Matto nu rnrttlaugn in Vortiamtut.
PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF TEE WEER.
Holum or Loans. Monday, August 8. Royal Assent to the Charing Cross Bail- Way Bill—Colonial Legislatures Power of Repeal Bill—Admiralty Court Bill—Jury Trial (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill—Vexatious Indictments Bill—Militia Ballots Suspension Bill—Diplomatic Pensions Bill—Criminal Justice Middlesex (Assistant Judge) Bill—Speaker of the Legislative Council (Canada) Bill—Late Proposals for Peace ; Lord Normanby's Question—Endowed Schools Bill, withdrawn—Coinage Bill, Probate and Letters of Administration (Ireland) Bill, Police (Counties and Boroughs) Bill, read a second time—Militia Savings Bank Bill—Income-tax Bill— Constabulary Force (Ireland) Bill, read a third time and passed.
Tuesday, August 9. Militia Law Amendment Bill, read a second time—Coinage Bill, Probates and Letters of Administration (Ireland) Bill, Police (Counties and Boroughs) Bill, Westminster New Bridge Bill, Imprisonment for Small Debts Bill, Law Ascertainment Facilities Rill, read a third time and passed. Wednesday, August 10. Appropriation Bill, Stamp Duties Bill, Customs (No. 2) Bill, East India Loan Bill, Militia Pay Bill, Reserve Volunteer Force of Seamen Bill, Reserve Force Bill, read a second time—Militia Laws Amendment Bill com- mitted—Coinage Bill, Probates and Letters of Administration (Ireland) Bill, and other bills read a third time and passed. Thursday, August 11. Reserve Force Bill, Militia Laws Amendment Bill, read a third tine and passed—India Loan Bill, Militia Pay Bill, Reserve Volunteer Force of Seamen Bill, Government of India Act Amendment Bill; committed. European Troops (India) Bill read a second time—Medical Acts Amendment Bill withdrawn.
Friday, August 12, The AppropriaVon Bill, East India Loan Bill, Reserve Force Army, and Rewve Volunteer Force of Seamen, Local European Troops (India) Bills read a third. time and passed.
BOWE OP COMMONS. Monday, August 8. Affairs of Italy ; Lord Elcho's Mo- tion, met by " the previous question "—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill consaitte& ?WNW. August 9. Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, Stamp Duties Bin, Customs (No. 2) Bill, East India Loan Bill, read a third time and passed— Charitable Trust Acts Continuance Bill read a second time—Courts of Conciliation, Mr. Mackinnon's Bill read a tint time—" Count out."
Wednesday, August 10. Pontefract Election ; Mr. Bright's Motion—European Troops (India)Bill read a second time.
Thursday, August 11. State of the Serpentine ; Sir J. Paxton's Question— Charitable Trusts Acts Continuance Bill and Divorce Court Bill read a third time and passed—" Count out."
Friday. August 12. Gloucester Election ; Mr. James's Motion for a Commission —Mr. Overend's Case ; Report presented—Slave Trade ; Mr. Campbell's motion.
THE ITALIAN Quawriax.
The House of Commons sat from five o'clock on Monday to three o'clock on Tuesday morning. The whole of this time, however, was not
taken up in forwarding legislation. The bulk of it was occupied with a huge debate on the Italian question, covering twenty-one columns of the Times.
Lord &aro, in accordance with previous arrangements, brought for- ward his motion touching the propriety of England taking part in the proposed Congress. In his opening statement he wished it to be dis- tinctly understood that he had no connexion with honourable gentlemen opposite. He stated that because they should not be made responsible for his opinion. In referring to previous speeches Lord Elcho named "another place," and spoke of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. The effect of which was, that he was three times reminded by the Speaker that he was out of order. After this, Lord Elcho put himself in order by quoting published speeches made in another place.
Every Englishman sympathizes with the sufferings of Italy. The danger is, lest Englishmen should be run away with by their sympathies and should look to Italy rather than to England. Two sets of opinions have prevailed —one, that the intervention of a despotic Government to give free institu-
tions to Italy and interfere with the treaties of 1815 was a suspicious pro- ceeding ; the other that it did not matter whence free institutions came into Italy. Those who held the latter opinion were disappointed by the peace, yet the conclusion of that peace was no proof of the insincerity of the Emperor. Lord Elcho confessed that he shared the opinions of the first class of persons. He regarded Austria as not having been the
aggressor; he could not hope to convince Lord Palmerston of this; he could not hope to change his views with respect to the misdeeds of Austria. But he must contend that, although Austria was the first, literally speaking, to break the peace, she could not be held responsible for the state of things of which the war was the result. He _knew that there were no preparations for hostilities in December 1858, and that it was not natural, after the French Emperor had made his celebrated speech to M. Hiibner, that Austria sent reinforcements to Italy. No one who reads the blue-books can fail to perceive that war had been a foregone conclusion with the French Emperor. Admitting that Sardinia has been the beacon light of liberty, he contended that Sardinia was bent upon going to war - but he adduced as proof thereof the French and Sardinian treaty and the French and Sardinian marriage. The French Army, in fact, entered Piedmont be- fore the Austrians crossed the Ticino, and if France could do all that she had done when unprepared for war God help the nation against whom she twages hostilities when she is ready for the struggle. Lord Elcho contended ,hat French interference was a dangerous precedent against which it was 'the duty of England to protest. With regard to the conduct of England, he said that the late Government was neutral, but that the neutrality of the present Government is the neu- trality of an advocate and a partisan. In support of these views of neu- trality, he quoted Johnson, who defined the:word to be a state of indifference, of neither friendship nor hostility, and supported that quotation by another from Vatel. What the English Government sought was the expulsion of Austria from Italy ; they acted the part of French commissionnaires in com- municating the French seven points to the Austrian Government. Count Walewski in a despatch of the 20th of June inferred from the disposition of the new British Ministry that it is favourable to the solution that we our- selves seek. There was therefore an identity of object and sentiment be- tween the French Government and the Government now in power ; and if therefore they went into a Conference it would not be in an impartial spirit, but in the spirit of partisans. Lord Echo had recourse to Hansard, and quoted the opinions of Mr. Gladstone and Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Cobden and Mr. Walpole in favour of a policy of non-intervention, which he described as the true policy. of this country. He deprecated any going into Conference because there is so much ambiguity as to what are the principles and what are the details of the peace of Villafranca. He pictured the present state of Italy as very unsatisfactory, and again expressed his wish that the Go- vernment should not go into Conference. He wished to urge the Govern- ment not to enter upon a Conference on other grounds. There must be one of two things. They either had confidence in the Emperor of the French or they had not. He thought the Government's entering into the con- ference might be either superfluous or dangerous. If they had confidence in the Emperor of the French, let them be thankful they were not inthe Italian mess, and keep out of it; for the interests of Italy and the freedom of Italy would be safe in his hands. But if, on the other band, they had not confidence in the Emperor of the French, if they distrusted him, and did not believe that he was anxious to establish free government for Italy, how would they be able to attain their object ? The best arrangement for Italy would be a united kingdom consisting of twenty-five millions of people ; but that is only an agreeable dream which cannot be realized. He was no advocate for Austrian misrule ; he is in fa- vour of an alliance with France, but he thinks that the safety of England demands that Austria should remain a great Power. He did not wish to tie up the hands of the Government if they saw cause of going into Con- ference with any prospect of doing good, although he confessed he could not conceive such a state of things, he would earnestly pray for their success. On these grounds he moved—" That an humble address be pre- sented to her Majesty, stating that, in the opinion of this House, it would be consistent neither with the honour nor the dignity of this country, which throughout the late negotiations has preserved a strict and impartial neutrality between the contending Powers, and used its earnest endeavours to prevent the outbreak of hostilities, to take part in any Conference for the purpose of settling the details of a peace the preliminaries of which have been arranged between the Emperor of the French and the Emperor of Austria."
