- OR -


Select Another  View Scanned Text

&unimarn

At a Council held last evening at Windsor, the Proclamation dissolving Parliament was signed by the Queen, and Lord Cranworth was appointed Chan-cellor.

P 4 The late Lord Chancellor of England has re-signed. his office in consequence of the decision of the Housk,Of Commons voted on Monday last by a ma-jority 14 (177 to 163). The resolution adopted by the: Howse on the motion of Mr. Bouverie was, that no: inipution can be fairly lamb against Lord Weitbury with regard to the appointment of Me Weleh to the office of Registrar of :the Leeds Bank: rupttcy Court, but that the evidence taken in that case before a committdee of the House of Commons, and the evidence Weis before a committee of the House of Lords le etursire into the circumstances of Mr. Edmund's resignation of office, show a laxity of practice and a want of caution with regard to the "public interests on the part of the Lord Chancellor in sanctioning the grant of retiring pensions to public officers against whom grave charges are pending, which are calculated to discredit the administration of his great office." We are sorry that the House of Commons should have been obliged to put the censure upon record; hut we cannot deny that it was justified by the facts. With regard, indeed, to the Edmund's case it was contended by Mr. Hennessy that Lord Pal-merston's government must share the blame; but though Mr. Hennessy's argument appeared to us quite conclusive, it produced no immediate effect except on the tonsrcir of Mr. Denman, ,,,,h,-..svor and over.again. in the course of his speech, found fault with-Mr. Hennessy, although the severest thing that Mr. Denman was able to say against him consisted in calling him " the true leader of the Opposition." Tne damaging effect upon the Government of this vote must be considerable, and the course pursued by Lord Palmerston has increased the effect. The vote cannot by any possibility be called a party vote—for the Conser-vatives themselves raised ;objections to any resolution which should admit of the construction that personal corruption was imputed to the Lord Chancellor, and the resolution, which was carried against the utmost efforts of the Government, was proposed by a Whig member and received the support of no fewer than fifteen ministerialists. The Pall Mall Gazette directs attention to what it calls the unblush-ing sang ,froid of Lord Palmerston's speech on Tuesday, when he announced the Queen's acceptance of Lord Westbury's resignation, and declared that he had refused to accept Lord Westbury's resignation when it was first offered, believing that if he continued in office there would be an enquiry, and that " out of that enquiry would result, as has resulted, an entire acquittal of the Chancellor." If a verdict of "laxity" bringing " discredit" on an administration is an "en-tire acquittal," what, asks the Pall Mall Gazette, would Lord Palmerston deem equivalent to_ a verdict of guilty?

— Lord Derby has addressed the following letter to Dr. Itakewell, one of Mr. Beresford Hope's Roman Cathol* constituents, who wrote to him on -Monday last, galling his attention to the misconceptions which ;,,prevailed among Catholics touching his speech do the Oath Bill. The readiness and the i courtesy with which the noble lord has disavowed the construction put upon his words, do him honour ; and his explanation of the use of the phrase "un- I muzzle" of which so much was attempted to be made, is simply complete. Again, if Lord Derby had spoken the speech, as was charged against Min, for mere electioneering purposes, nothing , 0041 be more impolitic than the promptitude with, which two days before Parliament was dissolved, he takes such pains in reply to an individual Catholic Conservative elec-tor to nullify its effect; but in either case, the noble 'lord simply said and did what he thought right under ell the circumstances. With just and impar-tial minds, these words will have their weight. But for people who in public affairs cultivate a chronic false conscience, and who enjoy their in-vincible ignorance of what is right and what is wrong,—for whom words are simply a pretext or an apology for acts of which they are secretly ashamed—these words are as waste, as the legendary Irish labour of " whistling jigs to a mile-stone : "— " St. Janiefi-.,seestre, July 4, 1865. "Sir —I have to acknowledge the receipt of our hitter t of the ,2nd inst. Absence from town during ' W*Sle of yesterday prevented my replying to it by retu "af post. I should be very sorry that any vote or spee ;se mine should prejudice the interests of a conservative *candidate at the approaching elections, butti-r,iltosild be still more so if any expression used by mathould' give just cause of offence to any of my fellow-countrymen.24111tg, utt-doubtedly, was Jurther from my thoughts. off' ' tied= sion to which your refer. As to the vote itself, I should save been most happy, as I distinctly stated, to relieve tne Roman Catholics from the obligation of disclaiming principles the imputation of which they feel to be offen-sive to them, and from the disclaimers of which Protes-tants have (very recently) been relieved ; but I could not consent hastily and without knowing the feelings of Protestants generally, to abrogate an oath which was in-troduced, and on the proposition of the highest Roman Catholic authorities, as a safeguard to the Established Church. The Government refuse to separate the two, and allow the first to be repealed without the repeal of the other also, and I therefore feel that I had no alterna-tive but to give what I admitted was a reluctant vote against the second reading of the bill.

"As to the particular expression to which you refer as having given umbrage, any one who will do me the favour of looking at my speech will see that if there were anything offensive in the expression, I am not responsible for it, but that I referred to it as having been a phrase which I characterised as being ' more forcible than elegant,' or some such expression, introduced by Mr. Kennedy, a member of Parliament recently returned for an Irish county, and mainly by the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy, and who clung so perseveringly to the expression that when replied to as having spoken of 'unlocking the lips of members,' he interrupted by saying, 'The words I used were, "Unmuzzle the senators.' Quoting his words, I followed up his metaphor. I certainly, however, should not have done so had I imagined that it would be capable of an offensive inter-pretation, and,I should greatly regret to find that it had wounded the feelings of any class of my fellow-subjects.

"You are at liberty to make any use you think fit of this letter.—I am, sir, ypnr obedient servant, "R. H. Bakewell, Esq., M.D." ' ' ' " Danny. --.... During the recent debates on the 'Catholic Oath Bill, reference was inadii 'Several times, Ood once by Lord Derby himself, to a deolaration 4th,e late, Lucas that if he had taken the Catholic Oath, he would no more vote for deprieing the Protestant Church Establishment of its property than he would blaspheme God or deny the Faith. These MO= to this declaration of Mr. Lucas have called forth a letter to the Freeman's Journal from Mr. Michael Dwyer, who writes, that though it is true that Mr, Lucas changed his opinion on the interpretation of the Catholic Oath, and came to the conclusion that it ought to prevent him from voting to deprive the Church Establishment of its property, he also came to the conclusion that he would not again take the Catholic Oath. The opinion of a man like Mr. Lucas must always beseprisItni on such a question, and as it is evident tharribine confusion exists on the subject, the facts are worth .eating forth correctly.

it was in 00 TABLET of June 2, 1849, that Mr. Lucas, o.fter stating that he had previously been of a different opinion, recorded his conclusion (after in-vestigating the origin and history of the Catholic Oath, and discovering that the disclaimer of any intention to subvert the Church Establishmentisot",to injure or weaken the Protestant religion andlesternment was in at at the request, and accord ;to the desire, of the atholics themselves) in the follgivring words:—"If the present writer had a seat in. Parliament, un-less, and until, he be better informed, he would no more presume to vote for the alienation of any Pro-testant Church property, so long as that oath was in 'being, than he would blaspheme God, or renounce the', Faith."

Three years after this declaration, viz. in 1852, Mr. Lucas entered Parliament and took the Catholic Oath; and in 1854 he declared in his place in the House of Commons, that before entering Parliament and taking the oath, he had carefully reconsidered the question, I and had come to the conclusion that the oath did not' prevent him from voting according to his own convict-ions on matters connected with the Church Establish. went ; and towards the close of his Parliamentary career, viz., on July 8, 1854 in the debate on Serjeant Shee's ChurchTemporalities Bill, Mr. Lucas said, "that he believed the oath left him free to take any course which appeared to him' consistent with the best in-terests of the community." This declaration of Mr. Lucas was made towards the close of the session of 1W. Before the session of 1855 he had proceeded to Rome, and he died in the October of 1855, having taken scarcely any part in Parliamentary proceedings after his return from Rome. On the one hand, there-fore, as far as the public declarations of Mr. Lucas are concerned, Lord Derby would be wrong in sup-posing that his final opinion was that the oath binds Catholics not to vote for the alienation of any of the property of the Established Church. That had been his opinion in 1849, but he had altered it before he took the oath in 1852 on entering Parliament. On the other hand, it seems that Mr. Dwyer's memory is at fault in leading him to suppose that Mr. Lucas after taking the oath resolved on not taking it again, by reason of the obligations which he , understood it to impose on him with regard to the. Church Fatah-lishment; for as late as July, 1854, Mc Luca as of opinion that the oath left him free to 'take ay/ Wino which appeared to him consistent With the beat inter- ests of the community. , We stated in the TABLET, a few months ago, our own construction of the Catholic Oath, and it agreed neither with the opinion Vaif. Lucas in 1849, nor with his opinion in 1854. e believe that the oath leaves a Catholic quite frPa to vote as seems best to himself, on any questioe concerning the statues or the property of the Churea Establishment; provided, how-Over, that he knows himself before God to be free from any intention of subverting the present Church Es-tablishment (an intention which he abjures upon oath); and provided also that in Ins honour and conscience he believes that layltis vote he is not injuring or weak-ening the Praeltant religion or the Protestant government.

— We have said so much about the Catholic Oath DA that.we hare nothing more to add, but , . • those Catholics who, between the conflicting counsel, 'and contradictory assertions of Catholic writers and speakers, feel that they do not know what to believe, may derive profit from knowing how the matter strikes an outside,observer like the Saturday Review, which had an article upon the subject last week. The Saturday Review says :—" As an electioneering manoeuvre there can be no doubt that Mr. Monsell has achieved a brilliant success. The foreign policy of the Tories has procured them a certain amount of support from the English Roman Catholics, and at one time the feeling extended even to the Irish. Now, ever since the days of O'Connell the Irish Roman Catholics have been looked upon as the natural appanage of the Whig party, and they naturally look with indignation upon any accidental circumstance, that may have the effect of weakening their hold. What with their Italian policy, and what with the 1 eccentricities of Sir Robert Peel, the Whigs were in serious danger of losing the support which, for many years back, they have received from the Irish Catholics. 1The skill which Mr. Monsell has shown in steering them through this difficult strait, is worthy of the most substantial acknowledgment. With infinite discernment he lighted at once upon the weak I point in his adversary's harness. A mere attack upon the Established Chureh in Ireland would have been of no use, for everybody knew that the Tories were pledged to support the Es-tablished Church. The object was to find a conces-sion which the Tories, without any substantial con-cession, might have granted, but which the passions of their Orange supporters would drive them to refuse. The Roman Catholic oaths offered precisely the sub- ject matter desired. They gave no real security to' any portion of the Church Estalishment, and might have been safely abandoned by its keenest friend. But they were connected so closely in their history with the struggle between Romanisin and Protes-tantism, that popular feeling was almost certain to attach to them a value they did not really possess. Mr. Monsell saw his advantage, and urged it with dexterity. It must be admitted, however, that he was favoured by singular obtuseness in the other side.

