—(laughter)—and tkatthe tax %vat-
saddled upon it without its consent by those who engaged its
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 die 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 had first deprived of their senses to prevent them
feeling their sufferings. He protested against the resolu-
tion, which he was afraid would be only the commence•
ment of a series of loans and he must t-lso 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 bon. member who had
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 p,ssession of
every country in Europe, to approach their shores and de-
stroy their trade and commerce. (Hear, hear.) He had
great objections to leans, because money easily obtained
was in most cases wastefully expended ; hut this was an
exceptional case, and there had never been a war in which
posterity was more interested. O❑ this occasion, therefore,
he was not prepared to object to a loan, but he di•_i 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 muss
ask why was not the principle of terminable annuitio.,
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 House of Commons to agree to
it. With respect to the rest of the budget, he had many
objections, especially 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

taxes.
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. MASTERMAN, who was almost inaudible was un-
derstood to say that sofar from having been improvident, he
was surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer hail
obtained such favourable terms, and he therefore thought
the house ought to have no hesitaticn 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 hail 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-
creCon 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 pawed through committee.
STOPPAGE OF WAGES (HOSIERY).
On the motion of Mr PACKE, the following members
were appointed to inquire into the stoppage of wages in
the hosiery trade, viz. :—Mr- Packe, Mr. Wickham, Mr.
Cobbett, Sir Henry Halford, Mr. Cheetham, Sir Joshua
Walmsley, 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 Woolmer, and the bill was subse-
quently brought in.
THE SEBASTOPOL COMMITTEE.
Mr. BENTINCK moved, pursuant to notice, that Mr.
John Ball be discharged from further attendance upon the
Army before Sebastopol Committee; that Capt. Scobell
be added to the committee. 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 look 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 com-
mittee should be impartially constituted, and therefore he
submitted that a 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 told, 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. HtTME 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 hou
member was going somewhat beyond his province in no-
minatine. the member who should supply his place. It
would be remembered that the nomination of a portion of
the committee was lett to the Government, and amongst
those whom they selected was the honourable member for
Carlow, but the honourable member having been ap-
pointedUnder.Secretary for the Colonies, ho had become
incompetent to dis large his duties—(a laugh)—as a mem-
ber of the committee. If hon. gentlemen ullowe l 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 com-
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
' namine 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 accordance with the arrangement to which he had
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 for the inquiry ? Why, the
people; and Parliament, responding to the appeal 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. He protested against such an extraordinary
doctrine, an thought the house would best discharge its
duty by disregarding the arrangement, if there was any,
and filling up the vacancy themselves. (Hear, hear )
Mr. ROEBUCK explained that the existing committee
was appointed upon an understanding with himself (no, no)
and the light hon. gentleman the member for 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 in communication with the Government of
the day. Not that the Government were 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 theirimpartiality, 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 li
of the house the Government sled the hon. and leai ned
member for Sheffielid 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 was
well made, and . that only those members had been selected
who were the best fitted to be entrusted with the difficult
and delicate in• vestigation which had been confided to them.
From the mo ment, however, that the hon. member for
Carlow accep' led the office of Under Secretary for the
Colonies, it v rag quite impossible that he 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
Governme- at that disqualified him from continuing a mem-
ber of the committee? Now, his honourable friend the
member 'lq.r 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 thee:e should be at least one Irish member on the com-
mittee. Therefore he should propose that the bon. mem-
ber for the county of Limerick should be appointed in the
st, sad of Mr. Ball, and that being the choice of the Govern-
ment- —a choice which the hon. and learned chairman of
the. c ommittee did not object to—he should have no alter-
na ve but to oppose the appointment of Mr. Scobell with
tl ie view of nominating Mr. De Vere on Monday. (Hear.)
Mr. F. FRENCH said the inquiry was one which had
I 'cell demanded by the nation, and accorded by the House
,f Commons; and it was the duty 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-
nvheestmp agreedehail rvioaaTnt icatthmtneleawelpoee
trn
aomothf.,oesosetr if the house refused to place a member of the
inotneloynntelressary, committee, which, he believed, had
Mr
s
profession
for the eischarge of Mr. Ball was then
Ball. HEeNhTailiNneCvlCor thenhear
heard
s o proposed
monstrous tha Ca aptai n
propositionS ob Scobell
hadm:
weheandala
Government
onotheso
augtidchnhhtge atti
oci
onlysro,
iihemob,
rnventieeti
not
Parliamentary
taeal
heer
Ime appointmentarne
amotewbhnenetr
a6rrooyefno(
eim:
xiheepfetoe
ifheeoMTenunhcsree..
hon. memberohfbwvoelheihriprneal. for Limerick, whom it proposed to put in the
deliberations?ws oams efi tthtroe eploar fourrru
ph
oemn
co
otnuht
neh
tsr
committeeyanwda
sh eloaosklicniendgt shvwehi et
middle
gentle-
maniednrdtaleen os intense
t s
in-
terestmore
afhosretrhde reportha thoaft thisthe
oc of mmmuittet eteh' an htown they should committee—the
cho oso acal characters toefr s t
hoef
re
er
ew
months'ho h adnoptahrraldamtheentaadrvyaenxtapgee
many public men Depended upon it, and nothing could be
mo
oremthb
rienoe:
Mr. HENRY DRUMIZOND said it was at all times
xpeclia.k .1 c;. Select coropeteutpenous t 0 bent/

in committees. The house complained, and justly too,
if the enormous lengths to which the reports of selset
aerunittees ran, but that arose in a great measure fi omthe
ircurnstance of appointing members who were unable to
I:ive their full attendance upon the committee, or who did
not understand the question to be inquired into, and,
-herefore, in order to make themselves masters of the sub
kiet, they asked all sorts of questions, until there was no
!nd to the printed evidence. Now, under these circuit'.
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,
,)r who were in their opinion the best qualified to serve on
r.he committee. In that way it was arranged that a cer-
r,ain number should be appointed 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,
bound by the original agreement to support the Govern-
ment in their nomination of his successor.
Admiral WALCOTT said the observation of the hon.
and learned member for Bath about `•a tailor and a sailor"
was disrespectful to the profession to which he had the ho-
nour to belong, and expressed his opinio❑ that the country
would be 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 ar •se from a confusion of the offices of judge
and witnesses. The committee lad exaseined, and were
about to examine, naval witnesses as to the state of Bala-
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 forme,l upon an understanding. (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, an'l endeavoured to
form 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 notniated by the Govern-
ment, his place ought to be supplied by one similarly
nominated.

After a few words from Mr. JOHN kiACGREGOR,
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 Palmerston) 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 ; he 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 be 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 be 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 iu order to ensure
the selection of persons cempetent, from their imparti-
ality, their intelligence, and other qualifications, to inves-
tigate the matter referred to them. That observation
applied to the general question, and not tLe 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 Vere was a fitter
person to he 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 iu the investigation before 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 fillingnp 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. MAGUIRE 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 hon. and
gallant member for Bath. In reply to the question of the
hon. and learned member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) 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 inqairy 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 on its constitution, and he especially objected to
such a form of nomination in the present case.
The house then divided—
For the nomination of Captain Scobell 6B
Against it
Majority —l3
The motion for the nomination of Mr. De Vera was post-
poned to Monday.
The house adjourned at 11 o'clock to Monday.