to be disputed. If the hon. and learned Gentleman objects to the decision of the Benchers, and questions the propriety of their censure, there is a legitimate and proper course open to him. Let him appeal to the Judges; for the Benchers of the Middle Temple, in considering his case and pronouncing their judgment upon it, acted not only under a strong sense of responsibility, but with the knowledge that their decision might be appealed from to the Judges of the land. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman to come here, and, in a discussion upon the second reading of a Bill like that now before us, to wind up his own version of the facts by asking the House to express an opinion upon the conduct of the Benchers of the Middle Temple? I should have thought, that if he objects to the judgment which has been pronounced, it would be more correct to appeal to the Judges, and to ask them whether they are of the same opinion as the Benchers. I regret that I should have been led-by necessity led-to make any observations that have an appearance of hostility to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but it is necessary that the House should understand this charge. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, has not thought fit to appeal to the Judges, nor has he appealed to the public. It is true he has asked the Benchers to publish the evidence, but it is no part of our duty to do He has the evidence in his own possession, and he is at liberty to publish it if he pleases.

so.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR: I have not the whole of it.

bearing upon the case, and I assert again, that the hon. and learned Gentleman has the whole of the 700 pages of the evidence and may publish it to-morrow if he pleases. It will thus be seen that the hon. and learned Gentleman has the choice of two tribunals. There is an appeal to the Judges-he declines it; and there is an appeal to the public-he does not avail himself of it. It is true he attended a public meeting in Southampton and made his own statement of the facts, declaring, among other things, that he had obtained an acquittal in an honourable manner. The people of Southampton must have been remarkably astonished when they came to read the severe censure of which the hon. and learned Gentleman now complains. But the hon. and learned Gentleman has not published the evidence, and consequently he has not appealed to the public. Nor let the House forget that he has had an opportunity of bringing the case in which a judgment stands against him before a jury. He has not adopted that course. [Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR: I have.] About a year ago the case had never been brought to trial; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman says he intends to take that step now, I will tell the House why-since that time Mr. Parker has died.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR: I had resolved upon it before his death, or even his illness.

MR. BOVILL: The last time this case was before the Benchers the judgment was standing against the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am very much mistaken if it does not still remain on the MR. BOVILL: The hon. and learned files of the Court. It is also important to Gentleman has the whole of the evidence remark that after the Benchers pronounced with the exception of a small interlude, their decision the hon. and learned Gentlewhich, though it is quite immaterial to the man ceased to be a member of the mess of case, I may describe to the House. One the Northern Circuit. I regret that it has of the witnesses examined before us was a been my lot to be obliged to occupy the gentleman who was introduced by the hon. time of the House with these personal matand learned Member himself. He was ters, but I should like to know why the cross-examined with respect to some let- hon. and learned Gentleman did not ask ters which happened to be in the possession the Home Secretary to have an investiof the Bench. The cross-examination was gation into his conduct at the Home Office, not particularly agreeable to the witness, in order to see whether he should retain and on the second occasion he asked per- the office of Recorder; or why he did not mission to look at the letters. Instead come here and ask for a Committee of Inof continuing to answer the questions adquiry to ascertain whether he ought any dressed to him, he quietly took the let- longer to remain a Member of this House. ters, said they were his property, and I do not mean to say that he is guilty, but put them into his pocket. I do not I do say that when he has had an opporwant to make the hon. and learned Gen- tunity of appealing to the Judges, to the tleman responsible for the conduct of his public, to a jury, to the Home Secretary, Friend; the incident I have narrated has no or to the House-and when he has not