Mr. HousuaN seconded the motion.
Mr. KINGLAKE moved • " the previous question." He agreed with great part of what Lord Elcho said ; but in his opinion the meaning which he attached to the word " neutrality " was narrower than that which it is the duty of an English Minister to observe. He could not vote in favour of Lord Echo's resolution because it amounted very nearly to a vote of want of confidence. From that point of view it should not be brought forward unless as the ground of a trial of party strength.
Taking it on its merits he thought it would be inconceivably rash to at- tempt to lay down a policy in total ignorance of circumstances that might arise. Something might happen in two or three weeks to induce Lord Elcho himself to go into Congress. Yet if he carried his resolution he would be debarred from doing so. Nor could Mr. Kinglake vote against the resolution, because he could not join in any vote which Europe might construe as an inclination on our part to enter a Congress. If England entered a Congress under present circumstances, she would enter it without authority ; she took no part in the war, she can take no part in bestowing the spoils of that war. Nor have English statesmen distin- guished themselves in the Congresses of Europe, neither at Vienna, nor Laybach, nor at Verona, nor at Paris in 1856. The Italians have behaved admirably in all respects, and he could not consent that their old rulers should be forced back upon them without their consent.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the Government would have been willing to deal with the motion by a direct negative, but if the House pleased to treat it as a motion which it would be prudent to entertain at all, of course the Government would concur in Mr. Kinglake's amend- ment As to Lord Elcho's motion, it is scarcely applicable to the posi- tion in which we stand. We have not been invited and we shall not be invited to enter a Conference to settle the details of a peace arranged by the Emperor of Austria and the Emperor of the French. The details of the peace will be settled by the belligerents ; what will remain to be settled are other great questions of European policy vitally affecting the interests and happiness of Italy. In the latter part of his speech Lord Eleho seemed to be carried away by his own generous feelings when he tad Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell that he would not object to their entering into Conference if they went as Ministers of England and not as Ministers of France or Italy. If that be so, what becomes of his motion ? It is clearly untenable and brought forward to satisfy a great desire for Parliamentary discussion. Lord Echo drew a broad distinc- tion between the neutrality of the late and of the present Government. The neutrality of the late Government was, according to him, the neu- trality of an umpire, while the neutrality of the present Government is the affected neutrality of a partisan. Mr. Gladstone here entered into a slight examination of the course pursued by Lord Malmesbury and Mr. Disraeli in order to show that, far from being neutral, Mr. Disraeli had characterized the conduct of Sardinia as ambiguous, perplexing, and auspicious; while he had styled the conduct of Austria as a conduct of dignified conciliation. A. Minister who could use these words was not a Minister whose conduct was governed by a strict and impartial mu, trality. Lord Elcho seemed to fear that Ministers would be too favour- able to Italy, too unfavourable to Austria in Conference. The Governs ment is not actuated by so senseless a motive as that of hostility to Aus- tria. They desire to see Austria strong, flourishing, and happy; but it does,not follow that we are not to have our own opinion on the circum- stances under which Austria is likely most usefully to discharge the duties of her great position in Europe and effectually promote her own separate opportunity and individual interest. The roots of the Italian question lie deeply embedded in, the past. The quarrel has lasted five- and-forty years. Wherever liberty reared its head in Italy, there the iron hand of Austria was interposed to reestablish in all their rigour the abuses of existing Governments. When Sardinia obtained a free consti- tution she became of necessity a standing danger to Austria. While Austria maintained administrative superiority in her own provinces, she enforced her own yoke on the States of the Church of Naples without having the power to give them administrative improvements. The posi- tion of Austria and Sardinia lies deep in the bad organization of Italy. The propagandism of Sardinia was rendered formidable by the Austrian system ; and under these circumstances the crisis must have developed itself sooner or later. Mr. Gladstone showed that while Lord Elcho ad- vocated strict neutrality, yet he had formed the opinion that Austria was not the aggressor, and that there was a foregone conclusion to bring about the war. Let him therefore give others the same space and elbow- room that he asserts for himself. Austria will never have a peaceful supremacy in Italy ; she will not be able to escape from the system of extraneous action which has been her bane, and the bane of that unfor- tunate country. Mr. Gladstone defended the conduct of the Govern- ment in transmitting the French propositions to Austria on the ground that it would have been a great responsibility to have refused to make them known. The Government took care not to be misunderstood, and expressly stated that the terms were not their terms. Lord Elcho said, non-intervention is our true policy. " Why (striking the Blue-book of the Correspondence of the late Govern- ment), what is this? (Cheers.) Here is speculation, and persuasion, and admonition, sometimes even a little spice of menace. There is no posi- tive gunpowder in these pages, but the noble Lord commends this corre- spondence greatly; he says had it been published a few weeks before, the vote which overthrew the late Government would not have been given. I don't think that is quite certain. I think we may speak of that in the potential mood and the preter-pluperfect tense, as something that might, Gould, would, or should have been. (Laughter.) The noble Lord says he knows a Member who voted in favour of the motion who, if this Blue-book had been published, would have voted against it. But I know a man who voted favourably to the late Government on that occasion, who could not have given that vote if this Blue-book had then been published. ("Hear !" and cries of "Name !") I will name my man when the noble Lord names the gentleman who, he says, would have given his vote the other way. (Cheers.) In the mean time, I request him to be satisfied with the as- surance that the person I allude to is a bond fide individual, existing in flesh and blood, and not an airy phantom." The question before the House was not, whether they could go into Congress ? but whether in total igno- rance of the future the House would take on itself the functions of the Executive ? If they looked to precedent they would find that Lord Grey in 1831 interfered in Italy, and that in the Conference of Paris the principle of interference was not objected to. The recently issued Blue-book is a witness crying aloud against the principle advocated by Lord Eloho. It would be a strong objection to our going into Conference if we entered it as the only Power not a belligerent; but if an appeal were made to all the neutral Pewers the ease would be changed. The question is not, whether diplomatic negotiations are desirable or not ? hut, whether there is a clear prospect or a reasonable hope that the social position of a large portion of our fellow-men will be benefited by the adoption of such a course? The peace of Villafranca has received no authoritative construction. Touching certain Sovereigns who, it says, are to return to their territories : "I do not understand what it necessarily conveys beyond this—that the parties sub- scribing the terms of peace are perfectly. willing that those Sovereigns should return to their territories, other circumstances permitting. If it' means-that they are to be restored by force—which interpretation, be as- sured, the Emperor of the French does not mean to put upon it—then is there another reason furnished why the hands of her Majesty's Government should not be tied up, and why they ,should not be prevented from pro- testing with all that energy which the Government of a free State can com- mand against a doctrine that would treat the inhabitants of the territories in question as the property of so many ducal houses who might dispose of them, their families, their fortunes, and those of their Posterity as they pleased, without any regard to that independent will and judgment which,