— There are two kinds of party tricks that may be played for electioneering purposes just before a disso - lution' one such as is being played by trying to per-suade Catholic voters to discard all considerations ex-cept Lord Derby's vote and speech about the Oath Bill ; the other kind, far more objectionable, and far more damaging to Catholic interests, such as is being played with the Catholic University of Ire-land by which the supporters of the Ministry are induced to sacrifice an important Catholic interest in order to get credit for the Ministry by affording them the opporthuity of making a delusive concession. Mr. Hennessy read a letter in the House of Commons on Wednesday, from the Archbishop of Tuam, which; will have the effect of opening the eyes of some who do not wish to make themselves parties to a transparent art010e, -4;4:1010far the most interesting of the English elections now pending, to Catholics at least, is that iof the Isle of Wight. Sir John Simeon, a Roman Catho-lic baronet, of large property and good private cha-racter, is the Liberal candidate ; and as he is of the most advanced school of Liberals in all questions, Idomestic and foreign, Lord Palmerston has no snore cordial partisan of the whole platform of his policy. Sir Charles Locock on the other hand is the Conservative candidate, and, as we read his address, a very ordinary Conservative of the old hum-drum Protestant Tory school. His opposition to Sir John Simeon is, indeed, in good measure carried on in a way offensive to Catholic feeling. Now, Mr. W. G. Ward, of Northwood Park, whose name and writings are well known to all English Catholics, is one of the principd danded proprietors of the island ; and if he shouldsy choose to support Sir John Simeon, there is'...' ry little doubt that Sir John Simeon would be elected. But Mr. Ward, on the contrary (to his honour be it said), has elected to oppose Sir John Simeon, to the full measure of his legitimate influence ; and if, as wo sincerely hope, Sir John Simeon be de-feated, it will under Providence be, in all probability, due to this decision, for which Mr. Ward gives his reasons in the following excellent letter : "21, Hamilton Terrace, N.W., London, June 2G, 1855.

"Dear Sir,—I beg you to withdraw my name from the coed** over which yon preside, and as my position is somewhat peculiar, perhaps you will allow me to take the opportunity of making public a personal explanation.

"I was never engaged in any political contest which interested me at all so keenly, as the present movement against Sir J. Simeon's election. My motives however for, opposing it are pot chiefly political ; though I do cor-dially dislike and disapprove his whole political creed. Still less are they personal; on the contrary I have the warmest regard for him, and on this very occasion he has treated me with a generosity which I shall never forget. But my reasons for being shocked at the thought of his appearing in Parliament as a representative of Catholicism are very far more influential with me than any merely political or personal reason could possibly be.

" When I was asked to join Sir C. Locock's committee, I not unnaturally inferred (though nothing of the kind was stated or hinted) that his canvass would be mainly conducted on those Onservative principles which I hold in common with they other members of the committee. Such however hissanot been the case : the appeal has ly to that unhappy animosity, so lishmen, against that Church of t earthly privilege to be a member. a very singular (and to my mind if this hatred of Catholicism ent for averting what I re-anger with which the Cathalic ring the next election. But still ca

ga the 'fact remainr, *veer method of forwarding Sir C. f - Locock's interestlfuis been one which I most profoundly disapprove • whill your reasons for opposing his ante-gom'sie 'stand out in extreme and most curious con- trast to my own. I could not, therefore, without incur-ring misconstruction, allow my name to remain on h a I committee.

"I shall none the less vote for Sir C. Locock asthe only means in my power of promoting Sir J. Simeon's exclu-sion from parliament. And I will venture to say that no member of your committee desires that end more ear-catty than I do; or will more heartily rejoice if God in His mercy grants its accomplishment.

" I will take this opportunity of repeating what I have said at former elections. I cannot init thiuk;each elector personally responsible for his itown ,, exercise of the suffrage; and it would therefore be very painful to me if any. sepe was induced, directly or indirectly, by my influ-milks vote against his conscientious convictions. I would tg.' . lawful step to injure Sir J. Simeon's elec. tioneering prospects • but I cannot regard such exercise of influence as a lawful step.

" I remain, dear Sir, faithfullyyours, .W. G. WARD." "B. C. Shedden, Esq.

— The Sheri le of the City of London have already issued their proclamation announcing that the City election will be held it 'Monday next, the 10th inst. We have good reason to hope that the tyss '.. ,..yUvee.s_andidatgtvill LeEeksiv _ the general portthe Catholicireaoriand we be- of the me ropolitan borougi s, tie ci Mee of the Catholic electors is not quite so clearly defined by consideration of party principles as it is in the City. In Finsbury for example, there is no Conservative canillki but the abilities, which Mr. Torrene displayed, and .the services which he rendered to Ireland during his previous career in Parliament, and the character of the opposition with which he has been met, constitute a special claim to our support. So much may also be said for Mr, Cox. In Marylebone, there can be no doubt as "to - the dut of Catholic electors towards such a can 1 a as Mr. Chambers, the original author of theN-unneffes' Inspection Bill.

In. Westminster, we hope for the electiolcortffeir--- servative candidate, Mr. Smith • an f Mr, tuart Mil , whose constant sympa y wit the cause of Irish Tenant Right:constittites a peculiar claim.

---, e print in our fnintelligence the letter of Mr.

mid•' ' ' Power and an extract from the letter of "An En orthy Man," which appeared in last week's Wexford People. The county of Wexford has to choose between Mr. George, the Tory, Sir Jame° Power' the Whig, and Mr. M`Mahon, who was re-turned in 1852 as one of the party of which Frederick Lucas, Charles Gavan Duffy, and George Henry Moore were leading members. 'Since 1852 Mr, M'Mahon has been member for Wexford, and we con-fess that if ho should be rejected by Wexford in favour of Mr. George and Sir James Power we should feel that a misfortune had occurred. We published in our last Mr. Whlahon's address to the people of Wexford, and though we did not agree with him two or three times in the votes which he gave, still we cannot help feeling that if Sir James Power were returned in his place, the cause of Ireland would have sustained a loss. Surely Mr. M'Mahou ought not to:be asked to take the pledge of the National Association. He has served Ireland for thirteen years in Parliament, and when it is a ques-tion between him on one side, and Mr. George and Sir James Power on the other hand, he ought to be returned without any hesitation and without any pledge. By the way, in Mr. MaMahon's address which we gave last week, there is one expression which seems to need rectification. Mr. M‘Mahon's words may be understood as denying or, at least, as implying a loubt, that before the Tory Government was put out )f power in 1859 they had not prepared and were not about to introduce a bill on the Landlord laid Tenant question. That was a capital point in ,he controversies carried on at that time, but by a refer-nice to the Parliamentary debates of Friday, March 4, .859, it will be seen that Mr. Whiteside expressly fated that the Government bad prepared a Bill, and hat as soon as he was ready to proceed with it he vould ask the Chanoellor of the Exchequer to fix a lay for bringing it in. We ourselves obtained proof hat the Bill was prepared, and Mr. Maguire in his etter to his constituents published in the Cork ..:xantiner, mentions it as one reason of his vote for the Cory Government the fact that a Bill was prepared. — The Unite Cattolica reminds its readers that the canner in which the Revolutionary Government has net theovertures of Pope I'iuslX. in 1865, is in accord-Luce with the precedent afforded by the same party n 1855, when in November 1854, S. Rattazzi, Minis. er of Grace and Justice, brought forward a law for he suppression of the religious orders in Piedmont. Achile the bill was before the Chamber of Deputies, (ing Victor Emmanuel lost by death his mother, his vife, his brother, and his son. The bill was voted by he Chamber of Deputies, and came before the Senate. Che minister told the Senate that the measure was in-lispensable, because it was necessary to provide funds or the payment of the Catholic clergy, the vote for that ourpose having been struck out of the Budget. On ipril 26, the Bishop of Civello, one of the Senators, nnounced that the Bishops of Piedmont had received he sanction of the Pope for the proposal which they ow made through him, viz., that they would make a oluntary offering of the sum required for the year 855. The Prime Minister, Count Cavour, asked for me to consider this proposal, which he acknowledged 'as a proof of the patriotism of the Bishops. Next ay he announced in the Senate that the Ministry had signed their offices into the hands of the King. And ien, in 1855, fair hopes were indulged of reconcilia-on, and of the prevalence of better sentiments; even i 1865 fair hopes of reconciliation and of the revalence of better sentiments were indulged 1, when in consequence of the overtures made r Pope Pius IX., S. Vegezzi was despatched to ome.

p been almost ex prevalent anion which it is my Certainly it will dential) citybecome t1 , the most fit threate lieve their committee area. I tuine of success. In several HOUSE OF LOBDS.—Moutstor, July 3

Lord AAVENSWORTH gave notice that he should in the first Session of the ensuing Parliament bring in a Bill for the purpose of altering and amending the 14th of George IV., a Bill for the relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, and that be should propose an amended oath in substitution for that-provided by the Bill to which he had referred. In giving this notice he was desirous of saying that he did so entirely upon his own responsibility raid without being prompted by any one else. He hoped teba.able to suggest amendments to the Act which would' give Satisfaction to the Roman Catholics of this ;country, without lathe same time weakening the settlement of property, both lay and oriole-shurtical, as by law established. He might also state that if the Government of the day wciuld undertake the conduct of the measure be would willingly confide the task to them.

Lord Bnotassam corrected a misrepresentation of the posi-tion he had taken in a reference he had made last autumn at York to American war. He believed the slaves were emancipated by the North as a means of harassing the South; but he was surprised be should beoharged with sympathising with slavery or the slaveholders.

Lord ERITRY moved as a resolution, "That the evils of a .compulsory and indiscriminate use of the Burial Service of the Established Church demand the early attention of the Legislature." Those evils had increased during the last 12 years, and in consequence the most painful scenes were of frequent occurrences at funerals.

T he Archbishop of CANTERBURY objected to a question so important being brought forward at this period of the ses-sion. The resolution would effect nothing, and he hoped the house would not adopt it.

Lord Gesauvists said the Government was 'ready to assist the Episcopal Bench in providing a remedy for the present state of things if the Bishops suggested a mode of doing so. He suggested that the motion should be withdrawn.

The Bishop of Lornma thought, as a commission would probably be appointed to consider certain of the Rubrics, this matter might be referred to it.

Lord GARY said it was time something should be done, and, as the resolution was very moderate, he should not advise its withdrawal.

Lord Ebury declined to withdraw the resolution, and The house divided, when there appeared—Contents, 29 ; non-contents, 43; majority 'against the resolution, 23.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MONDAY,' July 3.

THE DINNER TO MR. GAVAN DUFFY.

Mr. VERNER asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland nether his attention had been given to the proceedings y tvhich were stated to have taken place at a public dinner in Dublin in honour of Mr. Gavan Duffy, at which the health of her Majesty was reluctantly and not very respectfully proposed, and received with general hissing and disapproba-tion, and likewise to the presence there of two members of that House, the members for Youghal and Dungarvan, the former one of her Majesty's Counsel, and the latter holding the commission of the peace, neither of whom was repre-sented to have expressed their disapproval of the disloyal oenduot of the assembly, and what steps the Irish govern-ment intended to take in the matter.

he R. Penn said,—Since the hon. member gave notice of this question I have taken care to look to the proceedings referred to. The dinner was of a private character ("no, nor) At all events, it was a dinner to a gentleman who had been absent from Ireland for, I believe, many years (a laugh). He was entertained at the private expense of the parties. . Reporters were there, but I am not responsible for the observations of the hon. members for Youghal and Dun-garvan (bear, hear). These two hon. gentlemen, out of re-gard to Mr. Duffy, attended the dinner and made speeches, but I see nothing in their speeches to find fault with. As re-gards the toast of "her Majesty," I believe it was given; but really I am not in any way responsible for the course of the proceedings.

THE LAW ADVISER TO THE CASTLE.

Sir T. 4ATIMON said he had taken the following passages from the speelh of the candidate for Dungarvan on the 17th of June, a given in the Freeman's Journal. The passages :— "Iwere have learnt from my earliest youth to regard with un-dying hostility the arrogant and intolerant faction which so long has trampled upon and insulted my religion and my country . . . . I regard the tenant farmer as the sole proprietor of the land, where he industriously tills and he hours upon it."

