The Sun.
London, England, 1860-01-31 00:00:00

•

that church from any attack upon its principles or revenues.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BLACK said it was not his intention to oppose the
introduction of the bill, but he must say that, perhaps with
something of the natural fondness of a parent, he preferred
the bill which he had introduced himself last session. He
was so anxious to see an accommodation of this vexations
question that he had supported almost every measure
which had been brought in for its settlement, and would
even submit to many inconveniences to get rid
of it. He believed the opposition to its settlement had
proved injurious to the cause of religion. It could not be
advantageous to the interests of religion when ministers who
called themselves the ministers of peace sent messengers
with manacles in their hands for the purpose of handcuffing
men who conscientiotsly refused to pay this tax. (Hear.)
He thought it unjust that the present generation of citizens
in Edinburgh should have to bear the whole burden of the
measure proposed by the learned lord. He was willing to bear
his portion of the burden, but he doubted whether the inha-
bitants generally would submit to it. With regard to the
seat rents and their effect in keeping away the poorer classes,
it was notorious that half the seats were vacant, and were
open without the payment of any money at all. With regard
to the historyof this tax, it was first imposed by Charles 11.,
and the people of Edinburgh, instead of deriving any benefit,
felt it to be a burden and a grievance. For himself, he
should be prepared, on the proper occasion, to show thatthe
right hon. and learned lord was wrong as to the history of
this tax. He thought that by making some alterations the
measure might be made more acceptable than it was at pre-
sent, as well as more useful to the Church.
Mr. MILLER thought that the inhabitants of Leith had
good right to complain of this measure. This tax bore
heavily and unjustly on the shipping interest of the town
which he represented. If the citizens of Edinburgh had
cause to complain of the oppressiveness of this tax, much
more had the inhabitants of Leith reason to complain of it,
for they derived no benefit whatsoever from it. He should
object to that part of the bill which affected the Town of Leith
' at a future stage, and he hoped he would receive the sup-
port of the house.
Mr. BLACKBURN would not object to the plan for the
abolition of this tax in 15 years ; but with regard to the
proposal en the subject of the seat rents, he thought consi-
derable objection might be urged. He thought it ♦ery de-
sirable that the question should be settled.
In reply to Lord W. GRAILAM,
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the proposed com-
mission was to be an unpaid one.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
CORPORATION OF LONDON.

of the coal duty, the eightpence and the penny were not
applied to City purposes : they were collected by the officers
of the City, and handed over to the Board of Works, and
were applicable to the payment of any debts created by ad-
vances for general improvements.. The purposes for which
the penny duty was levied had already been satisfied, and
the sums arising from it were now paid over to the account
tent at the Bank of England, there to accumulate under the
control of the Commissioners of Works. The purposes for
which the eightpenny duty was levied would expire in April,
1861. in saying what he had said he must be understood
as not expressing any opinion, but merely stating for the
information of the house how the coal dues stood. As for
Hertford and towns situated like it, what the advocates of
the tax said was, that those towns by their proximity to the
metropolis derived a corresponding advantage from the im-
provements in the means of communication, &c., and that
the value of their land was raised by their contiguity to
London. (A laugh.) This view he did not defend. (Hear.)
Mr. E. JAMES deprecated this sort of piecemeal legisla-
tion and would much prefer seeing the whole question of civic
rights and civic finance placed on a broad and intelligible
footing, and dealt with in one comprehensive measure.
(Hear, hear.) The present state of things was most anoma-
lous. One day the Court of Common Council sat at Guild-
hall, another day the Board of Works, both possessing large
powers. He must designate the bill of the Government as
a paltry bill, and one unworthy of the subject with which it
proposed to deal and of the sanction of the House of Com-
mons. (Hear, hear.)
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
PACKET AND TELEGRAPHIC CONTRACTS.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then rose
to move for the appointment of a select committee to inquire
into the manner in which contracts extending over periods
of years have from time to time been formed or modified by
her Majesty's Government with various steam packet com-
panies for the conveyance of mails by sea ; and likewise into
any agreements or other arrangements which have been
adopted at the public charge, actual or prospective, for the
purpose of telegraphic communication beyond sea, and to re-
port their opinion thereon to the house ; together with any
recommendation as to rules to be observed hereafter by the
Government in making contract services which have not
yet been sanctioned by Parliament, or which extend over a
series of years ; with power to report from time to time.