as human beings, they are entitled to exercise." (Cheers.) Then as re- gards the Pope, whose throne disappears when the foreign force maintained along with it disappears. " I, however, lament, as cordially as I could lament if I had the nearest interest in all that concerns him, when I see a Sovereign who makes pretensions to represent in a peculiar sense the ma- jesty of Heaven reduced to become a mendicant at foreign courts—a men- dicant, too, not for the purpose merely of obtaining the means of sub- sistence, but with the object of procuring military armaments whereby to carry the ravages of fire and sword over the fair provinces which ho governs, and to rivet chains on the necks of men every one of whom it is his direct personal interest to defend." (Loud cheers.) Before he closed, Mr. Gladstone dealt with Lord Elcho's argument, that whether we have or have not confidence in the French Emperor, we should
not enter a Conference. If England and France proved to be at variance
with respect to Italian affairs, then it would be a grave question whether we should enter a Conference. But Lord Elcho could hardly seriously mean, that if we have confidence in the French Emperor then there exists no ne- cessity fur taking part in a Congress because he will do all that we require —an argument which means that we should steadily refuse to assist France and leave her to struggle with the difficulties of her position, and if needs be sink under their pressure.
Mr. SEYMOUR FITZGRO AT,D regarded the motion as not open to ob- jection in form or substance. If England took part in the Conference, she would be exposed to great hazard, because the majority might de-
termine to enforce its decisions by arms. There would be necessarily great divergencies of opinion between the parties to the Conference, especially with regard to the temporal power of the Pope. The presence of an English representative at the Conference could only be either dangerous or degrading to England. Mr. Fitzgerald made a great point of the handing of the "little bit of paper" to Count Apponyi; said that act had placed the Emperor of the French in an embarrassing position; that it had deluded the Emperor of Austria ; sown discord between Vienna and Berlin, and raised distrust of us in the Prussian Cabinet. Asking many questions in connexion with this transaction, Mr. Fitz- gerald called upon Lord John Russell to make a clean breast of it ; and upon the House to inaugurate a new policy by voting for the motion.
Lord HARRY VANE thought that we could not absolutely adopt the principle of non-intervention, but the present is not one in which we can interfere in continental affairs with dignity or effect Mr. BAELLIM Cocnasrez attacked the policy of Lord Palmerston and said that we osn have no confidence in his ideas of neutrality. Mr. Gums asked the
House whether they would bind the hands of the Government not to take part in a Conference if it were seen that they could carry out the principles of freedom. The O'Dosoenss put in a word for Austria and the Grand Dukes of Tuscany, Modena, and Parma ; and asked, what proof there is that the people of those countries desire a change of rulers. There does not exist in the world a more popular sovereign than Pio
None. Mr. MONCKTON Miazias said that if the Italians were left to
settle their own affairs they would manage them a great deal better than even Austrians. Frenchmen, English, or even Irishmen. The Italians who support the present form of administration in Italy are a miserable minority ; the Liberal party are not the partisans of violent change. He hoped the House would not stultify itself by voting in favour of the
motion. Mr. HMVNESSEY made a speech to show that commerce, manu-
factures, agriculture have made greater progress under the sway of the Pope and Austria than under the boasted Government of Piedmont. Austria has not neglected the intellectual advancement of Italy, nor has the Papal Government. When it is talked of introducing the secular element into the Government of the Pope, it is to display a misconcep- tion unworthy of an English Minister. The Government of the Pope is already secularized, Mr. Hon.smaz admired the powerful and spirited speech of the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, but was surprised at its omissions. He had failed to show that either the happiness of Italy or the prosperity of Ana- tria would be advanced by England's going into a Conference. The motion does not show that England should under no circumstances go into Conference, but that it should not under present circumstances. He inferred from language used by Lord Palmerston that the Government intended to go into a Conference. England ought not to allow herself to be lowered weakly, blindly, rashly, into a sea of difficulties and com- plications through which the oldest statesman of Europe does not pre- tend to see his way. As to fettering the discretion of the Executive, Mr. Horsman would leave them free scope for everything except to diverge from that policy which the House and the country universally affirm— the policy of neutrality. It was said the Government would be respon- sible; but it is the weakness and bane of England that there is no official responsibility at all. Mr. Horsman censured the Government for having transmitted the French views to Austria; described the French Emperor
as in great difficulties, England as his hope, and a Congress as his in- strument to remove them. There are two foreign policies—one lately in fashion with the Liberals—that of perpetually intermeddling—the other,
first recognized by the late Government—that of conciliation and non- interference. Could they follow Mr. Kinglake and vote that white on the Ministerial side which they had declared to be black on the other? What did they propose to do, and what chance would there be of doing it in Conference ? that is the whole matter of debate. The Govern- ment of Italy should be in conformity with the Italians, and every foreign soldier marched out of Italy. The present peace will be the commencement of a dozen complications. If we lend our assistance to France we shall legitimate the character she has assumed in Italy as the champion of peace and order ; approve her conduct and sanc- tify a policy which has led to one of the grossest outrages against European laws ever perpetrated. Mr. Horsman contended that France i
was the aggressor in Italy, and that when Sardinia threw herself nto. th o
arms of France she made so desperate a throw for liberty as no British Minister could approve. Much as ho disliked Austria, he distrusted France and trembled for Sardinian liberty. We could not hold back France from Italy, but we need not be the first to crown the victor and
the hand red with the blood of 100,000 men. He hoped,- there- fore, we we should not go into Congress and be made the scapegoat of France.