He wished to ask the right hon. baronet whether the gentle-man who delivered that speech was the same Mr. Barry who held the office law adviser to the Castle (hear, hear), and wise wee selected by the.government to go down to Belfast to' holds judicial inveepgation involving the lives of many men to whom he declares his "undying hostility" (hear, Bear)-=the same Mr. Barry who was so lauded by the occu-pants of the Treasury Bench for his impartiality, his modera-tion and his judicial qualifications (" Oh, oh !" and hear, bear). He also wished to know whether the right hon. gen-tleman considered a person who alluded to his "undying hostility" to a great number of his fellow-countrymen, and who held the most advanced socialistic doctrines with regard to the rights of property, was a fit person to hold the office ad law adviser to Dublin Castle (hear).

Sir R. PEEL said he told the hon. baronet on Friday night that he should be prepared to meet the question. In the first plat*, he must disclaim altogether having it supposed that Mr. Barry was a government candidate. Mr. Barry was a very eminent gentleman, and was one of the Commissioners who had been sent to Belfast, and every one acknowledged that the report of the Commissioners was a most impartial and fair one. Mr. Barry was now candidate for Dungarvan, but in the present exciting times Mr. Barry, probably like other gentlemen, had language attributed to him which he had never made use of. He had Mr. Barry's authority for saying that he did not make use of the language attributed to him ; and, moreover, Mr. Barry had since the date of the observations referred to issued an address to the electors of Dungarvan, on the 28th of June, in which he stated that language had been attributed to him which he had not uttered, and opinions which ho never entertained (hear, hear). That was a satisfactory answer to the observations made by the hon. baronet (hear, hear); and it was quite evident that the hon. gentleman would have done better by privately asking him whether the language attributed to Mr. Barry bad been used before bringing the subject under the notice of the house (hear, hear).

Sir T. BATESON wished to ask the right hon. baronet whether he was aware that this gentleman had allowed 11 days to elapse before issuing the address, or the " preface,"‘ as it was now fashionable to call it, to which the right hon. gentleman had referred.

that Mr. Welch had been recommended by his son, Richard Bothell, should have caused him to pause before he gave him a public appointment. He did not mean that the Lord Chancellor was were of the corrupt transactions that were going on, but he had been guilty of great and wilful neglect. Mr. Hunt then reviewed a portion of the evidence which affected Mr. Skirrow, Mr. Richard Bethel!, and Mr. Welch with a knowledge of the corrupt transactions, and as to the ettraordinary step of Mr. Miller with reference to the expected appointment of Mr. R. Bothell, laying stress upon dates and upon collateral facts, again charging the Lord Chancellor with ,a supineness and want of vigilance for the public interest, as further manifested in the grant of pensions to Mr. Edmunds and Mr. Wilde. He concluded his speech in the following terms. I have asked the house to judge, not upon the one case only, but upon the two—the Edmunds' case as well as the other. The committee of the other House of Parliament have reported in substance that Mr. Edmnnds, having been guilty of defalcations in the several offices beheld amounting to a want of personal in-tegrity,' the Lord Chancellor said he would not stand in the way of his retiring upon a pension. He presented a petition to the House of Lords from Mr. Edmunds, asking for a pen-sion, and did not apprise the committee who took that petition into consideration of what Mr. Edmunds's irregulari-ties had been (hear, hear)._ In the case of the Leeds Bankrupcy Court the Lord Chancellor himself sigaed the order for Mr. Wilde'spension after havingoalled upon him to show cause in open court why he should not be dismissed from his office (hear). In the other case, it not being in his province himself to grant the pension, he connived—I do not wish to use a harsh expression—but he was privy to and allowed the committee to grant that pension, he him-self being cognisant of the strongest reasons for not granting is, without informing the committee of those reasons (hear). The committee of the House of Lords acquitted the Lord Chancellor of any improper motive. The committee of the House of Commons acquitted him of everything but haste' and want of caution in granting the retiring pension. I say that, putting these cases together, they show a moral obtuseness on the part of the Lord Chancellor which, in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of the house and the country, disqualifies him from discharging those grave duties that belong to his office (cheers). Sir, when this retiring pension bad been granted under these extraordinary circum-stances to Mr. Edmunds—that pension now most righteously moinded—who was put into the place vacated by Mr. Edmunds ? The Lord Chancellor's son (hear, hear). Now, I have not a word to say against Mr. S. Bethell's character. I believe that he is quite a proper person to hold that office. But I say that a man of nice sensibilities would have paused before he filled up with his son a place that had been va-cated in such a way (hear, hear). I impute no improper motives to the Lord Chancellor in this case, but I say that it has had a bad effect in the country. It has led people to. think that the object to be attained in ranting a retiring pension was a vacancy. It has given rise to the suspicion that the object was a vacancy. I do not impute that to the Lord Chancellor, but it has induced people ,to think so. When these facts come before the public they dc not enter into the evidence so nicely as we do here. They do not temper justice with mercy, as we are prepared to do now (hear). When' the facts came before them that Mr. Edmunds, a defaulter, was allowed with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor to retire from his office, and that the Lord Chancellor's son was put in his place ; that Mr. Wilde was allowed by the Lord Chancellor, upon an insufficient medical certificate, to retire from his office with a pension ; and that a gentleman had been appointed to succeed him who had lent to another son £1,050, can we wonder that the public should draw their own conclusions ? I acquit the Lord Chancellor of any corrupt motives, but I say that he has given great oc-casion of scandal in the country. He has led pen le to think that places can be obtained by corrupt means hear, hear), and that the Lord Chancellor does not sten too nicely upon reasons for removing one man and putting in another. And I say that this state of things, this want of vigilance, this supineness, this indifference, I might almost say this fatuous simplicity, if such words can be applied to such a man as the Lord Chancellor (hear, and a laugh), I say that the unsuspiciousness that has enabled his subordinates and those around him to practise that corruption which I admit he himself is free from is al-mbat as bad for the country, although not for himself, as if he were personally guilty of this corruption. I have now concluded my remarks. I hope I have satisfied the house that I have not brought forward this matter on light grounds. I know not whether the majority of this house will affirm the resolution that I place before them, but I feel satisfied that the country will think that it is a duty we owe to it to pass in review the conduct of the Lord Chancellor (hear, hear). This house will shortly be dissolved.-A4-jury hustings and. place of election in the country the returning-officer, in obedience to an act which, in our zeal for purity, we have passed, will proclaim the pains and penalties that will accrue to any elector who may be engaged in any corrupt proceedings. And I ask, when that is read to the electors, will they not ask themselves—Is the Legislature of this country sincere and earnest? Is it only the corruption of £10 householders, freemen, and liverymen, that they are so anxious to punish, or will they punish corruption per-vading the functionaries of the highest court of the kingdom, and unchecked by the highest judge of the land? I have done my duty. I ask the. house to consider this question calmly and judicially, as I have endeavoured to do. I ask them to do so without reference to party (hear, hear). I ask, them to give to the resolution which I have the honour to propose such consideration as may satisfy their own con-sciences and the honour of the country (cheers). I beg to move that the evidence taken before the committee of this house on the Leeds Bankruptcy Court discloses that a great facility exists for obtaining public appointments by corrupt means ; and that such evidence, and also that taken before a committee of the House of Lords in the case of Leonard Edmunds, and laid before this house, shows a laxity of prac-tice and want of caution on the part of the Lord Chancellor in sanctioning the grant of retiring pensions to public officers over whose heads grave charges are impending, and in filling up the vacancies made by the retirement of such officers, whereby great encouragement has been given to corrupt practices ; and that such laxity and want of caution, oven in the absence of any improper motive, are, in the opinion of this house, highly reprehensible, and calculated to throw dis-credit on the administration of the high offices of State.

The LORD AbVOCATE.—I very gladly acknowledge the tone of moderation and temper in which the hon. gentleman has dealt with this very important subject. ' It may, perhaps, be not without significance to consider for a moment what the effect of laying the evidence before the house and the public) has been, for if we bad come to a resolution on this very grave quesrion some days ago upon the statement of the hon. member for Mallow, we should, Upon the admission of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hunt), have proceeded upon grounds for which there was not a -shadow of foundation (hear, hear). Sir, the other day the noble lord opposite (Lord Cranbourne) seemed to suggest that I ought not to take any part in this discussion,. and that I could not do so without an appearance of partiality. I suppose because the house did me the honour of putting me on the committee for the purpose of examining the wit-nesses the noble lord assumed that I could not give my opinion of the case without prejudice. I am surprised at such an ob-jection coming from the noble lord. I am surprised the noble lord did not recollect that on a former occasion he occupied an exactly similar position (hear, hear). This house urged thereto very much by the noble lord had driven another very eminent member of the government from office, by a vote which I rather think now every member of this house who voted upon the subject regrets (hear, hear). The noble lord sat upon the Education Committee of last year; but, notwithstanding that, he did not think it unsuitable for him after the report had been made to the house to take a great, a strong, and a leading part in the discus* of the report (hear, hear). Therefem I do not think I can be unjustly ac-cused of entering upon this matter with prejudice. Hating had the great advantage of hearing the evidence from day to day, of seeing the witnesses under examination, and of hear-ing the discussions which took place in committee, 1 now offer on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, ant in his absence, to state to the house the views which 000111 to me. In the first place, I quite admit that the house should be jealous of that which is uppermost in the minds of men in connection with this subject—namely, the purity of oficial administra-tion (hear, hear). But there are ether matters which the house will do well to consider. There has been laid upon the Lard Chancellor a great variety of imputations, some of them not of'the most consistent kind. Ho has been accused of tut., due leniency one day and of undue severity the NM, It lig turned out that the original imputation made in this housewith regard to the Leeds Court rests on no foundation whatever. The suggestion was that Mr. Wilde bad been called on to resign and had refused, and that Mr. Welch had been called to the office until Mr. Bethell's outlawry should be reversed. Now we have had certain other imputations made, which have been withdrawn by the hon. gentleman who has just re-sumed his seat. It is all very well to say that those imputa-tions are not now made ' • but it is well to remember that they have been made, and that it is difficult for the most im-partial man to shake himself free from the prejudices which have been raised (hear, hear). I approach the consideration of this question, therefore, with great anxiety, and I ask the house to give that indulgence which a judicial tribunal always gives to statements which are made in behalf of a person against whom grave charges have been made.• Now, this resolution, or series of resolutions, seems to me to allege nothing that I quite understand, but to suggest a great deal which it does not express. The committee chosen, and most properly chosen, from the members of this house, have given their deliverance in this matter, and I think the hon. gentlemen and the house would have done well to content themselves with the verdict of that Commit-tee. Row far the resolution before the house goes beyond the report of the committee I shall not now stop to say; I will come to-that afterwards. But I wish to recall to the attention of the house the circumstances under which the retirement of Mr. Wilde and the appointment of Mr. Welch took place., The Lord Advocate then proceeded to examine the evidence relating to Mr. Wilde and the appointment of Mr. Welch, entering minutely into its details, replying as he proceeded to the remarks of Mr. Longfield and Mr. Hunt. He insisted that, ou the face of the evidence, it was absurd to suppose that Mr. Richard Bethell could have exercised the influence alleged upon his father, and maintained that the recommen-dations of Mr. Welch were amply sufficient to justify his appointment. He discussed the case of Mr. Wilde and the conduct of Mr. Miller in reference to it, remarking that it was very easy now, when all the surrounding °imam-star we were known to apply line and role, and blame the Lord Chancellor for allowing • a retiring pen-sion to an officer. He alluded to the confuoden in the evidence of Mr. Miller and compared it with that of other witnesses with reference to the case of Mr. Wilde, reminding the house that the enforced resignation of his office was a punishment inflicted upon Mr. Wilde. The house should not express a stronger opinion in regard to the Lord Chancellor's conduct in this matter than that of the committee. With reference to the corrupt transactions in relation to Mr. Welch's appointment, he contended that there was not the most remote connection between them and the motives which had led to the appoint-ment, citing portions of the evidence to justify the Conclusion that the Lord Chancellor stood thoroughly clear of any ignoble motive in the matter. He moved an amendment to the effect' that the house, having considered the report of the select committee on the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, and the evidence upon which it was founded, agree with the com-mittee in acquitting the 'Lord Chancellor of all charge, except haste and want of caution in granting a pension to Mr. Wilde; and is of opinion that further steps should be taken by law with reference to the grant of such pensions.