The right hon. gentleman had little to say beyond propos-
ing to the house the re-appointment of the committee. The
motion carried its own recommendation, and he was not
aware that there existed any intention to oppose it. For a
considerable number of years this department had been under
theeharge of the Admiralty, but the Government considered,
after due examination of the subject, that it would be desir-
able to make a ellange lu ehwt reopc. t, aaa transfer it to the
Poet-ant:a department, which was immediately connected
with the receipts from the packet service. Upon the whole,
he thought this would be the more suitable arrangement.
The Treasury would then have control ; and in respect to
the maritime portion of the duty they would be assisted by
the marine department of the Board of Trade, and, where
necessary, would call in the advice of the Admiralty.
Such a change would, in the opinion of the Government be
conducive to public advantage. (Hear, hear.) The com-
mittee upstairs would, however, deliver such opinion as it
thought fit. With respect to the notice given by the right
hen. baronet the member for Droitviich, it would be of course
open to him to make what remarks he pleased upon the con-
duct of the committee which sat last session, nor would he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) attempt by any defence
of the committee to anticipate the remarks of the right hon.
gentleman, nor indeed was he aware of any ground for im-
peaching it. He wasnot himself a member of the committee,
but had understood that the committee, so far as regarded
the subject-matter before it, was unanimous. He did not
mean to say that the committee was unanimous upon all
questions, but he had not understood there was any differ-
ence of opinion with regard to questions which it was com-
petent for them to decide, and to which it was bound to ap-
ply its attention. The Government would not be under-
stood as either casting any censure upon that committee, or
joining others who thought fit to censure it. With these
few observationshe would leave it to the right hon. baronet
to address such remarks to the house as he might think fit,
only placing his motion in the hands of the Speaker.
The motion was then read from the chair.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he rose, according to the notice
which he had given, to submit to the house certain considers-
flows v 4102 regard to illse manner in which the inquiries before
this committee had been conducted in the last session of Par-
liament, and the manner in which he thought it desirable
they should be conducted in the present year. Before stating
thoseconsiderations hewished to clear the ground, by stating
that he did not desire to enter into the evidence, nor to touch
upon the contract of Mr. Churchward, made by him with the
late Government to convey the mails from Dover to Calais.
A notice had been given that a motion would be made next
week upon that subject, and it was not quite clear whether
it would be consistent with the rules of the house that that
question should be raised upon this motion. Whether the
house would confirm or violate the contract made with Mr.
Churchward would be considered at a future time, and he
did not intend to notice the matter further. Nor did he
intend to touch upon the grounds upon which the commit-
tee intheir report had passed a censure upon Mr. Murray.
The evidence was such that, if he were to go into it, it
would bring on a discussion which might at present be incon-
venient. He proposed therefore to limit himself to the ob-
ject which he had given notice of, viz., "to call the atten-
tion of the house to the manner in which the inquiry in-
trusted to the committee in the last session was conducted,
and to the necessity that the proceedings of the select com-
mittees should be strictly limited to the matters referred to
them by the house." The question was whether the mode
upon which the examination was conducted, especially the
manner in which the committee had drawn up their report,
was consistent with justice, consistent with parliamentary
practice, and more especially whether it was consistent with
the constant practice of this house in relation to all matters
which involved anything like .a charge of personal miscon-
duct. He would submit his views in the most temperate
manner, and he very much desired not to express anything
which might excito or give rise to angry feeltngs, for in the
discussion which took place last year there was mixed up
a good deal of party feeling and party acrimony, and it was
very desirable to avoid everything of that sort at this
time. (Hear, hear.) He would remind the house of the
acknowledged rule of parliament, which might perhaps be
considered as part of the lex non scripts of parliament; and
in the very valuable work of Mr. Erskine May—which
was accepted as the authorised rules of parliamentary prac-
tice—the necessity was pointed out of confining the com-
mittees to their orders of reference. The rule stated that
"the select committee were restrained from considering
matters not specially referred to them by the house, and
when it was necessary to extend the reference a special
authority ought to be given for that purpose." Such an
authority was necessary when select committees had to con-
sider questions touching the character and honour of indi-
viduals; and the house should remember that the honour
and character of men were the most precious things they had.