Mr. SIDNEY "EMMERT said the Government had not, as Mr. Horsman intimated, snatched at the proposal of a Congress. The proposal received was not to settle the details of a peace, but to decide, in common with the other Powers of Europe, on the measures to be taken with respect to the future of Italy. The motion before the House had the merit of ori- gtrrality, but it contained the unheard of axiom that because we have been neutral in war we have no right to meddle in the terms of peace. Are we to remain indifferent ? Austria was no party to the war that led to the treaty of Paris, yet she went into Congress.
The question before the House relates more to the future than the past, but the past must furnish a guide to the future. Austria governs with the strong hand. That was a necessity of her position; but that system in- creases evils she sought to dispel. War broke out, the people of this country disapproved of it; but now the circumstances have entirely changed. After all the sacrifices made is there not some foundation laid for the non-recurrence of the causes that led to the war ? Mr. Disraeli has always been consistent. He has always contended that Austrian influence was necessary to the tranquillity of Italy, because he said Italy consists of secret societies, demanding repression with a strong hand. That is an in- telligible theory, but what have been its fruits. Has it succeeded ? -" It is easy to say, as many glibly say, that the Italians are not fit for liberty. But what nation is fit for liberty before it obtains it ? (Cheers.) It is easy to say of a people before they have obtained liberty, that they are a turbulent, excitable, and bloodthirsty set. This may have been the language of King John before Runnymede. He may have said of the people of this country, that they were not fit for
-liberty. But we have tried the experiment, and we have proved our fitness for liberty, through many generations. If they are not fit for liberty, will any one tell me that the Italian race arc fit for the kind of government they
have had ; That is the question." When you talk of excesses and revolu- tionary designs you must remember that kings can be revolutionary—that a king suspended constitutional government, and a police the Code Napoleon. It is very little comfort to a citizen, dragged from his bed to a dungeon, to know that he has been lynched, not by a mob, but by a king. We are asked to join Europe in the settlement of the Italian question. Lord Elcho's argument was, " I know nothing and you know nothing, and under these circumstances let us peremptorily decide not to go into a Congress." And be expected the House would tie up its hands and his own. What is the good of having a Foreign office or a Government, if you are to be restricted from considering these questions ? He did not believe the House would sanction a motion that would deprive this country of its position as a great European Power ; compel the Government to lose the opportunity of se- curing to a certain extent freedom in Italy, and thus reproduce war.
Mr. WHIrEsIDE justified the resolution and asked cui bono a Con- ference ? It would be unwise to enter a Conference which can lead to
no good and to great evil. You say you want to benefit Italy. " I deny the justice of that argument, and for this plain reason—you want to do that benefit by carrying out the policy of the Emperor of the French ; we want on the other hand to do benefit to Italy by leaving the Italians to themselves."
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that no motion could be worse calculated for the purpose it has in view than that before the House. It would be a mockery to address the Crown not to do that which the Ministers of the Crown have never had the smallest intention to do. Lord Echo and Mr. Fitzgerald said that Sardinia was the cause of the war; yet Lord John has read in the Blue-book that Austria was repeatedly told that if she went to war she would have no moral support from this country. Lord Derby said the conduct of Austria was criminal. That is too strong a censure on the conduct of a Power which believed her territory to be in jeopardy. At the same time he could not hear blame thrown on Sardinia without reminding the House that the King of Sardinia was in a position similar to that of the prince in our own history ; the difference between the King of Sardinia and that Prince was that, although the latter committed all the offences for which so much odium has been cast on the King of Sardinia, we celebrate him as a great deliverer, and no doubt Mr. Whiteside has often drunk to his glorious and immortal memory. As to the motion, it proposes no restraint on the foreign policy of the country, except by saying that if a Conference is proposed we should not enter it; and Mr. Horsman adduced as a proof of the determination of the Government to go into Conference that Lord John has enumerated the ob- stacles to that course. Was ever so curious a proof given ? It would _be unworthy of this country to go into a Conference to sign an agreement be- tween the Emperor of the French and the Emperor of Austria. But it is possible that the Italians desiring to avoid foreign intervention on the one hand and revolution on the other may desire a Conference. Should we say if we see how good may be done, we have a vow in Heaven to prevent our joining in a Conference to do it ? Is it not more reasonable for the House to leave these questions to the discretion of the Ministers of the Crown, and judge of its conduct at some future time ? Mr. Fitzgerald had warned him to beware of guarantees. Why Lord Malmesbury proposed to guarantee the integrity of Sardinia for five years ' - so that whether Sardinia were in the wrong or the right, we should have been bound to protect her. Lord John having defended the language of his despatch to Prussia, and spoken in high terms of the conduct of the Italians, referred to the question of what should be done with the Duchies. Admitting that the article on the preliminaries touching them is ambiguous, he said it might perhaps be explained by what takes place at Zurich. " But we have reason to believe that neither the Emperor of the French nor the Emperor of Austria means -taxa° force in order to obtain the restoration of the Grand Duke of Tus- cany. The Emperor of the French has more than once intimated this view of the case, and from a despatch I have received today it appears that the Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs declares his belief that with some patience the people of Modena and Tuscany will be glad of their own accord to receive their former Sovereigns. Well, if they do so, her Majesty's Go- vernment can have no objections ; but I must say, on the other hand, that if a change of purpose were to take place, and the Sovereigns were to at- tempt to use force, it would be the source of unfortunate troubles in Italy ; it would be the commencement of a new struggle, and no one could say what would be the evils, the outrages, that might be committed in such cir- cumstances. To such a course the Government would most decidedly ob- ject; but it would not be necessary to enter into a Conference for that pur- pose, because objections could be stated in formal communications to the Governments concerned. It is not necessary that we should have a Con- ference for that purpose,and the House knows that so far from being a friend to a Conference, I see more objections against it than for it; but we are not to bar ourselves against the use of any means by which the peace of Italy may be preserved." In reply to Mr. Fitzgerald's questions respecting what passed between him and M. de Persigny before the conclusion of peace, Lord John said an answer would best be conveyed by stating what happened. The French Ambassador had frequently spoken to him about the terms of peace, and in answer Lord John said that he did not think either Emperor would make peace at that time, and therefore it would be better to postpone any con- sideration of set terms. " But he brought to me one day a written piece of paper containing certain articles, and said it was the wish of his