The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-20 00:00:00

able one, in a historical and political point of view, for it
would how how very much the aristocratical element
predominated in our Cabinets, and how few Cannings, Dis-
raelis, Cobden, and Brights we had had among the num-
ber. He had limited it to the Act of Union in order that it

might be seen how many Irishmen had formed members of
Cabinets since the year 1800. With the exception of about
half a dozen titular Irishmen, or rather of members
bearing Irish titles, as the Duke of Wellington, Lord
Castlereagh, Lord Monteagle, and one or two more, it would
be seen that no Irishmen had been members of Cabinets.

Some of the most important offices in Ireland were in the
hands of Englishmen, such as the head of the police, and
other offices. The house could afford to laugh at this
matter, but it virtually affected the interests of the country
from which he came. That was an Irish grievance, and he

hadlaid sufficient grounds for complaint. The English
Whigs and Liberals had excluded them, the Irish Roman
Catholics, systematically from office. It was said, why did
not Irishmen of position and ability come into that house ?
The reason was, that it would bar promotion. He con-

eluded by moving the motion.
Mr. M'CANN seconded the motion.
Lord C. HAMILTON said the information was to be
found in Thom's Almanac. Gradually the hon. member let
out the real motive of his motion, viz., that he wished to put
himself forward as a proper member for office. (Hear.)
Had he not referred to the late member for Dover? How,

said he, was he— silenced ? Was not the inference clear ? He
had never heard an Irishman in that house who had not

cried out " Justice for Ireland." He hoped that the Govern-
ment would not grant a return which for the first time would
set.forth from what part of the United Kingdom a Minister
of the Crown came, and what religion he was of.
Mr. SCULLY—The noble lord has not read my motion.
Lord C. HAMlLTON—Whatever the terms of the mo-
tion might be, the hon. member in his speech had directly
referred to members of the Roman Catholic persuasion who

had held office. But his great objection to the return was
that the information asked for was to be found already in
" Thom's Almanac" more fully given than it would be by
the return moved for.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said one of the usual motives which
induced hon. members to move for returns was that the
house was not in po'ssession of authentic information on the
subject to which the returns had reference. That could not
be the motive in the present instance, because there were in
existence, not only the books of common reference to which
the noble lord opposite had alluded, but many others, in
which the names, paternity, and country of all. those Who
had held office under the Crown were set forth, and there
was no more difficulty in obtaining the information wanted
than the meaning of a word by referring to " Johnson's
Dictionary." Another usual object in moving for returns
was to give the information the official stamp of authenticity
which attached to any returns made to that house. But the
house in, such cases did not sit in a judicial capacity, and if
any hon. member on the authority of the common books of
reference stated that such and such a Minister had held
office at a particular time, it would not call upon him to pro-
duce legal evidence of the fact. With regard to the word-
ing of the motion, he did not think it was very clear, be-
cause it did not distinguish what kind of Ministers of the
Crown were to be included. Did it include the Ministers
of the household and those who held subordinate offices ?
Did it include only those who held seats in the Cabinet ?
If the latter, he would remind the house that the constitu-
tion did not recognise the existence of the Cabinet as a cor-
porate body, and the house had abstained from any formal
recognition also. It wa,s'a mere conventional arrangement
for the more convenient transaction of Ministerial business.
The speech of the hon. member seemed to imply that his
countrymen had not been eminent in Parliamentary and
official life ; but no return was needed to prove the contrary
—the names of Burke, Sheridan, Lord Wellesley, the Duke
of Wellington, Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. V.
Fitzgerald, and Mr. Tierney were illustrations of eminence
both in Parliamentary and official life, and that during a
long succession of years and Parliaments. If it was the
wish of the house that the return should be granted, he had
no objection—(no, no) but ho thought its only result would
be to cast needless labour on certain public departments,
and to cause needless expense to the public. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. V. SCULLY replied—He had not been able to find
the information he wanted in any book whatever, and if it
was given as he proposed it would be of great value.
The motion was negatived without a division.
BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS IN IRELAND.
Mr. M‘MAHON moved for leave to bring in a bill to
amend certain laws and statutes relating to the admission
of banisters and solicitors to practise in Ireland.
Mr. WHITESIDE was opposed to the measure because
it was not asked for in Ireland, snd was not necessary.
Mr. BRADY suppoited the motion.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND(Mr. Ser-
geant Deasy) thought that no advantage could arise either
to the profession or the public at large, from prolonging this
discussion at this period of the session; and he therefore
hoped his hon. friend would not persevere in pressing his
motion.
The house then divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion .. 179
Against it 123
Majority for 56
RIVER THAMES.

Sir G. C. LEWIS, in moving for leave to bring in a bill
to extend the power of the conservators of the river Thames,
said the object of it, which was to assist in the purification
of the dames, would meet with universal satisfaction.
(Hear, hear.) The bill was a very short one, and at pre-
sent he would merely move for leave to introduce it.
Leave was then given.
MEDICAL ACTS AMENDMENT.

Mr. WHITESIDE obtained leave to bring in a bill to
amend the Medical Acts of 21 Vict., c. 9, and 22 Vict., c.