No doubt it sometimes became their duty to consider the
conduct of men ; but no man would deny that when it did
become the duty of the house to entertain charges of per-
sonal misconduct, it behoved them and the committees of
the house to be scrupulously cautious that all charges should
be dealt with in strict regard to the requirements of justice.
(Hear, hear.) He wished to call the attention of the house
to the order of reference, or rather that portion of it which
related to the mail-packet contract. It was to this effect,
"that a committee be appointed to inquire into the manner
in which contracts extending over a period of years have
been from time to time framed or; modified by the Govern-
ment for the conveyance of the mails by sea ; and to make
recommendations as to what ought to be observed by the
Government in making contracts for services not sanctioned
by Parliament and which extended over a series of years."
He would next read a passage from the report of the com-
mittee from which it seemed to him that the conduct of the
committee had not been limited to the terms of the order of
reference. The passage was this—" It appears to the com-
mittee that neither the Admiralty nor Treasury officers were
influenced by corrupt or political motives in granting a re-
newal of the contract for the mail service. The conduct of
Mr Murray, the secretary of the First Lord of the Admiralty,
was open to grave censure, but there was not sufficient evi-
dence to show that any member of the Government was cog-
nizant of the communications which passed between'Mr. Mur-
ray, Mr. Churchward, and Capt. Carnegie." Now, he would
submit that that paragraph was not consistent with the
terms of the order of reference, nor did the order justify the
committee in acquitting, or convicting, or censuring any
gentleman for personal misconductt. He expected—indeed,
he desired, that the committee would institute a full and
searching inquiry into the principles and the policy upon
which these contracts had been made ; and he further ex-
pected that the comnrittee would investigate and report their
opinion to the house upon the wisdom and prudence with
which successive Governments had made these contracts ;
but he did not expect that they would enter into questions
of personal corruption and personal misconduct which had
not been referred to them, and they were not competent to
deal with. If the committee had possessed a right to deal
therewith, why of course they would have authority to ac-
quit, and convict, and censure. Perhaps ho ought, on be-
half of himself and colleagues, to say that they were thank-
ful they had been acquitted of political corruption. But
they had not been before the committee, and no charge had
been preferred against them, and consequently the commit-
tee had no right, morally or legally, to entertain those
charges. The right to esprit and convict involved a trial,
and in order to have a fair trial two things were necessary
—a distinct accusation and competent tribunal. (Hear.)
In this case both these elements werewanting. (Hear, hear.)
It had been said that it was quite true the committee had no
authority to try the question of misconduct or corruption en
the part of any individual, but that there was a sort of un-
derstanding in the house that they should enter into these
questions. He denied the existence of any such understand-
ing. (Hear, hear.) But if there was any, he must enter his
protest against the idea that the conduct of any man, or a
charge against any man, might bo referred to an incom-
petent tribunal, unless, indeed, the person charged were a
party to it; and therefore it appeared to him that
the committee went beyond the powers which the
house had entrusted to them. (Hear, hear.) When the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellcr of the Exchequer
moved for the committee, he did so upon public grounds, and
did not intimate to the house that the committee was to be
made an engine of attack upon individuals. The hon. gen-
tleman the member for London (Mr. Crawford) strongly
approved of the appointment of the committee, and dwelt
upon its expediency, but he did not suppose that it was ap-
pointed to pass a censure upon this or that Government,
and he (Sir J. Pakington) was justified in saying that the
tone of the debate was entirely in harmony with the view of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the object of the com-
mittee was to inquire into questions of public policy alone.
Subsequently another debate arose in consequence of a peti-
tion being presented on behalf of Sir Wm. Russell, which
prayed that the committee might be restrained from enter--
mg into an inquiry respecting the Dover contract, which
might prejudice his interest on the inquiry of the petition in
reference fo the return of members for that borough. The
hon. member for Kilmarnock (Mr. flouverie) expressed a
strong opinion that the committee was not a fit tribunal to
investigate personal charges, if any should be preferred, and
the right hon. gentleman the member for Hertford (Mr.