Govern- ment that those articles or terms should be submitted, under the sanction of the British Government, to the Emperor of Austria ; and he said he felt assured, though he could not give me official assurance of it, that those were terms proposed by the Emperor of the French. However, he said enough to show that if those terms were accepted by Austria the Emperor of the French would be ready to sanction them. I was going to a Cabinet Council at the time, and there I communicated to my colleagues what he had said. They one and all agreed that we could not make a formal com- munication of any such terms—that the period had not arrived when we could prefer our good offices. But as those terms were more moderate than from the proclamation of the French Emperor one could have expected he would offer, they thought it would not be right to conceal them from the Austrian Government, and therefore they commissioned me to give the paper containing the terms to the Austrian Minister, and I communicated them to him on the same night. The honourable gentleman asks what Prussia said. Nothing whatever, for I never spoke to Prussia on the sub- ject. He asked, also, what Russia said. To that I have to give the same answer. Nothing whatever, for 1 had no communication with the Minister of Russia on the subject. The Austrian Minister said it would be his duty to send the terms to his Government, but wished to know my idea with regard to it. I said, The British Government transmit them to you to be sent to the Emperor of Austria, but as to offering any advice we distinctly declare that we offer no advice or opinion regarding them. Austria may accept them or reject them as it may deem best.' He said afterwards to me, do not believe my Government will accept these terms ; but sup-
posing they were accepted, and I got an answer saying that Austria was ready to treat on those terms, what then ?' I said that if that happened—
if we once knew that Austria was ready to treat on those terms, then we would offer ourselves as mediators, or in any other character Austria might prefer ; and I said, `If you would prefer that I should speak to the Ministers of Prussia and Russia, and inform them of the terms, and that there would be no difficulty in proposing them as a basis of a peace, I am ready to do so.' I think it was our duty not conceal from Austria that peace might be ob- tained on the terms proposed. If we had refused to communicate those terms, and if Verona and Peachiera and Venice had fallen, and Austria had been obliged to make worse terms than those which we had been asked to transmit, we would have exposed ourselves, I think, to severe animad- version. This was on the Wednesday. On the Sunday I received a mite from Count Apponyi saying that his Government considered these pro-
sitions quite inadmissible. I do not find fault with the honourable gentle- man for making a confusion in the story, because he probably has heard it very inaccurately, and has only repeated it as he heard it ; but at that time, on that very day, a further proposal was made to my noble friend on a smaller number of articles, I think four, which the French Government re- quested us to communicate to Austria, and to communicate with a view tq recommend them. My noble friend and I considered that question, and we resolved to ask our colleagues what was their opinion of that proposition.
On the same evening, however, I received from Count Apponyi the note to which I have referred, and accordingly the next dafthere could be no doubt or difficulty in the Cabinet, because we were all agreed not to propose to Austria terms on which she was not willing to treat. These terms did not differ in substance, though they might in degree, from those which we had, seen before, and we could never recommend to Austria terms upon which she had already declared that she would not treat. That was our conduct towards the Austrian Government."
After explaining his opinion that both Emperors referred to apprehen- sions on their part rather than facts in stating the reasons that induced them to make peace, Lord John said that, although he claimed no credit for the peace, he rejoiced it had been made, because he believed that the future of Italy and Europe would be better provided for by the councils of peace than the councils of war. He had been accused of omitting to speak of the rights of sovereigns. In that respect he, Lord John, said he was a great heretic. He does not recognize in sovereigns any inherent right to reign that no fault can alter or diminish. The Kings of Belgium, Hollafd, Sweden, the Emperor of the French, the Queen of England owe their thrones to popular revolutions. Why is Italy to be the only country the people of which are not to exercise this power? If the people of Italy are left to settle their own concerns, to settle with their Sovereigns on what terms they shall pay allegiance, they will proceed with peace and order la establish the foundations of good government. He could not forget that we have duties to Europe as well as to ourselves, and that if we isolate our= selves, some great Power will obtain a preponderance, and we shall lose that very independence which by such selfish means we endeavoured to maintain. (Cheers.) Mr. DrsitazF began a comparatively brief speech with an answer to Mr. Gladstone's charge that while professing neutrality the late Govern- ment had spoken of the ambiguous conduct of Sardinia and the dignified conciliation of Austria, after the Cabinet had been made aware that Austria had sent her summons to Turin. Mr. Disraeli said he had re- cognized the " gallant and interesting effort" of Sardinia to establish "what are called liberal institutions," and that while he said her con- duct had become ambiguous, he said the country would place on it the most generous interpretation. Was that an attack on Sardinia ? Lord John Russell, at least, could not say so, for he had deplored the conduct of Sardinia in fostering dissensions with her neighbours. As to Austria, can anybody deny that she did not act in a spirit of dignified concilia- tion. Mr. Disraeli contended that he was justified in declaring that there were hopes of the preservation of peace, because when he said so, he had learnt that Sardinia had consented to disarm.
Entering into the question before the House he described Mr. Gladstone's speech as a stream of romantic rhetoric " poured forth on every point but that they had to consider. He had, however, frankly stated his Italian policy—it is to put an end to the consequences of the settlement at Vienna forty-five years ago. How are they are going to ,tarry that out ? That is the practical question. Are we prepared to go to war to free Italy from the Alps to the Adriatic ? Were they to protest against the preliminaries of Villafranca, and recommend their own policy ? If so, it may end, by leaving ua at war with France or Austria or both. When the late Government pro- posed, conjointly with France, to give to Sardinia a guarantee of her in- tegrity, it was on a condition the noble Lord forgot—that Sardinia should disarm. Was that so dangerous ? It was the only condition that would have preserved the peace of Italy. Mr. Disraeli contended that the Government had given no explanation of its intentions with regard to the Conference ; he thought the bias of the Government was in favour of going into Conference ; and, arguing against
that course, he seemed to recommend instead intervention by diplomatic advice. As to the motion he objected to its form and its substance, and hoped Lord Elcho would not press it to a division. In conclusion, he trusted that the Government would leave the Pope alone, remembering the confusion Lord John Russell created on another occasion when the House separated for relaxation. What most alarmed him was that Mr. Gladstone had joined the anti-Papal crusade. If he and Lord John attempt to destroy the Pope during the recess " we shall have as bard a time of it as his Itoli- nese himself." Mr. Disraeli recommended a dignified reserve, which wilt enable the Government to step forward at the proper time to secure the peace of Europe.