Mr. HENNFASY observed that the amendment related to only one of the cases; it said not a word of the Edmunds case, which was by far the worst, for it appeared from the evidence taken by the Lords' Committee that other members of the Government besides the Lord Chancellor were cognisant of certain matters relating to that case. The Attorney-General was examined on the last day of the examination of wit-nesses before the Lords' Committee, and he informed their lordships that he was aware of the transactions in which Mr. Edmunds was concerned at an early period. It appeared that in 1863 it was brought to the knowledge of the Attorney-General that a clerk in the Patent-office named Smith had appropriated public money to his own use, and that Mr. Edmunds had assisted him in hiding the proofs of his offence. It further appeared from the evidence of the Attorney-General that tht first report—the report of 1863—of Messrs. Green-wood and Hindmarch was submitted to him not in his capacit of Commissioner of Patents, but in that of Attorney-General, "and," added the Attorney-General, "the Lord Chancellor desired me to frame charges upon that report." HewYasthen asked "ou accordingly framed the charges which we have before us ?—Yes ; it was a sort of notice to show cause. And you wore aware that he was summoned to show cause (so to speak) before the Lord Chancellor and two Vice-Chancellors ?—Yes. You know the day when it was in-tended that he should appear, did you not ?—I have no do* .4 _dikboot -1-toot any, distinct recollection of, it.

It vrautfie 1st of An Sri. - No doubt I knew what day was fixed. Before that day was any Onnie..

cation made to you as to Mr. Edmunds a wish to be allowed to resign his office on payin explawsild die from him to the Treasury?—I remember that be time bad arrived when the hearing would have taken place it was mentioned to me by the Lord Chancellor that Mr. Edmunds had proposed at once to give up that office. I do not recollect anything about paying ; but I understood that he was to give such an undertaking as would leave the question of subsequent payment entirely unprejudiced by the acceptance of his resignation ; that was what I under-stood at the time. I do not think that the form of any document came under my notice. I wanted to know whether you were consulted as to the propriety of allow-ing him to resign ?—I have no doubt I was. My own personal recollection would hardly have enabled me to say whether the thing was actually resolved upon before it was mentioned to me, or whether it was mentioned to me first; it was about the same time, certainly ; but I under-stand that the Lord Chancellor's recollection upon the sub-ject is more distinct than mine. I have no doubt that it was mentioned to me before the resolution to accept the resig-nation was taken. The Lord Chancellor says that you con-curred in opinion with him and the Master of the Rolls that Mr. Edmunds might be permitted to resign, upon his paying his money over ? —Yes •' I bad not the least doubt about it. It appeared to me that exactly the same object was ac-complished by his resignation as we had in view—namely, to get him out of the office ; and the ulterior question, as to the payment of the money or any further proceedings, appeared to me to be kept precisely as it stood previously ; perhaps it was in rather a more favourable position than if there had been a kind of rehearsal of the charges on that occasion, simply for the purpose of dismissing him from that office."

There was a very remarkable phrase made use of by the Attorney-General in answer to a subsequent question :— "Our first object was to get rid of him, and we might not have been able to do that for months, perhaps, if we had not accepted his resignation, because he would have had it in his power to make the usual delays which any one can make who as not ready with his defence, and all the time every-thing would have been in a state of confusion in the office. I daresay I may be wrong ; but I cannot present to my mind a case in which, under such circumstances, the object of the dismissal not being criminal justice, but the sole object being to obtain a vacancy in the office, there would have been sufficient reason for insisting upon a form of trial for that purpose, when the man said, ' I will give you no more trouble about it; I will resign myself.'" Therefore they found that the Attorney-General supported and even went beyond the view taken by the Lord Chan. cellor, that the resignation of Mr. Edmunds was preferable to his dismissal. He would proceed to draw the attention of the house to what the committee of the Lords said upon the subject. In page 5 of their report the committee said:— "The cammittee are compelled to express their regret that he was allowed to resign, and thereby withdraw himself from the impenging inquiry before the Lord Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellass. The Attorney-General, indeed, stated that in his opinion skwas desirable at once to remove Mr. Edmunds from his 0%,..e, and that the acceptance of this enforced retirement was sseferable to the delay which must have taken place in the inctsisybkii oughtauthority,o have the committeeproceed are and Ed-munds had been formally called proved (as it will be presently seen slat in the judgment of the charges which Mr. apon to answer had been ,thieean must have been), he vi.g Notwithstanding this high 1 of opinion that the inquiry tshheo uclodmhma viteteebe ethneapt rionncecipadlispmairstseodf it open to future consideration whether ulterior proceedings ought to be taken against him."

It would thus be seen that the cpmmittee differed with the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor as to the pro-priety of their having allowed Mo. Edmunds to resign. So ex for the Iegr4 Chancellor tond the AttorneyaGeneral, but was no other member of the government cognisant of what was going on? The Lord Chancellor, in his evidence before the Lords' committee, over and over again said that he had in. formed the members of the cabinet of what he was doing, and that he had consulted the members of the government and the law officers of the government as to what course he should pursue in the matter, and, therefore, all the members of the government must have been fully aware of all the transactions that had taken place in connection with Mr. Edmunds. One member of the government must have been particularly well aware of what was taking place. The Chancellor of theExchequer, not only ass member of the cabi-net had heard from the Lord Chancellor what had been going on, but he must have also heard of the transaction at the Treas sury, because Mr. Greenwood, the Secretary to the Treasury, and Mr. Hindmarch sent in their reports from time to time to that department. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had also another opportunity of ascertaining all the circumstances of the case ; for Mr. William Brougham, in a paper laid before the committee, made the following extraordinary statement: " When the dreadful discovery that he had for years been using public money for his private purposes first came to light, Leman begged me to oome up to London to assist and advise. I at once took the journey, and got to London on the 10th of August last. I did all in my power to help, es-pecially by using influence with Mr. Gladstone, and success-fully ; from that time forwards, both Lord B. and myself pportod Edmunds, contending and fully believing that he ad a satisfactory answer to the charges against him."

bat letter was written long before the public were aware of the dreadful scandals which were then hatching. Mr. Wil-iam Brougham, acting as the friend of Mr. Edmunds, was leetriving to get the matter hushed up and to arrange the mat-r so that Mr. Edmunds might be allowed to resign and not dismissed, and he strove "successfully," which word, strange to say, was printed in the report in large capitals--nd perhaps to show the ability and zeal with which the hancellor of the Exchequer had carried out his wishes ear and laughter). However that might be, at all events e ear of the Exchequer must have been perfectly ell aware of what was taking place (hear). But besides the Chancellor, the Attorney-General, and'the Chancellor of e Exchequer, he found that some reference was made in the vidence to the noble viscount at the head of the government hear).. In a letter from James Leman to William Brougham, he former suggestedthatsomething should be done as speedily possible to hush up the whole affair, and who was to be ap-plied to in the matter? Mr. Leman said in that letter, "It is Of the greatest possible consequence that they," the members Of the government, "should be got at without delay, and for this purpose particularly I do entreat you will coma to town, and as speedily as possible. In dealing with the Iniesary it will be necessary to get at Lord Palmerston;;and We do most urgently request your advice and help in the whole ease" (hear, hear). It was a remarkable fact that but for that letter being laid before the committee Mr. W. Brougham *mild never have been asked whether he (lid go to Lord fPalmerston In order to get him to bush the matter up. Mr. W. Brougham had told them that be had gone to the Chan-cellor of the Exchequer and had succeeded with him, but there the evidence stopped short, and they were not told whether Mr. W. Brougham went to the residence of the noble vis-count, and that the noble lord showed him the door (hear, hear, apd laughter). This reference to the noble visa count reminded him that Lord Palmerston was also men-tioned in the Leeds inquiry, and upon this point be must gay that some inquiry should have been made, not with reference to the noble viscount, but with reference to some person to whom Mr. Welch said he was to pay the sum of £8,000 ;, but not a single word was spoken of Mr. Welch as to whom that mysterious person was. But going back to the Edmunds case, it appeared that though the government were fully cognisant of all that had taken place, and that the gravest charges were made against Mr. Edmunds, that gentleman resigned, but was not dis-missed. Then came the question of the retiring pension on Mr. Edmunds resigning his office as reading clerk in the House of Lords. Did the government know of that retiring pension? In the first place, the Lord Chancellor had very kindly promised to do all in his power, with propriety, to obtain that pension. It was very remarkable he should have done that, for in several passages he endorsed the words of Mr. Greenwood that the charges against Mr. Edmunds were of a "fearful character ;" and the noble and learned lord himself used the words "compounding a felony" in reference to Mr. Edmunds' case. Not only the Lord Chancellor, 'but the government, must have known all about the retiring pension • for two members of the Cabinet—the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Presi-dent—were members of the Committee of the House of Lords which decided pension questions. It was a singular coincidence, that neither of those noble lords attended the Committse while Mr. Edmunds' pension was under con-sideration. Lord Redesdale, another member of the com-saittee, subsequently stated that the committee they were agatnin zd.. 33,111a IA Mb! wnen they were eciding on his claim. The members had heard rumours of charges, but it had been stated that Mr. Edmunds had paid back not only the amount in which he had been a defaulter, but a still larger sum ; and an opinion prevailed that he was very badly treated, inasmuch a. he had been got out of his office in the House of Lords for some purpose or other. Every member of the committee decided on the ques-tion in total ignorance of the criminality. The two Cabinet Ministers who were members of the committee did not at-tend, though they had been regularly summoned. Of course the Lord Chancellor, who had promised to do all be could' with propriety to obtain the pension, knew what was taking place in the committee ; and yet the pension was granted in the dark, the cabinet concealing from the committee a mate-rial fact which it ought to have known (hear, hear). But, in addition to this, did not the fact of the granting of the pen-sion come to the knowledge of Lord Granville the next day ? Did it not come to the knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ? (The Chancellor of the Exchequer.—" How did I know it?') It was in all the papers. Every one knew its!He would be out of order in referring in detail to what had taken place in the House of Lords ; but it was perfectly noto-rious from a debate which had taken place there, that every member of the government was aware of the fact of the pen-sion having been granted (hear, hear). And what did the government do then? Simply nothing. With reference to the Leeds case he accused the Attorney-General of mislead- ing the house. .

Mr. DENMAN, without any inducement to be a champion of the Lord Chancellor, said that, having read the evidence through, he was of opinion that the heads of the resolution were nnjust and untrue. After replying to Mr. Hennessy's remarks upon the Edmunds' case, and referring to the acquittal of the Lord Chancellor by the Lords' Committee of any corrupt motive, he applied himself to the Leeds Court case. He contended that the testimonials produced by Mr. Welch were sufficient to justify his appointment; and as to Mr. Wilde's case, he thought the strongest evidence was contained in the candid statement of the Lord Chancellor himself, that he did not read the certificate, which, if a grave offence, was one committed by Judges every day. Mr. Miller's evidence was contradicted by that of other witnesses and by his own. The suggestion that there had been a plot to place Mr. Richard Bethell in the Leeds Court was utterly groundless as far as the Lord Chancellor was concerned.