PACKET AND TELEGRAPHIC CONTRACTS.
Mr. BOUVERIE brought under the consideration of
the house the petition of Sir William Russell, presented
18th July, and moved that it be an instruction to the se-
lect committee on packet and telegraphic contracts, not to I
proceed to inquire into the mail-packet contract for the con-
veyance of mails between Dover and Calais, and between
Dover and Ostend, until the petition of Sir William Russell,
Bart., complaining of an undue election and return for the
town and port of Dover, shall have been disposed of. The
hon. member said the petitioner understood that a select com-
mittee had been appointed to inquire ieto the packet and tele-
graphic contracts whichthe Government had entered into for
the conveyance of mails and messages, and that he was ad-
vised that there were circumstances connected with the con-
tract for the conveyance of mails between Dover and Calais
of such a nature that the house should instruct the com-
mittee not to inquire into that contract. He (Mr. Bou-
verie) thought the house was bound, in justice to itself, its
character, and to Sir W. Russell, to comply with the
prayer of that petition. He would state the ground of sus-
picion which existed as regarded the purity of the transac-
tion in connexion with the Dover contract. Mr. Church-
ward was a gentleman not unknown to fame. He was a
large employer at Dover, and had the command of 120 votes.
In 1852 there was an election at Plymouth, and the com-
mittee who tried the election petition presented against the
return of Mr. Mears, reported that certain voters who had
polled for Mears had been bribed by this very Mr. Church-
ward. By other resolutions, other acts of bribery were
proved. Now, he did not think there was evidence of inten-
tional fraud on the part titf the department, but, at any rate,
they must be convicted of great incaution in giving a rever-
sionary contract, which was only to come into operation at
I the end of four years, to a man who came to the depart-
meat with a tainted haracter, and who had been branded
by a report of a committee of that house a notorious briber.
That, then, was the issue which the committee would have
to try. There were allegations in the petition of Sir Wil-
liam Russell, the truth of which would be best elicited
by an election committee. According to the constitu-
tion of those committees, the judges would be few in
number, and their responsibility therefore great. More-
over, the same judges would In present on each day, so
that there would be no chance majorities, and they would
have the assistance of counsel and witnesses upon oath, and
every possible appliance for the purpose of enabling them
to arrive at the truth. (Hear.) Could there be any doubt,
therefore, that that was the proper mode of eliciting the
truth ? Or that it was not an infinitely superior method to
that presented by a select committee ? If the select com-
mittee arrived at a particular decision on the
.question, Sir
W. Russell would have an opportunity of laying his own
evidence before it, but he complained that his case was
likely to be prejudiced by the preliminary examination of
tainted witnesses. The select committee, however, would
be placed in the position of a court of appez.l from the elec-
tion, which was certainly not to be desired. He had spoken
in the interests of Sir W. Russell—(cheers from the Oppo-
sition)—but he declared that, independently of all party
considerations, if any man should tell him that he had a
good claim to a resolution of the house, he would be, at any
time, ready to de him justice. (Cheers.) It was for the
interest of all of them, and especially for those who were
accused, that those matters should receive a full and search-
ing inquiry. The right hon. gentleman concluded by mov-
ing the resolution of which he had given notice.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said he was quite as anxious as
the right hon. gentleman himself that the truth should be
ascertained, but it was only fair that they should have
an opportunity of clearing themselves from charges
which
which had no foundation in fact, a
in
were brought forward night after night, n aosed t fohrm
in which they could not be met. If it were prop at
m be some
the select committee was to supersede the electron" commit-
tee, or to prejudice Sir W. Russell,
reason for the distinction which the right hon. gentleman
B
had drawn between the two tribunals. But he could not
see why Sir W. Russell could not bring forward any evi-
dence before the election committee, upon
_.
which
he could
found- the serious charges he had advanced
Mr. eOWPER wished to revert to !he fact that the
petitioner, Sir Wm. Russell, says that his case will mate-
rially suffer if the inquiry should be first gone into before a
select committee. He therefore thought they should strain
in
a point to go into the inquiry the most satisfactory
manner.
Mr. 'WHITESIDE said that the right hon. gentleman
who made the motion said, as a lover of justiceb he hoped
the inquiry would be gone into in a judicial manner, and
the first thing he had done was to impugn the composition
of the committee, but neither that gentleman nor the gen.
tleman who had last addressed them had succeeded in
showing that the inquiry into the truth of the matter could
by possibility affect the inquiry before an election com-
mittee.
Mr. lIENLEY said the right hon. gentleman who had
made this motion had not shown them in what way Sir W.
Russell would be injured by the inquiry before the select
committee. He thought if the motion were granted very
great injustice would be done.
Mr. COLLIER said he could not conceive that anything
could be more satisfactory than that the parties should be
examined upon oath, and not that the inquiry should take
place before a committee of which the accused parties
formed a component part.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
felt the appeal that had been made to them, and that
they should not approach this question in a spirit of
party, and that his right hon. friend had no other object
in view in -making the motion than a desire to forward
the objects of justice. Tho Government was most
unwilling to show any want of confidence in the select
committee, or that it was supposed to limit itself, to try the
.merits of particular contracts. The question was whether,
after the speech of his right hon. friend, they could step
in and limit the inquiry before the select committee. He
(the Chancellor of the Excheqiier) would be inclined to
refer the petition of Sir William Russell to the select
committee. He thought it would be the better courso
so to refer the petition, and, as an amendment, ho should
therefore move that the petition of Sir 'Win. Russell be re-
-ferred to the select committee on mail packet contracts.
Sir F. BARING said, as far he could collect, the com-
mittee were opposed to the motion of the right hon. gen-
tleman.
Mr. DISRAELI said he thought the Chancellor of the
Exchequer could hardly suppose that the house would as-
sent to the proposal he had made. The members of the
late Government had some claims upon the, consideration
of the house, and especially as the Dover petition had very
little chance of being decided in the present session. He
thought the House of Commons could hardly permit itself
to fall into the trap which had been laid for it by the right
hon. gentleman. (Heaa, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON thought there was no sufficient
ground, to interfere With the proceeding of the select corn-