Cowper) also expressed an opinion that if personal charges
were to be brought forward in connexion with these contracts
they ought to be referred to a judicial tribunal, and in con-
sequence of these speeches, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
particularly referred to them, and to the unfitness of the com-
mittee to enter upon judicial duties. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer said "the committee was not appointed to con-
duct cases of criminatory accusation against any Govern-
ment in particular, nor to try the cases of the Dover
that
gentlemanconvinced
and Galway contracts in any other spirit than that
of examining into ell cases of contract which might
come before them." He had no hesitation in saying
that the
hon.
teu construction it
should
was
nterthe intention
into whichttnhhaenmoving
toquestions
vin o
f g h
met
fh
u :or
t put upon
thepauuv public
Government,oi
ben ee tnh to
hs
committee, those
principlesa
na d v
mean-
ing ahtr
nh
words
right
that
wt
thhaae syt
h hef d
public policy, and nothing else • and he would add this,
of the right hon. gentleman, because if the right hon.
gentleman had at that moment in his mind the notion that
they would be at liberty to asperse the character of indivi-
duals and to prefer charges of corruption the right hon.
gentleman was bound to state it to the house. (Hear, hear.)
Having accepted that construction, he made no objection to
the appointment of the committee, and he thought it a
most proper atop eat the peat of the QoTermeoilt to teas;

Sir G. C. LEWIS, in moving for leave to bring in a bill
for the better regulation of the corporation of the City of
London, said the house was doubtless aware that when the
Municipal Corporation Act was introduced uu exception was
made in favour of the corporation of the City of London. That
exception was mainly founded upon the generally popular
character of the local municipal government of that corpo •
ration. Before the Municipal Act was passed a very large
number of the corporations of England were practically
close. The governing body was confined and limited in its
character, and frequently the vacancies which occurred
were filled up by self-election. The main object of the Mu-
nicipal Act was to popularise the constitutions of the cor-
porations of this country. But the Common Council of the
City of London was already a popular body and well known
in former times. The City of London exercised great influ-
ence, and generally assisted the popular party in this coun-
try. It was not considered necessary, therefore, that the
corporation of the City of London should be included in the
general act. But a separate report was made soon after with
regard to the City of London. Some time ago a commission
was issued of which he had the honour to be a member, to
inquire into the state of the corporation of London. That
commission made a report, and a bill was introduced into
the house founded upon that report. At a later period that
bill was referred to a select committee, who reported upon
it, with amendments. The till which he now asked leave to
introduce was practically and to all intents and purposes
the bill reported upon by that select committee, and might
be considered as the recommendations of the commission,
whose report was referred to the select committee. The bill
so framed was limited to the present state of the corpora-
tion and its officers. It did not include the question of the
coal tax, for this reason, that as those duties would shortly
expire, he should have a future opportunity of dealing with
that tax. At present he should merely ask the louse for
leave to introduce the bill. .

Mr. AYRTON opposed the motion. The question of
the corporation of London had engaged the attention of
the house and the metropolis for a great many years, and
he did not complain of the candour of the right hon. gen-
tleman in now introducing the question. No doubt the
right hon. gentleman had for many years past been a very
strenuous supporter of liberal ideas and of the liberal party,
but the question which they had to consider was, whether
the services to the liberal party were a sufficient reason for
maintaining an institution which was not only said to be
of no practical utility, but was in truth a very serious public
inconvenience. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman
had introduced a bill of a very curious character. The
house was aware that a bill was introduced by the late Go-
vernment to regulate the franchise, and they as well as
others before them maintained that the franchise should
not be lower than £lO. Yet, though the Whigs declaimed
against that, it was singular that they should now cometo
the house and propose a 110 franchise for the municipality
of London. (Hear, hear.) One was at a loss to know how
to deal with such a Government. (A laugh.) He wanted
to know what induced the Government to hold up this par-
ticular franchise within the limits of this antiquated cor-
poration. He could discover ne solution except that this
corporation attached itself so affectionately to the Whig
party, and consequently it became necessary for that party
to think more of the influence of the corporation in a City
election than to consider those great political principles
which they professed. The corporation of London was in
its origin a mere local corporation, confined to the walls of
London, and to all engaged in trade in the City. The
livery companies subsequently combined in one great cor-
poration, and that was the corporatien of London, there-
fore it RAI mat a more looal coxpviativu, but a great trad-
ing corporation also, the mayor of which represented the
trade of the metropolis—that was the theory—and without
him nothing could be done. What was this bill to do ?