Lord PaLmenorox praised Mr. Disraeli's candour. Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Whiteside thought the resolution should be carried, but Mr. Disraeli threw his friends over, and admitted that the resolution was improper. He was not so successful in dealing with Mr. Gladstone's accusations. When he said that Austria acted with dignified conciliation he knew that her proposal was that Sardinia singly should disarm, and that the threat of war, which, when executed, Lord Derby called cri- minal, had already been sent to Turin. After vindicating the course taken by the Government in regard to the "little bit of paper," Lord Palmerston dealt with the motion. He described it as the most extra- ordinary composition he had ever read. It said that Great Britain having done all it could to prevent war and bring about a peace, should therefore abstain from any attempt to make that peace durable. That is a non sequitur. His argument would be the reverse. The only in- ference to be drawn from the motion was that the two Emperors are persons with whom we should have no transactions whatever. Mr. Disraeli said they were going into a Conference to unsettle the treaties of 1815. In the first place we are not proposing to go into a Conference at all. "It has been simply intimated to us that we may receive a pro- posal to go into a Conference, provided the other Powers concerned are ready to do so, and would like us to join them." Mr. Disraeli makes it a reproach to Mr. Gladstone that the arrangement at Vienna has not tended to promote the welfare of the Italians. " I entirely share that opinion. . . . It has produced years of misery and wretchedness." Before the war broke out we said that the Government ought to have persuaded Austria to go into a Congress, and that one of its objects should be to maintain, in regard to Austria, the arrangements of 1815.
" So long as peace was unbroken the provisions of the Treaty of Vienna were to be respected by all the Powers of Europe but when war put an end to treaties, as between the belligerents, the territories that were the scene and the cause of war naturally passed from the worsted to the more triumphant party." The Opposition imagined that the Government desired to alter still further the possessions of Austria in Italy, to drive her out of Venetia. Lord Palmerston has always maintained—he had been reminded by a foreign friend that he uttered the opinion fifteen years ago—that Aus- tria would be stronger if she had no possessions in Italy. But it is one thing to hold an opinion, and another to take measures for violently bringing about a change in the basis of the European system. " Still, if an op- portunity should be presented to the British Government of doing good to Italy by means of a Conference, if by their advice and suggestions they should be able to confer lasting benefits upon the Italian people, and thereby add security to the peace of Europe—in that case, they would not be justifiable if they refused to join in a Conference with the others Powers." Mr. Disraeli asked whether they were going to deal with the Pope and the King of Naples ? "It is not likely that questions of.that sort would be discussed in a Conference. We know that advice has aliyady been given to Bic Pope to reform his government, and so remove that discontent the existence of which compels him to maintain in Rome and elsewhere foreign troops to support his authority. A statesman whose name I forget once re- marked that it is an unpleasant thing for a sovereign to sit upon bayonets. The Pope is now in that disagreeable position, but I hope he will of his own accord select a more soft and solid support for his person and government." (Cheers and laughter.) He trusted the House would not agree to the motion.
IiordEtelio having consented to accept the amendment and the speech of Mr. Kinglake, the motion was therefore not put ; and after disposing of the orders of the day, the House adjourned about three o'clock.
In the House of Lords the Marquis of NORMANBY put a question to the Government touching the proposals for peace submitted by the British Government to Austria ; and said that on the continent it was believed those proposals were the joint production of M. de Persigny and Lord Palmerston, Lord Normanby also accused the Government of violating neutrality, of creating a breach with Prussia, and Lord John Russell especially of taking a one-sided view of the question. He de- fended Austria and the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and accused the ex- isting Tuscan Government of acts of great tyranny.
Lord WODEHOUSE, declining to discuss these questions, gave an an- swer respecting the proposals sent to Austria, similar to that given by Lord John Russell.
On Tuesday, Lord STRATFORD DE REneurrn took an opportunity af- forded by the motion to read a Militia bill a second time, to advert to our foreign relations. He described the country as surrounded with un- certainty. What do we know of what has taken place or is taking place. Austria is virtually in the position she held before the war—that is, she is still in a position to carry out any policy unfavourable to Italy. Sar- dinia has gained by the war. In what respect is the position of France altered as regards the party that excited the Emperor's apprehension ? Has anything changed the position of the Pope ? ihen there is Garibaldi at the head of a great force, and there is Mazzini in the background. On these accounts he had derived satisfaction from what occurred in another place. The Government, so he gathered, are prepared to taker the right course—that is not to go into a Congress unless we are satisfied that we shall do credit to ourselves and benefit the interests of those we protect. He trusted, indeed could not doubt, that the Government would show by their conduct during the recess that they deserve the confidence of the country.
EAST INDIA Loaris.
On the consideration of the East India Loan Bill as amended, Mr. CRAWFORD, objecting to any imperial guarantee, suggested that Parlia- ment should borrow the money for Indian purposes, and lend it again to India, taking some adequate security. Mr. VANsrrrarey and Mr. AIM, TON advocated the grant of an imperial guarantee. We are wasting 10,000,000/. a year to maintain abstract principles of political economy dear to the dogmatists of the Treasury. Colonel SYKES also said the pro- per remedy for Indian finance is to be found in the talismanic words "imperial guarantee." Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE and Sir II/DIRY WIL. Lorain:sr asked for information touching the intentions of the Govern-
ment in sending out Mr. James Wilson to act as the Chancellor of the Exchequer in India, and expressed doubts as to the propriety of that step. Nothing could be more dangerous than to set up a department in opposi- tion to the Governor-General.
Sir Cationns WOOD said that Mr. Wilson had not then accepted the appointment, but he trusted Mr. Wilson would accept it. As to his du- ties, the financial responsibility rests with the Governor-General, just as at home it rests with the Cabinet. Whoever goes to India, Mr. Wilson or another, will not be solely responsible for the finances ; but will be a member of the Governor-General's council, taking charge of the financial department.
The bill was read a third time and passed.
When the bill went to the House of Lords, on the motion for going into Committee, the Duke of ARGYLL gave an account of the state of the Indian finances corresponding to that which was made by Sir Charles Wood in the House of Commons. The Duke takes a somewhat cheerful view of the prospects of India. The great reductions must be made in the military expenditure. There is no native power to give us any uneasiness, not a gun can be cast without our consent ; a Native army without ar- tillery is useless, and our relative superiority to the Natives has much increased. On these grounds, he thought the true solution was a reduc- tion of the Indian military expenditure.
The Earl of Etmemoitoreo took strong objections to the practice of giving guarantees to railway companies, which, he said, prevented the Government from borrowing at alower rate than the rate of the guaran- tee. He approved of the measure adopted by the Government in sending out Mr. Wilson to act as Chancellor of the Exchequer of India. With assistance, that gentleman may reduce the accounts to an intelligible shape ; but he must be supported from home, because he will have to teach, not only habits of business, but habits of obedience. Lord Ellen- borough objects to the reduction of the civil salaries, and thinks that at no distant period we may reduce our military establishments. He would bring down the number of Native troops to the level of the European troops. He strongly objected to those who proposed that we should abandon India.