Mr. BouvsesE avowed a want of confidence in the Lord Chancellor in the administration of his office. He concurred with the committee in putting aside all questions of corrup-tion on his part ; but there were corrupt practices going on in offices connected with him, though ho was not cognisant of them, which the house was bound to notice and condemn. There bad been gross malpractices on the part of officers in the Court of Bankruptcy, and he considered that the Lord Chancellor bad been guilty of a dereliction of duty in grant-ing retiring pensions without inquiry.

Mr. HUNT offered to allow his resolution to be negatived in order to let in a resolution of which Mr. Bouverie had given notice, more distinctly exculpating the Lord Chan-cellor from any charge of corruption.

After a few remarks by Mr. Howes and Mr. Vivian, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that the amendment proposed by the Lord Advocate in express terms affirmed the decision of the committee, with the addition that it was ex-pedient that this class of pensions should, like other pensions, be referred to the guardians of the public purse. He contended that there was no ground for a vote of want of confidence in the Lord Chancellor to, drive him from his office, and he complained of the observations of Mr. Bouverie, who had prejudged the case, in pronouncing sentence upon those who he said had been guilty of gross malpractices in the Bankruptcy offices. He admitted that the Lord Chan-cellor did sem* on error in the Edmunds ease, but the time . ,..

THE VOTE OF CENSURE ON THE CHANCELLOR.

Mr. HUNT moved the following resolution :— " That the evidence taken before the committee of this house on the Leeds Bankruptcy Court discloses that a great facility exists for obtaining public appointments by corrupt means; that :such evidence, and also that taken before a committee of the House of Lords in the case of Leonard Edmunds, and laid before this house, shows a laxity of practice and want of caution on the part of the Lord Chan-cellor, in sanctioning the grant of retiring pensions to public officers over whose heads grave charges are impending, and in filling up the vacancies made by the retirement of such offioers, whereby great encouragement has been given to cor-rupt practices; and that such laxity and want of caution, even in the absence of any improper motive, are, in the opinion of this house, highly reprehensible, and calculated to to throw discredit on the administration of the high.offices of State."

He began by acknowledging the importance of the motion which ho had undertaken to propose to the house, the effect of it being no less than a vote of censure upon one of the highest functionaries of the State. He then proceeded to establish the propositions upon which his resolution was founded. He read the evidence relating to the transactions between Mr. Welch and the Honour-able R. Bethell and the case of Mr. Wilde, connecting this evidence by dates with that taken in the Edmunds case, pointing out, on the one hand, the contradictions in the former evidence, and, on the other, the proofs of actual payments of money and of what he termed the " hocus pocus" in which Mr. Miller was concerned. He then examined the evidence as to the Lord Chancellor's "laxity of practice" and "want of caution," observing that he ought to have known that Mr. Miller was in his son's interest, and that this know-ledge should have aroused his suspicions ; and the mere fact tack on that case to the cese of ilde. What is the

for visiting that error had gOne by, it, was unjust to Utmost that has been proved ? It i that a spendthrift son, a year before, casually mentioned the name of a friend Of his as a fit person for sueh office; and it is said that this son, being in dlifbaSilties, has teceived money with the understanding that he would use what influence he had for the candidate for office. He being in such circumstances at the time the money passed, it is obvious that he never did use, and never could use any influence. I say, therefore, that this is not a case which would tend to impair the general, purity of the public service. It is a case rather against which no conceivable safeguards could be raised, but which irons its very nature could do no real harm (oh; oh). What of the other persons about the Lord Chancellor ?,• Something of severity has been said about Mr. Miller ; but 1 do not find the least trace of cor-ruption in what he did—(load and ironical cheers),—or, in-deed, in any one except this unfortunate son of the Lord Chancellor (oh, oh). Reference had been made to the case of Mr. Edmunds (opposition cheers). I must say that if it ap-peared to this house that the Lord Chancellor was to blame,-in that he did not take upon himself the responsibility of communicating to the House of Lords the circumstances in which Mr: Edmunds was placed, that might have been suffi-cient at thatlime to justify Bch a motion as this, but the time for it has lodg since gone by (loud cries of " Oh," and ironical cheers). Why it is eight months yo (derisive laughter).

An Hon. Member—It was the 17th of May (hear).

The Arroosier-GENERAL—Well,' the 17th of May, and we are now at the 3rd of July (renewed ironical cheers and laughter). Hon. gentlemen opposite had had abundant oppor-tunities.

Aing).

n Hon. Member—We :rated other eases (great cheer- The A:reamer-Gov Yes, if it had not been for this case we should have heard no more of it (hear, hear). I say that then) meld have been no corrupt intentions in the case of Mr. Wilde; but if the Lord Chancellor's conduct is open to some slight reflection, is it possible that that can be made into a penal case, or that. by Mr. Wilde's 08,86 that of Mr. Edmunds, which was serious enough already, can be made more serious ? (hear.) Bat the case of Mr. Edmunds was long a matter of notoriety. I read in a newspaper a short account of the facts about Mr. Edmunds in the autumn of last year ; and although I blame the Lord Chancellor for not communicating those facts to the committee officially, they were well known to all the committee ; and the committee, in fact, fell into the same error that the Lord Chancellor did (oh, oh). Here are two pensione improperly granted—too much haste and too little care, but, after all, it is the Lord Chancellor to whom the public is indebted (oh, oh). Who set on foot the elementary inquiry — who was it investigated and discovered the gram abuses which had grown up in the Bankruptcy Courts? The Lord Chancellor (ironical cheering, and laughter). It was his vigilance (oh oh, and laughter)—it was 'his zee} for the public, service which ferreted out the abuses and removed the offenders (great laughter). By this he incurred great odium and made himself numerous enemies (hear). Could any one deny that the Lord Chancellor's administration had been directed by considerations of the public service? With regard to his ecclesiastical patronage, the Lord Chancellor had surrendered above 300 livings a year. What about his judicial patronage? The hon. member for Northamptonshire had justly said that it would be a serious thing if any doubt could be thrown around the administration of judicial patronage. Well, had the Lord Chancellor, in his administration of judicial patronage, dote nothing to entitle him to acknowledg-ment? tad he not recommended men eminently fitted to adorn the bench of justice without regard to party? Was not the last judge'; of all `taken from the ranks of the Opposition ? And that not for, want 'of good men on his own side (oh, oh), but because the Lord Chancellor desired to appoint the men most qualified, best fitted, for the office ? The other night it was suggested that if a chief judge in bankrupcy had been appointed the Lord Chancellor would have made an undue use of it. But what course did he take with regard to the Land Transfer Court? Did he look about for an object of personal or private favour ? Why he selected a brother of the late Sir William Follett. But was this course of the Lord Chancellor confined to the appointment of judges of high degree? In the ap-pointment of judges of the county courts had he not mani-fested a desire to bestow office on persons fitted for the ap-pointment without any kind of private.00nsideration These thing$ought to be considered before the house came to a vote of censure on the Lord Chancellor (hear, hear). If, with regard to Edmunds, all that could be said, was that the Lord Chancellor did not like that his should be the hand to strike the final blow, if in that of Wilde he thought it a case for resignation and not of dismissal, would the house pot look into the bright side of the question as affecting the. Lord Chancellor, ana sees.. to concur in the unworthy decision proposed to be taken against the Mr. E. EGERTON thought the Attorney-General would have done better if he had loft the case as it stood in the report of the committee.

Mr. HENLEY said he was one of those wha would have been unable to vote for the motion of his hon. friend the member for North Northamptonshire, because it left the charge of corruption in some obscurity, and he did not wish to leave that stain upon the Lord Chancellor, but the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney-General had laid down such strange propositions that he could not help com-menting upon them for a short time. The Attorney-General argued in the most excited way that it was not reasonable or proper for the house to take into its consideration two cir-cumstances nearly analogous in their character which had happened in the same session of parliament, taking place almost at the same time, though the disclosure of them took place some weeks afterwards. A single transaction might be thought not likely to happen again. It might be passed by ; but when two transactions of the same kind occurred together, it was not possible to help the expression of feeling (hear, hear). That the right hon. gentleman's (Mr. Bouverie's) motion did ;and and it went one step further, and said, what nobody could deny, that these occurrences gave rise to all sorts of public scandals and rumours most dis-creditable to all persons concerned. Therefore I shall cordially support the motion of the right hon. gentleman the member for Kilmarnock, because it separated'all charges of corruption from the Lord Chancellor, and only stated the truth of the case. Ho had no wish to press upon any public man, but when there were two matters so strong that the other House of parliament thought proper to deprive a gentleman of a pension which they had granted to lum, and the other a ease in which their own committee had found that the Lord Chancellor had acted with great want of caution, he thought the house would not be doing its duty if it did not express its opinion in the manner suggested by the resolution of the right hon. gentleman.

After a few words from Colonel Pennant, the original re solution was negatived.

The amendment of the Lord Advocate going put as a sub-stantive motion, Lord PALMERSTON.—The panrne which has been taken With regard to the origioalmodloo places this matter altogether in a new position. The Modell of the hon. member who pro,. posed the first resolutiotrolearly implied a charge of corrup-tion against the Lord Chancellor ("Oo, no," f.om the opposi-tion, followed by cries of ." hear, hear," from the ministerial aide). That at least was my opinion, and the opinion of many other hon. members. That was a very grave charge, and one whiohit was absolutely necessary to resist on the very first opportunity that presented itself. The honourable member has abandoned that charge—(Mr. Hunt: It was ne-gatived)e-byillowing that motion to be negatived ; and it appeal's to LBO to be the unaninidos conviction of the house that no Charge can be justly brought against the Lord Chan-cellor on the ground of corruption in the execution of his duty (hear, hear). We have now, however, two amendments, both of which have for the first time been proposed to us in the course of this evening—one by my right hon. friend the member for Kilmarnock, which I .did .not happen to hear, which I think a great number of hon. members have not had an opportunity of weighing hi their minds.: Under these circumstances it appears to .me that as this is a grave question, and as my right hon. friend the member for Ktlmarnock has declared that the 'object he bas in view is to call upon the house to declare 'that it has no confi-dence in the Lord Chancellor—as that is no doubt a question of considerable importance regarding an officer in his high position—it seems to me that this house is not in a condition at the present moment—(cries of "Oh, oh," and laughter from the Opposition) — that the government is not ju a condition --(renewed , iatiglater):-•- tq determine) in what way it will deal with the motion. My right hon. friend, it appears to me, takes a very narrow view of the grounds on which public confidence (melt or ought not to be reposed in a publio officer. My Mit hon. friend is of opinion that in consequence of the particular way in which certain pensions have been granted, he cannot place confidence in the Lord. Chancellor (hear). My hon. and learned friend, the Attorney-General, has stated the manner in which the Lord Chancellor has disposed of patronage much more extensive and much mare important, in a manner highly desetving of thebonfidence of the country. The house will also recollect the great improvements in tbe' law—in every branch of the law—(cries of "oh, oh ")—which the present Lord Chancellor has made—(ories of "question ")--and which I will venture to say, whatever may be the opinion of the house with regard to his tenure of office, will render his name illustrious among the great reformers of the laws of this country (hear, hear, and a laugh). It would be unnecessary to enumerate the various improvements which he has made—his consolidation of the statute law—his aboli-tion practically of imprisonment for debt, and many other improvements. I say, therefore, that whatever may be the opinion of my right hon. friend the member for Kilmarnock, my hon. and learned friend (the, Attomey-General) is justified in declaring as to the degree of ponfidence to be placed in the Lord Chancellor, that the disposal of the higher patronage of the Lord Chancellor and the manner in which be has per-formed his great and important duties as the head of the law in this country, has been such as to entitle him to the con-fidence of the house and the country. But, as I said before, we are now, I think, embarking in a new discussion differ-ent from that suggested by the motion of the hon. member, and I therefore propose that this debate be adjourned till to-morrow—(loud cries of " No, no " from the opposition)—in order to enable us well to consider the mater .