The corporation was now to be a mere local municipa-
lity, supported for'ithose tradingcharacteristics which would
be found in any other corporation in the country ; and if I
the bill proposed to deal with it in that way, it must aban-
don all the pretensions it had hitherto enjoyed. He could
not understand how this Government, though commanding
a majority in the House of Commons, should bring forward
a little trumpery measure which was totally inadequate to
the occasion. They had left out of the question the tax
upon coal, which was a great injury to the manufacturers
of London and those living within 20 miles of it, whilst
they announced with great satisfaction that they had got
the taxes taken off the manufacturers of Paris who were to
deal with us. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman was a com-
missioner to inquire into the state of this corporation, and
he knew, as was often asserted, the fact that the City of
London had no real right to levy the smallest tax upon coal,
or to levy any other tax whatever upon the metropolis.
That tax was granted without any restrictions in past
times, but it was for specific purposes and objects. Those
objects and purposes had been more than fulfilled, and, in
point of fact, the corporation of London was now levying a
coal tax which had long since accomplished the objects for
which it was originally imposed, which was most injurious
to the community, and yet the Government did not like to
quarrel with the corporation, because it had influence at the
elections. (Hear.) He hoped every effort would be used
against this bill, and that they would appeal to the justice of
the House of Commons, and ask whether they would allow
Ministers to use their influence for such legislation as was
shadowed forth in this bill. They would, no doubt, have
the noble lord the member for the City of London telling
them that this corporation was as ancient as Magna Charts,
but he hoped the house would not be led away by any such
views as these. It was a remarkable thing, that the house,
having a few years ago determined upon a system of muni-
cipality for the metropolis, the right hon. gentleman did
not adhere to that course, but went out of his way to revive
a system which everybody out of the house condemned. He
hoped if the right hon. gentleman was not prepared to con-
sider whet her he would allow a useful municipal body to re-
main side by side with this plaything, some gentleman con-
nected with the metropolis would do so, and put upon the
table of the heuse a bill which would deal with the all-im-
portant questions which would arise. The metropolis ought
to be a county of itself ; it ought to have the legal as well as
municipal institutions ; it ought to have a recorder for itself
and one sheriff instead of half-a-dozen, so as to secure a
general harmony of administration of ono uniform character,
which would afford great relief to the inhabitants and an im-
partial administration of justice.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS was of opinion that the measure
had better be altogether postponed, and from what he knew
of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) he
thought it more likely that his measure of reform would
have been more efficient. The City of London did not
comprehend one-twentieth part of the population of the
metropolis, and he could see no reason for framing a mea-
, sure for London on principles totally different from those
which governed every other great corporation in England.
For his own part he was aware that the convivial meetings
of the corporation of London had triumphed over the good
intentions of the Government.

Mr. Alderman CUBITT observed that in the bill of last
year the livery.of London, a large and influential body of
ten or fifteen thousand persons, was altogether ignored. As
to reforming the corporation its members were of opinion
that this question ought to be, once for all, set at rest. He
hoped the livery might be retained in the position they now
occupied, with the power they now enjoyed of electing the
Lord Mayor and some other functionaries, and this he
thought would, on the part of the Government, be a very
wise concession.

Mr. JOHN LOCKE remarked that the livery of Lon-
don ought not to be forgotten. They were not confined
within the walls of the City of London, but were scattered
throughout the metropolis, and this formed a strong rea-
son why the Government should not be allowed to carry
through, a bill of this description, for it only dealt with a
comparatively small portion of the metropolis. The Metro-
politan Board of Works was intended to be some-
thing like a corporation for the whole of London, controlling
its municipal government in an essential respect, having the
power of levying rates for improvements—a body, too, which
he felt bound to say almost everybody disliked. When this
bill of the Government passed we should have two kings—
the Lord Mayor and the chairman of the Board of Works.
Was this expedient ? Why not instead adopt the course for-
merly adopted, and extend and enlarge the corporation—
cietonb
et o
twbaer wards,
dayn
whichd l et thebeeLuoldrd
govern
nor and
e
opolis
g Common
rlbhdwwa corporation—
dividing
i o
ogousadblhhne laugh)—but
_gugsoe fel.
fdbdLt Chpitcleta
rnoru needmitafs:ota n
Inetrit
helr? It had been said that by so doing
these
uptdeor it
apprehensionsthuh emecli
hnduoneir
pvem Queen
optruehar ipteoiot
onht,
naeabxrneieondrf
taxing
throne
wndedeevorbwenneoo—vut
nheroare
anuhnmeti
corporation
the metropolis and they would soon be unpopular enough.