Lord LYYEDEN agreed that there is no cause for despondency. He could not hear talk of abandoning India without a sense of a certain amount of shame. With regard to the financial question, he thought that both the civil and military expenditure could be reduced. He also thought that that gigantic job—the Indian Council—should be reduced to six members, who should be the heads of departments ; but the greatest saving must be effected in military expenditure. Lord Ellen- .borough had spoken of Mr. Wilson as a Chancellor of the Exchequer; he had never understood that Mr. Wilson was to act in such a capacity. [" Hear, hear? " from the Duke of ARGYLL.] If he have the powers of theShalicellor of the Exchequer, it will involve a great interference with Government of India. He hoped that Mr. Wilson would be armed,with such authority, and so backed from home that the country will obtain the full advantage of his services.
The bill passed through Committee.
THE INDIAN ARMY.
On the motion that the report of the European Troops India Bill should be received, Sir CHARLES Worm explained its nature. In 1853 the limit of the number of Company's troops was increased from 12,200, to 20,000 and the number training in England from 2000 to 4000. It is a legal question whether the Act meant that the Company could employ 20,000, or 24,000. The late Government had sanctioned an establishment of 25,500, and the bill is necessary to cover anything that had been done which might be illegal. The bill limits the number to 30,000. It does not follow that the whole of this number will be raised, but it cannot be- exceeded.
With regard to the employment of a local European force in India, Sir Charles Wood expressed a strong opinion, remarking that the weight of authority is in favour of the weight of such a force. The late Lord Har- dinge' Sir John Lawrence, the late Government and the present Govern- ment, have alike come to that conclusion. It would be far more expensive to maintain a force entirely composed of Queen's troops than a force com- posed of Queen's and local troops. With regard to the mutiny of the local troops at present in India, he said, he thought the men had no substantial grievance, but that a great deal was to be said in justification of their view. He looked upon it rather as a strike than as a mutiny ; they ought not to be dealt with as wrongheaded mutineers ; and he thought that Lord Canning, after having had accorded to him the fullest authority to deal with the question as he thought fit, had acted for the best in giving the men the option of a discharge. The bill does not prejudice any of the questions con- nected with the subject of our Indian forces, which are left open for future consideration.
General PEEL made some very strong remarks on the conduct of the local European force, and said that an army in which such discipline ex- isted is not to be trusted. He seemed to be entirely opposed to any local European force whatever, considering that it would interfere with the recruiting of the Queen's troops in England. He suggested that the limit of 3 per cent of foreigners, now allowed to enter the British Army,. should be extended. The question of a local army is neither more nor less than a question of patronage, and he thought it would be better to do without the Indian Council than leave them any patronage at all. Sir DE LACY EVANS objected altogether to recruiting foreigners. He would not call the insubordination of the local troops a mutiny, and he- considered that a local army is indispensable to India. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT pointed out that General Peel, as a Member of the Commis- sion, had decided against a local army, while as a Member of the late Government he had decided in favour of it. Colonel NORTH complained of the mismanagement of the local troops in India, and of the withholding of batta from those troops who served in Persia. Colonel DUNNE con- demned the Indian Government. Sir FREDERICK SMITH looked upon the maintenance of a local European force in India as a necessity ; and as regards the insubordination of the European regiments, he could not call that a mutiny where the men have so strong a case. Colonel SYKES expressed a strong opinion in favour of a local force. Sir HENRY WIL. LOUGHBY thought the House of Commons should bear some of the blame of the late mutiny, because they had not made the transfer of service clear to the men. Colonel UPTON and Mr. VANSITTART thought the patronage ought to go to the Horse Guards.
The bill was read a third time and passed.
Mums.
On the second reading of the Militia Acts Amendment Bill there was a brief discussion in the House of Peers. Lord STRATFORD DE KEDCLIFFE, taking note of the connexion between policy and our measures for na- tional defence, regretted that the ballot for the militia had ever been suspended, and hoped that the result of a careful consideration of the subject, would be a return to the constitutional mode of dealing with this ancient force.
Lord KINGSDOWN strongly supported this view. All attempts to im-
prove the militia will be fruitless unless the people are content once more to recognize the obligation incumbent on every man in a free state —namely, to come forward, not only with his purse, but his person, when it is essential, for the defence of his country. Our system of bounties has altogether failed. Other countries still possess the means of manning their fleets and filling their armies. Let the people be but convinced that it is essential to the protection of the country and the maintenance of its place among the nations that they should submit to any legal enactment that may be applied to raise a force to defend the country, and no difficulty would be felt in obtaining their assent. If Members of that and the other House would honestly lay before the people the position in which we stand, they would readily and cheer- fully respond.
The Earl of RrroN was of opinion that the principle of raising militia by ballot should be retained, but retained for emergencies. He repeated the general assurance, given in a recent debate, that the Secretary for War will, during the recess, earnestly consider the whole subject.
DIVORCE COURT BILL.
In Committee on the Divorce Court Bill several important amend- ments were made. Tho clause for extending the Divorce Act to Ireland was expunged. On clause 5, for enabling the Court at the discretion of the Judges, and for the sake of public decency, to hear certain cases with closed doors, Mr. JAMF.S said it would establish a dangerous precedent, and arm our Judges with an arbitrary power. Tho ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the question was, whether the public would not derive great benefit from making a particular exception to the general rule of publicity. The clause would prevent denial of justice to those who are restrained from going before the Court on account of the distressing accompaniments of a public trial. Mr. AYRTON said, that every principle of law inflicts in- convenience on some individuals. The clause would establish a censor- ship of the press. As far as he was aware, the conductors of the public journals have shown great tact and judgment in reporting the proceed- ings of the Divorce Court. Publicity exercises a salutary influence over tyrannical husbands and tends to repress marital misconduct. Mr. HAD- FIELD, Mr. BRADY, Mr. H. BERKELEY, and Mr. Joirr LOCKE opposed the clause, and at the suggestion of Sir S. M. PETO, the knolls:re- GRNBRAL agreed to withdraw it. Clause 7, providing that petitions for dissolution shall be referred to the Attorney-General with a view to prevent collusion, was put and negatived. A clause was added enabling the Court after a final decree to make orders with reference to the appli- cation of the whole or a portion of the property settled on the parties for the benefit of the children. The bill was reported, read a third time, and passed.
THE PONTEFRACT EvecrioN.
Another case of compromise has been brought under the attention of the House of Commons.