Mr. DISRAELI (who rose amid loud cheers) said.—I think that the proposition of the noble lord is not one which the house will find it convenient to adopt (Opposition cheers). The subject has been discussed very amply to-night; and with regard to the amendment of the right hon. gentleman not having been in print, we cannot forget that the amend-ment of the government was also not in print; and even under that *advantage we were prepared to give to it a due and fair consideration. I think, also, having regard to the peculiar position in which this house is now placed, there is some appearance of mockery—(loud cries of "oh")-in moving the adjournment of the debate,(eheers). It appears to me that this is a question in which the house should give a decision. Considering how well the house has been at-tended, it is quite qualified at the present moment to pro-nounce an opinion, and I trust, therefore, that the noble lord will reconsider his proposition, and allow us to vote on the amendment of the right hon. gentleman. But if the noble lord persists in his motion for the adjournment of the debate —whether to the next parliament or not we axe not informed —(a laugh)—I shall feel it my duty, though unwilling to oppose an adjournment when, proposed by a minister, under the peculiar circumstances of this ease, to oppose that motion (oheem).

Sir co. GREY (who rose amid loud criesttor a division) said : The right hon. gentleman has suggested at the object of the motion of my noble friend in moving the adjournment of the debate was to prevent the house coming to any decision upon this question, and professed his complete ignorance whether my noble friend meant the adjournment to be made till the next parliament or not. My noble friend distinctly stated that all he asked was an adjournment until to-morrow—(loud cries of " no, no ')—to Five that time which is only reason. able for the consideration of the amendment (loud cries of " divide").

For the adjournment 163 Against it 177-14 This result was received with deafening cheers, which lasted for some minutes.

Lord PALMERSTON.—Sir, I wish to state to the house that I am not anxious to give more trouble than is necessary, and that we shall accept the division upon this question of ad-journment as indicating the feelings of the house with regard to the motion of the right hon.gentleman, the member for Kilmarnock (hear, and cheers). We shall there-fore not trouble the house to divide again (cheers).

The amendment of the Lord Advocate was then put and negatived, after which the motion of Mr. Bouverie was agreed to as follows : —" That this house, having considered the report of the committee upon the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, and the evidence taken before them, are of opinion that evidence discloses the existence of corrupt practices with reference to the appointment of Patrick Robert Welch to the office of registrar • but they are satisfied that no imputation can be fairly made against the Lord Chan-cellor with regard to that appointment. That such evidence, and also that taken by the Lerch' committee of inquiry into the circumstances attending the resignation by Leonard Edmunds of the offices held by him, and laid before this house, shows a laxity of practice and a want of caution with regard to the public interests on the part of the Lord Chan-ealers-in sanctioning the granting of retiring pensions to public officers against whom charges had been made, which, m the opinion of this house, was calculated to discredit the, administration of his great office " (cheers).

The house then adjourned at a quarter past twelve.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY, July 4.

MR. WINSLOW'S PENSION.

Lord CHELMSFORD explained the circumstances under which a retiring pension had been granted to Mr. Winslow, one of the Masters in Lunacy. He had himself, when in office, accepted Mr. Winslow's resignation, unconditionally, and without arrangement as to a pension. Mr. Winslow made several applications subsequently to be allowed it, but be (Lord Chelmsford) had never assented. The pension, however, was granted by Lord Westbury on the 3rd of February, 1863. Some time after his resignation, said the noble lord, I forget whether in the time of Lord Chancellor Campbell or of the present Chancellor, Mr. Winslow wrote several letters entreating me to certify that he had retired on the ground of ill health ; but I positively refused to do so, saying that in making any such declaration I should be stat-ing what was untrue, and therefore I could not yield to the application. Among others who communicated with me on the subject was my very old friend Mr. Commissioner Hoiroyd. Unfortunately the letters which Mr. Winslow wrote to me I no longer possess. About a year and a half ago I thought there could be no further occasion for them, and I threw them into the waste paper basket, and I am not in the habit of keeping copies of my own letters. It is possible, however, that Mr. Commissioner Holroyd may have the letter which I wrote to him about the same time on the same subject. Mr. Winslow subsequently wrote to me a very earnest petition, begging that I would do anything I could to help him to get a pension, upon which I wrote a letter to Mr. Commissioner Holroyd, and to the best of my recollection what I said Was that I should be very glad if the Chancellor could see any reason for granting him a pension. I certainly did not say. that such a step would be gratifying to the whole profes-sion, because I knew that the profession were very little acquainted with Mr. Winslow, who had been out of their ranks for thirty years. I hope Mr. Holroyd has my letter, for I believe that if it can be produced it will establish the accuracy of my statement. I am not now complaining that this pension has been granted, and, I was, I confess, very glad to know, consider-ing the utter ruin which might otherwise fall on Mr. Win-slow and his family, that the Lord Chancellor had deemed it to be, consistent with his duty to grant him a pension. I am not at all disposed to quarrel with that course being pur-sued, and I am simply now desirous of explaining my own position in the matter. I have been the more anxious to do this because the office in question is that to which, on the occurrence of the vacancy, I appointed my own son-in-law, a gentleman of the highest character, and a man whom I conscientiously believe to have bees perfectly competent to the performance of the duties of the office. I have been

blamed for withdrawing (Abet appointment,tchwhi ninasmuchevercan as the doing so seemed like admitting—but ad-mit—that I made a wrong appointment. I do not •now want to enter into the painful pressure which was put upon me on that occasion, or to speak of the determination of my son-in-law not to hold an appointment on which there could be the slightest reflection. I have no wish to impute blame in the matter to anybody, while I am desirous that every-thing connected with the granting of the pension to Mr. Winslow should, so far as I am, concerned, be fully under-stood by the public, so that they might see that I did not only not encourage any expectation that he would receives pension, but that I in every possible way dle0Ours894 -OW idea (hoar, hear). ' Earl GRANVILLE—I do not rise to make any comments on the statement of the noble and learned lord. He spoke of a letter which he wrote to Mr. Holroyd. I would simply ask the permission of the house to read the letter, of which I have a copy in my hand. It is as follows :— "July 25, 1862.

" My dear Holroyd.,-It would give me very great plea-sure to hear that the Chancellor had taken a favourable view of Mr. Winslow's case, and had recommended him for a pen-sion. I was very muoh 'distressed when the position of his if,ffeira compelled hint to resign his office, and I was anxious to dooverything in my power, consistently with my duty, to movent the unfortunate necessity. After so many years' faithful service it seems hard that he should lose the retiring pension which many who have served less and not more zealously should now be enjoying. I am sure that the ac-knowledgment of Mr. Winslow's claim would be gratifying to the whole profession."

THE RESIGNATION OF THE LORD CHANCELLOR.

Earl GRANVILLE, having resumed his seat fur a few moments, again rose and said :—I now rise, my lords, for another purpose. Your lordships are aware not only from public rumour, but officially from the proceedings of the other House oL Parliament, which are communicated to us of the resolution with respect to the Lord Chancellor which was adopted last night in that house. It would be not only ir-regular but improper on my part to make any comment on that resolution. I deem it, however, to horny duty to inform your lordships that the Lord Chancellor requested Lord Palmerston this morning to tender the resignation to Her Majesty ofthe office which he now holds, and that Lord Palnierston has acted upon that request. it may be interesting to year' lordships to know that the Lord Chancellor has frequently during the last five months requested Lord Pal-merston to accept'his resignation. He stated that though the *charges against him were unjust, it might be injurious to the government, and to the profession of which he was head, that he should continue to hold office while any sus-picion rested upon him. Lord Palmerston on these occa-sions induced him to withdraw his resignation, Lord Pal-merston being of opinion, in which I concurred, that the Lord Chancellor should wait for the fullest parliamentary investigation into his conduct. The resolution passed last night in the House of Commons entirely confirms the report of the committee of your lordships' house and that of the committee of the House of Commons, that no imputation of a corrupt or unworthy nature rests on the Lord Chancellor. In consequence, .however, of the opinion expressed by that house, Lord Pehuerston has thought it right to tender to her Majesty the advice that the noble and learned lord's resigna-tion should be. accepted. It would, I may add, be for the convenience of the public service that the Lord Chancellor should retain his office until after the prorogation of parlia-ment.

Earl RUSSELL having laid on the table further correspon-dence with respect to the war in America, took occasion to read the following extract from a letter from Mr. Seward to Sir F. Bruce, dated June 19, 1865 :— " Nothwitiastanding, however, the exceptions and reserva-tions which have been made by her Majesty's Government, and which have been heroin considered, the undersigned accepts with pleasure the declaration by which her Majesty's Government have withdrawn their former concession of a belligerent character to the insurgents, and this Govern-ment further freely admits that the normal relation between the two countries being practically restored to the condition in which they stood before the civil war, the right to search British vesselshas come to an end by an arrangement satis-factory in every material respect between the two nations."

The Earl of DERBY put a question to the noble earl in con-nection with the subject to which the letter related, but neither the question nor Earl Russell's reply were audible in the gallery.

Lord ORommeonn called attention to the papers relating to the imprisonment of British subjects in Abyssinia. He maintained that in the debate in the House of Commons much injustice had been done to Mr. Cameron, the Consul, by Mr. Layard.. These statements he contradicted by read-ing copfflus,extrekts from the documents.

Lord RUSSELL again• explained what steps the Government, had taken in the matter, and The subject dropped.

In answer to liord Westmeath, Lord Clitertn4x.o explained that the rub-inspector of police chargedwialthlireach of duty in the-case of the girl named Gaugbad'hed 'been fined £2, and removed from Sligo. He had been 41 years in the service.

In reply to Lord Longford, Lord DUFFERIN stated that the commission appointed to inquire into the grievances of the Indian army wonld not be empowered to indicate the nature of the alterations they might think desirable to make in the present regulations. -Their duty would be to inquire whether the regulations as new framed carried out the intentions of the previous com-mission.

HOUSE OF COMAIONS.—Tunanay, July 4.

Mr, ,Ibutair GountrIm' asked the Under-Seoretary of State for Foreign Affithe whether, without imprudent*, he was able to give the bowie any further account bf the probability of obtaining the liberation of the English gentleman who had fallen into the hands of Italian brigands.

Mr. LAYARD said he had to state that intelligence had been received on the 29th of last month of Mr. Moons ; his friends were in communication with him, and he hoped Mr. Moons would be soon out of the hands of the brigands.

THE CHANCELLOR'S RESIGNATION.

Lord PALMERSTON stated that, in deference to the vote of that house on the preceding night, the Lord Chancellor had felt ft to be his duty to tender to her Majesty the resignation of his office. He addedlhat the °homelier had, at the begin-ning of the year, in consequence oVvarions attacks made upon him from different quarters, made a similar tender, which was not then accepted.

Sir L. PALK called attention to the verdict of the jury at the inquest on the bodies of Thomas Sweter, George Kent, and Wm. Anderton, and moved for papers relating thereto, remarking upon the causes of railway accidents arising from gross negligence.