The corporation of the city of London was now a powerful
body, because it possessed a hereditary revenue of £60,000
a year, not arising out of taxes, and which they could do as
' they pleased with. If the corporation were extended in the
manner suggested they would become a most useful body.
The bill now brought in by the Government was, so far as
he knew, totally inconsistent with its professed object, and
was unworthy of the consideration of the House of Com-
mons. He hoped to se
e before long a suitable measure laid
befora them. (ear,r.)
Sir M. FARQUHAR protested against the injustice of
taxing the coal of the city ho represented (Hertford), be_
Secretary
o the estaptroep iarer
as
time came the
ofcause e
metropolis.chaneed to
Thatbe within
w radiussaurely a
gorfeattwiennitoya-toi:
amnidleas
very great hardship. He
hen.
.
the Home Department would not re-impose this tax, and
that he would give a promise to that effect.
Sir G. C. LEWIS, in reply to the request just made to
bartorunsettetdhothat when
him by the hon. gentleman the member for Hertford, said it
was quite true that Hertford was included in the coal tax.
The house was probably aware that the coal tax consisted of
three portions
tax of 4d. per ' ton
amounting in the whole to 13d. per ton. A
ton was for the benefit of the City. They
claimed it as their property, and it stood upon the same
footing as the town dues of Liverpool. The fourpence was
charged with a certain capital sum raised upon it for metro-
politan improvements and other purposes, which would not
o liatimitod tcor woun Tema t 9 may, at 9 the ctlier partiom

1 THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 31, 1860.

but if he had had the idea that the committee Yrefe nett
going to investigate the public policy of these contracts,
but to deal with the characters of individuals, and with
charges of misconduct and corruption, nothing would have
induced him to agree to the appointment, constructed as it
Was. Ho strotigly4ected to the committee as being fitted
to undertake the .fy*. of inquiring into personal charges,
He would admit that the tontreittec was most carefully
selected,'and it would be difficult to meted nineteen men
more fitted to carry out the object in view; but at the seine
time he could not find nineteen men more unfitted to enter
into an investigation or trial of questions affecting charges
against the character of individuals, and for this reason, that
he found scarcely one gentleman who was acquainted with
the rules of evidence, or conversant with the business of the
courts of law, or in any way accustomed to judicial inves-
tigations, or the way in which examinations of witnesses
ought to be conducted. The chairman (Mr. Cobden) was
no doubt a very acute and able man, and there could not
probably be found a better man to undertake an investiga-
tion into a case of public conduct; but, on the other hand,
there could not be a worse man to conduct an investigation
into charges against individuals ; and he would appeal
to any lawyer of eminence to look through the printed evi-
dence upon the personal parts of the ease, and to say
whether one half of the questions would net have been dis-
allowed by any court of justice. (Hear.) He made no
charge against the committee, except that they had been
led into the error of assuming powers which they did not
legally possess, and of discharging a duty for which they
were not competent. On the grounds he had stated he
should object to a repetition of the committee of last ses-
sion; but, no matter what might be the determination of
her Majesty's Government, he thought it desirable that,
before any committee were appointed, the opinion of the
house should be taken as to the extent of its duties and
jurisdiction. If the inquiry were to be one within the
general principles of parliamentary committees, he should
not object; but if it was to be a judicial inquiry he should
demand two conditions—first, a specific accusation ; and
secondly, that such specific accusation should be referred
to a competent tribunal. (Hear hear.) There was no lack
of precedents to guide their deliberations, and any gentle-
man who had sat any time in that house must recollect
how cases involving charges against individuals had been
dealt with. In such cases, the house had always selected
persons who were fit for the duties of investigation ; and
three conditions had always been observed—first, that
instead of being unusually large, the committee should be
unusually small, in order to give greater concentration
and responsibility ; secondly, that at least some of its
members should belong to the legal profession ; and,
thirdly, that the remaining members should be chosen as
free from party bias as possible. He trusted that a
similar line would be observed in this case, and that a
competent committee would be appointed. He begged
to disclaim any ill-feeling against the committee of last
session, but he must repeat his strong conviction that the
course they had followed had not been consistent with the
order of reference, and he trusted that in whatever course
might now be taken due regard would be had for the inte-
rests of the public, and for the interests and character of
that house. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. T. BARING was sorry that the unfortunate ab-
sence of the chairman of the contract committee cast upon
him the duty of making some observations in reply to those
of the right hon. baronet. He did not complain of the right
hon. baronet's strictures, as all public men were fairly open
to comment ; but he wished thoroughly to understand the
issue which the right hon. baronet put to the house At
present, ho believed it to be, whether the committee were
Justified in the course they had pursued, and whether they
had been fitly constituted to conduct such an inquiry. He
(Sir F. Baring) was glad that this question had been
brought forward, because it related not only to the past but
to the future, seeing that another committee was about to
be appointed to inquire into the general system of Govern-
ment contracts, and it was desirable that such committee
should know whether it was to go fully into the inquiry, or
whether it was to avoid every question connected with per-
sonal character or misconduct. So far as he could under.