Mr. BRIGHT, on Wednesday, presented a petition from Mr. Childers. It appears that at the Pontefract election Mr. Overend polled 306 votes to 296 polled for Mr. Childers. A petition was presented against the return, but at the last moment it was withdrawn. The reason why it was withdrawn was that the parties agreed to refer the differences be- tween them to a referee [Lord March], but that when the petition was withdrawn it was suggested that the arrangement could not be carried out without committing a breach of privilege, and Mr. Overend pre- ferred to keep his seat instead of accepting the Chiltern Hundreds. Mr. Bright proposed that the petition be referred to a Select Committee. After some discussion, it was arranged that Mr. Overend should be ordered to attend in his place, and that the Committee should be moved for the next day.
At tho Wednesday sitting, Mr. BIGHT made that motion, and Mr. Ovennien offered an explanation. He said he was glad to have a Com- mittee of Inquiry, but it would have been fairer to him had Mr. Bright abstained from using certain strong expressions which did not apply to the case. According to Mr. Overond's explanation, his agents, Mr. Carries and Mr. Rose, received an offer to refer all questions. Mr. Overend authorised them to accept the offer on the understanding that it was intended by Mr. Childers as a " dignified withdrawal." Subsequently, serious dissensions arose between the parties, and it appeared that while Mr. Leeman, the agent for Mr. Childers, considered the referee had power to say to whom the seat belonged, Mr. Rose, the agent of Mr. Overend, regarded the reference as " an illusory arrangement." Mr. Overend declared that he never in the slightest degree would allow his right to the seat to be questioned, and that he, in an interview with Mr. Leeman, said, that if the question of the seat is to be gone into " I still protest." Ultimately, to put an end to controversy, and that he might not be accused of breaking an agreement, he remaked to Mr. Leeman, " I will throw myself entirely upon you." Thereupon Mr. Leeman withdrew from the reference, so says Mr. Overend, observing, " there is an end of it." Such is Mr. Ovorend's explanation. Mr. BRIGHT, after somewhat qualifying the strong language he had used, said, that perhaps Mr. Overend would admit that Mr. Rose had been a little too sharp in his practice. Mr. Overend said, be all along assumed that the seat was not involved. Mr. Bright did not dispute that, but all know what is involved in an election petition and an election committee, and to a non-legal mind like his own, the only question that could arise wee, whether the seat rightfully belonged to him or to Mr. Childers ? Sir WILLIAM JOLLIFFE thought that Mr. Bright had pre- judged the ease. Mr. DISRAELI said Mr. Overend had set himself right with the House. The question is one of honour, and ought not to be brought under the cognizance of the House; and it would lay an incon- venient precedent. Mr. Disraeli thought that Mr. Bright had, been too severe in his attacks on Mr. Rose—an acquaintance and neighbour of Mr. Disraeli's. He would not ask whether it had arisen from the ex- ertions of Mr. Rose in another borough. Nevertheless, he thought the inquiry should be made, since, to withdraw from it, might lead to a mis- understanding. Sir GEORGE GREY agreed that they should abstain from discussion on the merits of the question. Giving Mr. Overend credit for his frankness, he said that he had omitted altogether to state what the question was that was to be submitted to a referee. It is due to the House that an inquiry should be made into the conduct of the agents.
The motion was then agreed to, and the Committee was nominated as follows : Mr. Walpole, Mr. Craufurd, Captain Jervis, Lord Robert Clinton, Mr. Selwyn, Mr. Phillips, and Mr. G. C. Glyn.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS. On the order for going into Committee on the Charitable Trusts Ads Continuance Bill, Mr. NEWDEGATE moved that the House should go into Committee that day three months ; his chief ground apparently being that the Roman Catholic Charities are still exempted from the operation of the law. Mr. HENNESSEY and Mr. BOUYERIE opposed the amendment. Sir GEORGE LEWIS said that next session he would in- troduce a measure to obviate the effect of this exceptional legislation. On a division the House agreed to go into Committee by 70 to 47, and, to facilitate the passage of the measure in the House of Lords, the Bill was read a third time and passed.
COURTS OF CONcTLIATIoN. Mr. MACICHTNON has brought in a bill to establish Equitable Courts of Conciliation. At present both masters and workmen dislike reference to a magistrate in cases of dispute, and the ma- gistrate dislikes his duty because he frequently feels not competent to pro- nounce a decision. In his bill he proposed a remedy that would give more satisfaction to all parties, but he did not explain its provisions.
" COUNT OUT." Soon after the House of Commons met for the evening sitting on Tuesday, while Mr. Locke was bringing before them a case of hardship, a Member discovered that only twenty-nine Members were pre- sent, and thereupon the House adjourned. Another count out took place on Thursday.
EmicrioN COMMITTEES. The Huddersfield Committee gave their de- cision on Monday, confirming Mr. E. A. Leatham's return. A series of isolated acts of bribery were proved against that gentleman's friends, but not shown to have been committed with his own connivance, while the votes thus cancelled were not sufficiently numerous to destroy his majority. One mode of bribery was to make large purchases of pigs, payment being always prompt and delivery needless. Dlr. G. P. Grenfell's election for Preston was also confirmed on Monday by the Committee appointed to con- sider the petition from that borough, the bribery being, as before, un- doubted, but the complicity not proved. This decision was received with loud cheering, and was with difficulty suppressed by the officials. The Kingston-upon-Hull Committee has been sitting throughout the week, and only completed their investigation yesterday, when Mr. W. Hoare's return was declared to be void. The bribery here took a peculiar form : people were employed in vast numbers as messengers, canvassers, or cheek-clerks; paid more or less liberally, and seldom troubled any further. The Committee state the number of persons thus employed on behalf of Mr. Hoare to be 487 ; while for Messrs. Clay and Lewis 493 were similarly retained. They were mostly pluralists, an employment lasting, as in one case, from six in the morning to six at night, not being incompatible with a situation as messenger. Evidence was taken at great length in defence of Mr. Hoare, whose ignorance of the illegal proceedings going on was, in the opinion of the Committee, satisfactorily shown. The Committee call the attention of the House to the fact, that Mr. W. H More, the election auditor for the borough, appeared as agent for the petitioner, and also actively supported the petition, a course they consider open to grave objection. The Beverley Committee decided on Tuesday. Mr. Ralph Walters they found to have been guilty by his agents of bribery, and therefore not duly elected. The election of Mr. Henry Edwards they confirmed, though bribes were in some cases given on his behalf. Neither of these gentlemen, the Committee thought, were aware of the illegal practices going on. The report of this Committee is rendered remarkable by its two concluding paragraphs. They first recommend that no writ shall be issued for Beverley till the evidence taken before this Committee be printed ; the second, that Daniel Boyes and Robert Taylor, who have been guilty of bribery, shall be prosecuted.
Previous page