Mr. Griffith, Mr. Whalley, and Mr. P. Wyndham having made a few remarks, Mr. Mums GMsote observed that it was diffionit to say how far parliament could or ought to go on interfering with the management of railways. He explained the measures taken by his department (whieh were all that could be done by the government), and the cause of the accident in ques-tion.

Some stIgge41040,. were offered by Mr. Henley and Mr.

Matins.

The motion was then withdrawn.

The orders of • the day were then disposed of; several bills were reed a third time and passed, and others were ad- vanTredhaosusetag4' at five minutes to 6 o'clock.

it

,HOyJSE OF LORDS—WEDNESDAY, July. 5.

PERSONAL STATEMENT BY THE LORD CHANCELLOR.

At five o'clock precisely the Lord Ohaneellor entered, and Wk. his seat upon the woolsack, and, it being understood that he was about to make a statement to the house, this places at either end to which members of the House of Commons have access were largely occupied, as well as those seats re-served for them in the gallery overhead. Amid profound silence,h The LORD CHANCELLOR rose and said—My lords, I have deemed it my duty, out of the deep respect I owe to your lordships, to attend here to-day that I may in person announce to you that I tendered the resignation of my office yesterday to her Majesty, and that it has been by her Majesty most graciously accepted. My lords, the step which I took yester-day only, I should have taken several months ago if I had followed the dictates of my own judgment (cheers), and acted on my own views alone. But I felt that I was not at liberty to do so. As a member of the Government I could not take such a step without the sanction and permission of the Government. As far as I was myself personally concerned, possessing, as I had the happiness to do, the friendship of the ,noble lord at the head of the Government, and of the mem-bers of the Cabinet, I laid aside my own feelings, being satisfied that my honour and my sense of duty would be safe if I followed their opinion rather than my own (hear, hear). My lords, I believe that the holder of the Great Seal ought never to be in the position of an accused person, and such, unfortunately, being the case for my own part, I felt it due to the great office that I hold that I should retire from it and meet any accusation in the character of a private person. But my noble friend at the head of the Government combated that view, and I think with great justice. He said it would not do to admit this as a principle of political conduct, for the consequence would be that whoever brought up an accusation would at once succeed in driving the Lord Chancellor from office (hear, hear). But when the charges were first raised that wereinvestigated by a committee of your lordships I did deem it my duty to tender my resignation, and the answer which I then received, and to the prudence of which I gave my assent, was that answer of my noble friend which I have just described to you. When the committee was ap-pointed in the House of Commons I deemed it to be my duty, acting upon, the same principle, once more to tender my resignation ; but on this occasion, also, I deferred to the ob. jections raised by,the noble friend whom I have already mentioned. Again, when notice was given of the late motion in the House of, Commons I begged that that motion might be rendered unnecessary by my resignation being announced-But my noble friend thought it was my duty still to persevere, and, accordingly, my lords, my resignation, earnestly as Iwisbed it to be accepted, was postponed in the manner I have de. scribed to you until yesterday. Let it not be for one moment supposed that I say this in order to set up my own'opinion in opposition to the kind feeling which I experienced, and the judicious advice which I received, coming, as they did, from one whom I was bound to respect, and to whose authority I felt called upon to defers I have made this state-ment, my lords, simply in the hope that you will believe and that the public will believe that I have not clung to office (hear, hear), much less than I have been influenced by any baser or more unworthy motive (hear, hear). With regard to the opinion which the House of Commons has pro-nounced I do not presume to say a word. I am bound to accept the decision. I may, however, express the hope that after an interval of time calmer thoughts will prevail and a more favourable view be taken of my conduct. I am thankful for the opportunity which my tenure of office has afforded me to propose and pass measures which have re-ceived ybrir lordships' approbation and which I believe—nay, I will 'venture from experience to predict—will be pro-ductive of great benefit to the country (cheers). With these measures I hope my name will be associated (hear, hear). I regret deeply that a great measure which I had at heart—I refer to the formation of a digest of the whole law—I have been unable to inaugurate; for it was not until this session that the means were afforded by parliament for that purpose. That great scheme, my lords, I bequeath already prepared to the hands of my successor (hear, hear). As to the future I can only venture to promise that it will be my anxious endeavour, in the character of a private member of your lordships' house, to promote and assist in the accomplishment of all those reforms and improvements in ne administration of justice which I feel yet remain to carried out (cheers). I may add, in reference to the appellate jurisdiction of your lordships' house, that I am happy to say it is left in a state which will I think be found to be satisfactory. There will not be at the close of the session a single judgment in arrear, save one in which the arguments, after occupying several days, were brought :to a conclusion only the day before yesterday (hear). In the Court of Chancery I am glad to be able to inform your lordships I do not think there will remain at the end of this week one appeal unheard or one judgment undelivered (cheers). I mention these things simply to show that it has been my earnest desire from the moment I as. sumed the seals of office to devote all the energies I possessed and all the industry of which I was capable to the public service (cheers). My lords, it only remains for me to thank you, which I do most sincerely, for the kindness I have uni-formly received at your hands. It is very possible that by some word inadvertently used—some abruptness of manner —I may have given pain or exposed myself to your un-favourable opinion. If that be so I beg of you to accept the sincere expression of my regret, while I indulge in the hope that the circumstance may be erased from your memories (eheers) . I have no more to say, my lords, except to thank you for the kindness with which you have listened to these observations (loud cheers).

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WirmesimAY, July 5.

CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IBELAND.

Mr. HENNESSY rose to put a questicm to the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department of which he had given him notice privately. The question was an important one as far as Ireland was concerned. He had mentioned the subject to the ,Chief Secretary, who referred him to the right hon. baronet. The question referred to ne-gotiationa supposed to be going on between the government aid the Irish bishops respecting the proposal lately mentioned in the House as to the Catholic University in Ireland. In thder to render the question perfectly clear, he might mention that a member of the government (Mr. Chichester Fortes-me), in his address to the electors of Louth, had stated it was with the greatest satisfaction the government found" that the promoters of the Catholic University had met the views of the government on this matter. Rumours were afloat on the subject, and he should be glad to know how far they were Well founded. He read the following extract from a letter of the Roman Cathodic archbishop, dated St. Jarlathe, Tuam, Feast of St. Peter and Pault1865 :— e The rumour is utterly without foundation. The bishope have had no deliberation on the subject. What the private • opinion of individuals may be I am not aware,. but, what-, ever may be their opinions, they are not authorised in the • tame of the Irish episcopacy to treat with the Government , on important subjects affecting the interests of all. Snob - rumours should be received with the utmost caution, for it is not likely that any body of men would attach much im-portance to vague Ministerial declarations on the eve of an expiring Parliament, which cannot remind the speakers of such promises, or require their fulfilment. Besides, when the foundations of sound Catholic instruction are laid by the, removal of the acknowledged evils of that portion of the mixed education under the National Board, it will then be high time for us to treat with the Government on those high branches of collegiate education which they have been labouring to establish, without any reference to episcopal authority, and to the injury of the Catholic people." He wished to know how far the statement in the address of the right hon. gentleman the member for Louth was correct —whether the Government had communicated with the Irish bishops on the subject, and if they agreed or disagreed with the proposal which the' Government had made.

Sir G. GREY said the hon. member bad given him no notice of this question till just before he rose to put it. He had no hesitation,' however, in saying that since the time when he made the statement on the part of the government in the house, on the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Tralee, he had had no formal communication with any persons on the subject of the change to be made in the charter of the Queen's University in order to meet the views and wishes of the Roman Catholics in Ireland in rela-tion to obtaining University degrees. He had communi-cated privately with the Lord-Lieutenant and several friends &inflected with Ireland, in order to ascertain in what man-ner the object could best be effected in accordance with the wishes of those who were chiefly interested ; but he had had no communication, direct or indirect, formal or private, with and member of the Roman Catholic hierarchy on the sub-ject. He had stated that the government thought it just and reasonable that the same facilities substantially should be given to Roman Catholics in Ireland to obtain University degrees as were enjoyed by others of her Majesty's subjects, and they were prepared to act fully in accordance with that declaration. Ile had advised that such a change should be made in the charter of the Queen's University in Ireland as would accomplish the object. He might be allowed to add that the manner in which the proposal of the government had been received by the Roman Catholic body was entirely satisfactory.

HOME OF LORDS.—THURSDAY, July 6.

Parlianientwas prorogued previous to its dissolution on Thursday, at twelve o'clock. Very few peers were present, but there was a large attendance of members of the Rouse of Commons. The following is the Queen's speech, which was read by Earl Granville:— My Lords and Gentlemen, We are commanded by her Majesty to release you from further attendance in parliament, and, at the same time, to convey to you her Majesty's acknowledgments for the zeal and assiduity with which you have applied yourselves to the discharge of your duties in the session now brought to a close.

We are further commanded to inform you that, as the pre-sent parliament has now so nearly lasted the period assigned by law for the duration of parliaments that you could not enter upon another yearly session with advantage to the public interest, it is her Majesty's intention immediately to dissolve the present parliament, and to issue writs for the calling of a new one.

But her. Majesty cannot take leave of you withouteont-mending us to express to you her Majesty's deep sense of the zeal and public spirit which, during the six years of you existence as a Parliament, you have constantly displayed in the discharge of important functions, and tendering to you her Majesty's warm acknowledgments for the many good measures which you have submitted for her acceptance, and which have greatly conduced 'to the diminution of the public burtheus, and to the encouragement of industry, to the increase of the wealth, and to the promotion of the welfare and happiness of her Majesty's people.

We are commanded to inform you that her Majesty's relations with foreign powers are friendly and satisfactory, and she trusts that there are no questions pending which era likely to lead to any disturbance of the peace of Europe.

Her Majesty rejoices that the civil war in North America has ended, and she trusts that the evil caused by that long conflict may be repaired, and that prosperity may be restored in the etates whioh have suffered from the contest.

Her Majesty regrets that the conferences and communica-tions between her Majesty's North American Provinces on the subject of the union of those provinces in a confederation have not yet led to a satisfactory result. Such a union would afford additional strength to those provinces, and give facilities for many internal improvements. Her Majesty has received gratifying assurances of the devoted loyalty of her North. American subjects.

Her Majesty rejoices at the continued tranquillity and in-creasing prosperity of her Indian dominions; and she trusts that the large supply which those territories will afford of the raw material of manufacturing industry, together with the termination of the civil war in the United States of North America, will prevent the recurrence of the distress which long prevailed among the manufacturing population of some of the northern counties.

Gentlemen of the House of Commons, Her Majesty commands us to convey to you her warm ac-knowledments for the, liberal supplies which you have granted to her Majestelforehe service of the present year, and towards the permanent defence of her Majesty's dockyards and arsenals.

The commercial treaty which her Majesty has recently concluded with Prussia and the other states composing the German Commercial Union has, by her Majesty's commands, been laid before you. Her Majesty trusts that this treaty will _ contribute to the development of commercial relations be-tween this country and Germany, and will promote the hit of the several countries which are parties to it.

tniajesty commands us to assure you that her attention will continue to be directed to all such measures as may be calculated to extend and to place on a sound footing the trade between her Majesty's dominions and foreign countries.

My Lords and Gentlemen, Her Majesty has given her cordial assent to many measures of public usefulness, the result of your labours in the session now brought to a close.

The act for rendering the expenses incurred for the sup-port of the poor chargeable upon the whole of a union instead of being confined to separate parishes, will diminish the hardship inflicted upon the labouring poor by reason of rev movals from parish to parish.

The Partnership Amendment Aot will tend to encourage the profitable employment of capital.

The Courts of Justice Building and Concentration Acts will, It is hoped, lessen the expense and shorten the duration of legal proceedings.