stand the right hon. gentleman, his objections to the com-
mittee were, first, that it was not competent to a judicial
inquiry ; and, next, that the order of reference did not per-
mit them to go into certain subjects. He was not prepared
to say that any committee might not be open to a similar
objection, for the fact was that it was almost impossible to
get a committee in that house which rose to the strict
judicial standard of impartiality. Their only expedient
was to take half from one side and half from the other, and
trust to the truth coming out in discussion between them.
But it was not his business to defend the selection of the
committee. The house had selected it, and the time for
objection was when the names were being put from the
chair. But committees selected according to the right hon.
baronet'S notion had not been more satisfactory. In the
Admiralty inquiry were four legal gentlemen; in fact, no-
thing could have been more judicial. They came to an
unanimous• decision, but that decision was received with
anything but, unanimity by the house. But the point to
which he (Sir F. Baring) had to look was, whether the
House of Commons had a right to inquire into what the
committee now complained of had inquired into. No diffi-
culty on that point had struck any member of the committee
during its sitting, If they looked back to the minutes of
that committee they would find that not the slightest objec-
tion to the course of proceeding had been taken by any of
its members. He was surprised that the right hon. gentle-
man, after the discussion on Sir Wm. Russell's petition,
should imagine that certain matters would not be inquired
into. On that occasion the late Secretary to the Treasury de-
manded inquiry, and said that it must not be "skin-deep."
The Attorney-General for Ireland demanded for the late
Government an investigation of the charges which were
made against them, and Mr. Henley said that there were
many allegations, every one of which demanded investiga-
tion. How then could the right hon. gentleman blame the
committee for acting strictly in the spirit in which it had
been appointed? He maintained it was quite right that com-
mittees should know whether they were precluded from in-
quiring into questions of character, unless they had a lawyer
amongst them, and he trusted the right hon. gentleman
would take the opinion of the house on his motion. For him*
self he had no, wish to remain on the committee, in which a
great deal that was disagreeable to him had occurred, nor had
he the slightest desire to say anything offensive respecting
any of the matters which had been brought before them.

Lord J. MANNERS concurred in the opinion that it was
important the opinion of the house should be taken as a guide
for future committees. At the same time he must say that
his impression as to the unanimity of the late committee was
diferent from that of the right hon. gentleman. He remem-
bered much dissent from the course that was being pursued,
but as four of the committee had been members of the accused
Government they could not have divided without exposing
themselves to all the malevolent insinuations of party rancour.
He agreed with his right hon. friend that when the commit-
tee was appointed, it was understood that these personal
questions were not to be referred to it. But the complaint
was that the committee travelled beyond the legitimate
terms of reference. The committee did travel out of its beaten
course, and did implicate the conduct of private individuals,
not members of the late Government, in a way quite unpre -
cedented, and, as he thought, in a manner unprecedentedly
unfair. As a member of the coreniittee, he felt he should be
out of place in an investigation of that nature. If, therefore,
it was the pleasure of the house that this committee should
be re-appointed, and that the same painful circumstances
should be again referred to, he trusted the house would be
good enough to relieve him from the necessity of attending it.

Sir F. BARING explained that all he meant to say was
he did not rec,ollect there being any difference of opinion
with reference to the matter of inquiry itself, but that there
was some difference of opinion as to whether certain ques-
tions should be put.

Mr. E. OSBORNE said that there was this great pecu-
liarity about the speech of the noble lord (Lord J. Manners),
that he had taken the opportunity te protest against the de-
cisions of a committee of which he had been a member—he
during the whole time sitting patiently by, voting on it and
making no protest. He confessed, although he had a great
temptation to go very fully into the case, he should resist it,
and he thought the right hon. gentleman the member for
Droitwitch would have acted a wiser part if, instead of being
a party to create two debates on this question, he had left
the matter in the hands of the members of the committee,
who had given notice of a motion for next week, because it
was most inconvenient that they should have two debates
raised on this question. Now, the right hon. gentleman said
this was not a competent tribunal, and he (Mr. B. Osborne)
fully agreed with him, although not for the same reasons.
He thought the late Government, or rather the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, was greatly to blame for the formation of
that committee; but the right hon. member for Droitwich did
not take exception at the proper time to the constitution of
that committee. What were the circumstances of the forma-
tion of that committee? Instead of having the usual number
of 15 members, 19 were appointed, and what was the reason
given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that appoint-
ment? The right hon. gentleman said his chiefdifficulty arose
because he was obliged to put four extra members on the
committee, and those four, members of the late Govern-
ment, were accused. The right hon. gentleman said to-
night, where was the man who would bring forward any
specific charge ? He (Mr. Z. Osborne) took an opportu-
nity of bringing forward a specific charge. He said he had
strong grounds for suspecting the right hon. gentleman had
been tampering with the elective franchise of Dover to oust
him. Sir William Russell made that allegation in his pe-
tition. If the right hon. gentleman wanted an accuser let
him turn to the election petition for the borough of Dover,
which pointed directly to the conduct of the right hon.
gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty, and his
private secretary. The committee itself was manifestly an
attempt to hush up the inquiry altogether, as if the whole
matter were proceeding en the Scotch principle of "scratch
me, and I'll scratch you." (Laughter.) To that end the
four members were appointed. The hon. member for Bir-
mingham protested at the time against the constitution of
the committee, and declared that it was improperly consti-
tuted, saying that if the house wanted a committee that
would bring respect to its judgment they should get it ap-
pointed by the committee of selection. The right hon.
gentleman talked of there being no lawyers on the com-
mittee I Why, one-fifth of the members sat in judgment
on their own case. Why, the right hon. member for
Stamford could not sit on the committee when they
came to vote, and left the room. (Laughter.) The
noble lord, however, voted manfully through it, and now,
forsooth, he would not servo on any further committee.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Was not this an at-
tempt to whitewash the private secretary of the right hon.
gentleman the member for Dreitwich ? (Hear, hear.)
Don't tell him (Mr. B. Osborne) that the right honour-
able gentleman was not aware of what his private secre-
tary was about. There never was such a committee as that
on the Dover contract ; and when the verdict had been
returned the right honourable gentleman was discontented,
and said, "Don't have a committee so framed again."
Surely the house and the country must see through the veil
attempted to be thrown over the transaction by the right
hon. gentleman the member for Droitwish. But he said
the committee did not act in accordance with the forms of
reference. He was surprised that the right hon. gentleman,
of all members of the house, since he spoke on almost every
occasion, had not protested at the right time against this
irregularity. The right hon. gentleman's political friends
had presented him lately with a splendid gold shield, but in
its compartments of colonies, justice, and mercy, he (Mr.
Osborne) did rot see that there was any view of Dover.--
(langhter)—or a medallion of his private secretary. (Re-
newed laughter.) If a supplementary shield should be pre-
sented to the right hon. gentleman, he hoped he would have
the defect remedied, and get a view of that seaport. On the
7th of July, when the subject was first mooted, Mr. Glad-
stone said it would be the study of the Government to select
the names of members who were to constitute the commit-
tee, and to see that there should be an impartial and thorough
going inquiry. Now, Mr. Gladstone was not always so
clear and plain spoken, but no one could misconceive what
a thorough going inquiry meant. (Hear, hear.) The right
hon. member for Droitwich did not object on that occasio a
to the functions of the committee so described. But on the
12th July, when a committee was nominated, the Secretary
to the Treasury, the right hon. gentleman the member for
Stamford, was exceedingly animated, and even indignant,
and declared that he would not submit to any skin-deep
inquiry. He said it must be a full and proper inquiry, ob-
serving that the further it was earried the more it would
redound to the credit of the late Government. He made
no protest as to the line the committee was to take, but he
put as able questions as any lawyer, and refused to vote,
(gear, liver,) IWO 99 into, ana Ant t 9 it LW