The Clerical Subscription Act, founded on the recommen-dation of a Royal Commission, will remove objections which have been felt to the number and variety of the forms of subscription and declaration hitherto required of the clergy.

The management and discipline of prisons will be im-proved by the Act for the Consolidation and Amendment of the laws on that subject.

The County Court Equitable Jurisdiction Act will give a useful extension to the local administration of justice.

The Act for Consolidating the Comptrollership of the Ex. chequer with the Board of Audit will tend to increase the efficiency of the arrangements for auditing the public accounts.

The Act for Establishing the Records of Titles in Ireland will render more easy and secure the transfer of land.

The act for amending the laws which govern the eonsta-bulary force in Ireland will tend to prevent the recurrence of such disorders as happened last year at Belfast.

The Colonial Naval Defence Act has removed restrictions which have hitherto prevented the colonies from taking measures for their own defence against attacks by sea.

Her Majesty has also gladly given her assent to many other useful measures of less general importance.

The electors of the United Kingdom will soon be called upon again to choose their representatives in parliament ; and her Majesty fervently prays that the blessing of Almighty God may attend their proceedings, and may guide them towards the attainment of the object of her Majesty's constant solicitude—the welfare and happiness of her people.

At half-past twelve the house was formally prorogued, and `the sixth session of the expiring parliament thus brought to ;a dom.

'GENERAL Tom THUMB and, his little party will hold two levees daily at the Hall, Westbourne-grove, during the week.

New THEATRE ROYAL, ADELIML—The benefit of Mr. J. L: Toole, whose unrivalled talents and original genius have placed hits at the head of his particular profession, took place on Thursday evening and as may be imagined with un-qualified success. Every seat in the house was occupied and after the farce of "Mother and Child are doing Well" in which Messrs. Toole and Bedford kept the audience in con-Caned laughter, a new domestic drama was produced for the first time. It is entitled " Through Fire and Water," and it enables Mr. Toole (who represented a member of the Fire Brigade) to display in a remarkable manner those wonderful alternations of eccentricity and serious pathos which so asfgnisbed the public in his personation of the character of "Stephen Digges" in the play bearing that title, which was produced on the occasion of Mr. Toole's last annual benefit. Time and space prevent us giving any further description of this piece. We have only to add that Mr. Toole excelled himself, and that Messrs. Billington and Phillips, and Mrs. Mellon and Miss Simms ably sustained the characters en-trusted to them, and contributed greatly to the success of the piece. The farce of " The Steeple Chase" which brought the jeerformanee to a close once more enabled Mr. Toole to gratify his numerous patrons, who greeted him throughout the evening with almost uproarious applause.

Surrign anbeittental 4iiittlitticuac

FRANCE.

The Paris correspondent of the Daily- News writes :— ,A pamphlet, containing the Emperai notes on his recenttour in Algeria, has been printed aid distributed (among other persons) to all the minieters, but it is declared "not "published." 'The following is _a _copy of the title-page :— • Policy of' France In Algeria.

This pamphlet is not published Paris: Imperial Printing Office.

reooceexv.

Done at the Palace of the• Tuileries, June 20, 1865.

(Signed) Neporacon.

The Presse says the pamphlet contains sixty-eight pages. M. de Girardin's journal regrets that an attempt should be made to deny it that publicity which it is sure to have, and particularly that copies should not have been given to the members of the Corps Legislatif, who will have to discuss the new law concernipg Algeria. It would be better at once to announce the pamphlet on sale at the office of the publisher of "Julius'Unsex," than to leave it to come out surreptitiouskt in foreign journals which it is sure to do in the course of a few days. I rather think the Presse is mistaken in saying that-the Corps Legislatif will have anything to, do with the changes about to be introduced in the constitution of Algeria. The only pending legislation that I know of is the senates consultum, on which M. Delangle has made a report. That hard Latin phrase may be something more important than a law, or it may be only (as in the late Galignani case) the cumbrous sanction of a small convey-ancing transaction. But in either event the repre-sentatives ofthe people have no voice in the matter. As to Algeria it isTor the Senate alone to sanction the decree which makes all Algerians "Frenchmen,' and yet not "French citizens."

M. Drouyn de Lhitys, Earl Cowley, and the Dutch and Belgian Ministers exchanged on the 6th, the ratifi-cations of the' sugar convention concluded on the 8th' November, 1864, which will come into opmattion on the let of August.

AUSTRIA.

The Vienna Correspondent of the Thies gives the fol-lowing account of the Ministerial crisis :— A singular chance, or rather a fortunate concatenation of circumstances, enables me to make known to you the primary cause of the recent Ministerial crisis. On his return from Pesth the Emperor gave one of the members of hie Cabinet to understand that he intended to put an end to the provisional state of things in Hungary and to make another effort to come to an understanding with the legal representatives of the Hungarian nation. The Minister in question communicated to his colleagues the intentions of the Sovereign, and at the same time urged them to refrain from taking any steps that could tend to efface the favourable impression which the Emperor's visit to the Hungarian capital had produced. Though the Archduke Reignier and M. von Schmerling, who bad disapproved His Majesty's wish to go to Pesth, were determined not to make the concessions re-quired by the Hungarians, they made no comment on the communication made to them. They, however, stead-fastly upheld their system of centralisation, and one of their last acts was to forward to Pesth a batch of restric• tive ordinances as a supplement to the law for the regu-lation of the Hungarian press. After the Emperor's re-turn from Hungary a whole week elapsed before he saw the Minister of State, and even the Archduke Reignier's visits to his Imperial cousin were few and far between. On Saturday last the Archduke waited on his Majesty, ;whom he had not seen for ten days or a fortnight, and when he quitted the palace it was observed that he was much agitated. The Emperor and the President of the Council of Ministers had an unpleasant discussion, which was brought about by his Majesty saying that M. George von Mailath was to succeed Count Her - mann Zichy as Hungarian Chancellor. he this, the Archduke observed that he rag sur-prised his Majesty had not thought fit to consult his official advisers in a matter of such high import-ance. The reply given was to the effect that the Hun-garian question must needs he settled without the inter-vention of the Imperial Government,—the Diet, the legal representative of the nation, being resolved to treat with no one but its King. On hearing this, the Archduke Reignier, who has always maintained that the unity and indivisibility of the Empire must be upheld at all risks, tendered his resignation. It was accepted, but for some unknown reason, his Imperial Highness did not at once let M. Von Sehmerling know what had occurred. In the morning of Tuesday, the 27th ult., Count Nadaady, the Transylvanian Chancellor, and Count Hermann Zichy, the Hungarian Chancellor, were dismissed, and at 1 o'clock on the same day all the members of the Cabinet, with the exception of Count Mensdoiff, Count Maurice Esterhazy, Baron Burger, and M. von Mainranitsch, the Croatian Chancellor, tendered their resignation. Lieut.-Generalvon Franck, the Minister of War,has never meddled in thellungarian question, but his health is failing him, and he greatly needs repose. In the afternoon of Tuesday, when the Emperor left for Ischl, it became known to the public that His Majesty and the Archduke Reignier were at variance. At the terminus the Monarch did not speak to his cousin, who was about to leave for Rowland. The Archduke nail the Archduchess Marie, his Wife, got into one carriage, and the Emperor and his pides-de-camp into another. At Linz the want of harmony between the Imperial cousins became still more apparent, for the Emperor took some refreshment in a private apartment, and left the Archduke and Archduchess to sup-in the public coffee-room. Before the train left Linz His Majesty spoke to the Archduchess Marie' a daughter of the late Archduke Charles. but he said nht,a word to the ex-President of the Council of Miniaters.

Our papers are full of reports relative to the forma-tion of the new Cabinet, but they am incorrect. Count Mensdorff and Count Maurice Esterhazy, his Adlatus, are still treating with Coiling Itelcredi, who is a Federalist of the purest water. It will be no easy matter to find a successor for M. von Plener, as no man of high standing can possibly wish to have the management of the Austrian finances. Count Emile Dessewffy and Count George Festeticz, both of whom are Hungarians, are said to have refused to take office as Minister of Finances. It is not unlikely that M. von Holzgethan, a very distinguished employe, will have to step into M. von Planer's shoes. M. von Beke, the Vice-President of the Naval Department at Trieste, has been summoned by electric telegraph to this city, and it is expected that he will be placed at the head of the Min-istry of Commerce. Baron Kellersperg, who has also come here from Trieste, is spoken of as successor of Baron von Mecsery, the ex-Munster of Police. Baron von Hubner is also here. He has just returned from Rome; but he will hardly be asked to take office, as he is not a nektons* •Otata with the Emperor. M. George von Mailath, who is in his 47th year, is said to belong to the ultra - Conservative party, but in reality he is a moderate Liberal... In 1860 M. von Mailath was appointed " Tavernicus " (Chan-cellor of the Exchequer), and he remained in office until the year 1862, when martial law was proclaimed in Hungary. The ex-Tavernicus is one of the most distinguished men in the empire, and he will hardly fail to play a prominent part in the future Cabinet. As a member of the enlarged Reichsrath M. von Mailath expressed a hope that the debates in that assembly would be made public. He id* spoke in fevontsof the liberty of the Austrian press, "which. has attained years of dis-cretion, and should not be gagged." The partisans of M. von Schmerling talk much of iMpendingreaction • but it need not be feared that the new Hungarian Chan-cellor will make common cause with the Austrian Tories. In the enlarged Reichsrath, which was the precursor of the present Legislative Assembly, his Excellency de-clared that in his opinion all classes of society are entitled to the same political rights. The news of the appoint-ment of M. von Mailath, and the dismissal of Counts Nadasdy and Zichy, was telegraphed to the Hungarian newspapers, but the wrong-headed officials at Pesth would not allow the telegram to be published. In all probability the ex-ministers will carry on the business of the State until the end of the present session of the Reichsrath. • PRUSSIA.

The Berlin official Staats Anzeiger publishes an account of the conversation which took place on the let of June, 1864, between Her von Bismarck and the Duke of Augustenburg. By order of the King this conversation was immediately afterwards committed to writing by Her von Bismarck, who had on 'that occasion developed to the Duke of Augustenburg the demands of Prussia. These were as follows :—The establishment of the canal between the German Ocean and the Baltic, a naval and military convention between Prussia and Schleswig-Holstein, and the cession of a portion of territory at either end of the canal.

To each of these points the duke raised difficulties, saying that the cession of territory and the payment of the war expenses were disgraceful conditions which his future Government could not defend before the Estates. The Duchies had not invoked the aid of Prussia, and the assistance of the Diet would have caused less diffi-culties had that body liberated Schleswig and Holstein from Danish rule.

Dr. Jacoby, the Liberal champion, of the Landtag, has been sentenced to six months' imprisonment for hay-ingat a public meeting at Berlin called upon his consti-tuents to refuse to pay the taxes to an unconstitutional Government. In the present Parliamentary conflict he alone refused to accept from a Government which, in his opinion,has no right to dispose of the public moneys, the 10s. a ay allotted to the members of the Lower House. Dr. Frenzel, another able member of the Lower House, has had also two months' imprisonment awarded to him, for speaking disrespectfully of the King at a puplic meeting.

ROME.

The Giornale di Roma of the 5th inst., announces that' Mgr. Meglia has taken leave of the Empress of Mexico, as the Emperor was absent in the provinces. Mgr. Meglia on that occasion remitted a note to the Emperor, explaining why the Pope had ordered him to terminate his mission in Mexico, and no longer to remain a wit-ness of the violations of the rights of the Church.

Mgr. Meglia embarked at Vera Cruz on the 1st of June, and proceeded to Guatemala, where he is awaiting fresh instructions from his Government.

Select Another
Top