ventured to go before any one of these tri- | cerning it than this-that he ascertained bunals-it is rather too much for him to ask that the Benchers had got possession of his the House, upon his evidence alone, to pass private letter-book, which was stolen from a judgment in his favour and to condemn his office some time ago, and were mak. the conduct of the Benchers. Passing from ing use of garbled extracts, which had nothat subject to the Bill before the House, thing to do with the subject-matter of I would observe that a Royal Commission inquiry, to shake his evidence. He did was appointed in 1854, and the result was take possession of his property, and was that after a year's consideration on the very afterwards charged at the police station important subject referred to them, they with stealing the book; but the officer on came to a certain conclusion with reference duty dismissed the case, and gave the to the constitution of the Inns of Court. Benchers who preferred it a wholesome They recommended that a legal university admonition. The case, however, is now should be established with a Chancellor, a before another tribunal. Vice Chancellor, and a senate, and that the university should be composed of delegates from the four Inns of Court. If there should be any reform in the constitution of those bodies, I think it would be only right that any Bill to be brought in should be in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission. This Bill does not at all carry out those recommendations. I will only express my opinion, that if the propositions of the hon. and learned Gentleman. as embodied in this Bill, were carried out, there is scarcely a Gentleman who is now willing to undertake the duties of the office of a Bencher who would then be willing to devote his time and attention to them, and I say that there is no case made out for this Bill.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR: Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the Parker case, and has stated that there was a judgment filed against me, by which I confessed a fraud. He might have added that I produced the evidence not only of the clerk of the Court of Queen's Bench, where the judgment is recorded, but also of gentlemen of high reputation at the Bar, including Mr. Lush, Q. C., to show that the judgment is entirely confined to an admission of the debt, and excludes altogether the notion of fraud. I proved that it was under that impression that my counsel advised me to submit to the judgment; and I may add that one of them offered to make an affidavit that my representation was correct. Upon that point, therefore, the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely inaccurate. Nay, more; Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Knowles, Q.C., both brother Benchers of the hon. and learned Member, concurred in the opinion of Mr. Lush. As for the gentleman who was examined on my behalf, that matter will probably occupy the attention of a jury, and I will say no more con

MR. BOVILL: It is quite true, as stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he offered evidence to show that the judgment was not an admission of fraud; but it is right I should inform the House that there was evidence, distinct evidence, the other way.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman now qualifies his previous statement, but I deny that there was a single atom of evidence the other way. I dispute everything the hon. and learned Member has said as totally misrepresenting the facts.

SIR GEORGE GREY: I do not rise, Sir, to take any part in the discussion on the second reading of this Bill, but I wish to say a few words in consequence of the appeal which has been made to me upon the personal question introduced into it connected with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Southampton. I do not mean to express the slightest opinion that the hon. and learned Gentleman who last addressed the House could do otherwise than he has done. I think the Benchers were bound to institute an inquiry into the case after the manner in which the character of the hon. and learned Member for Southampton had been impugned. think the House is perfectly incompetent to express any opinion on the case, being with regard to the nature of the inquiry totally in the dark, having not one tittle of evidence before it, not knowing how the charges originated, what the specific charges were, nor how the inquiry was conducted. The statements made with great confidence on both sides should not therefore influence the House; but if there be any means of obtaining a judicial investigation, that course should certainly be adopted. I should not have risen at all but for two statements made by the hon. and learned Member for Guildford.

I must say I

that they had some foundation, what could I have done with regard to the appointment the hon. and learned Member for Southampton held? All I knew was that an inquiry towards the close of last year was conducted by the Benchers of the Middle Temple, which they thought it their duty to institute, and which, I admit, after the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Guildford, it was their duty to institute; and the result of that inquiry was, that they were of opinion that the hon. and learned Member for Southampton was a fit person to continue a Queen's counsel, and to act as a member of the Bar and of that society the honour of which was in their keeping. It never occurred to me that it was my duty to institute an inquiry into charges which were never laid before me, of which and of the evidence in support of them I was wholly ignorant, in order to ascertain whether the hon. and learned Member for Southampton, being allowed by the verdict of the Benchers to remain a member of the Bar and to act as a Queen's counsel, should still retain his office of Re

He has stated that the rumours affecting the conduct and character of the hon. and learned Member for Southampton had been long in circulation, and that having applied to be made a serjeant-at-law, and been refused the coif, the hon. and learned Member for Southampton, at a critical period in party politics, had received the promotion of a silk gown from the present Government. Sir, I speak in the name of the Government of which the late Lord Campbell was a distinguished Member, and I feel bound to deny altogether the imputation against him and the Government of which he was a member. In the first place, I am sure, that if these rumours did exist, and if they reached the cars of Lord Campbell, he could not have attached any importance to them; and he would have been justified in attaching no importance to them, in the absence of any action on the part of the Benchers-the legal competent tribunal to investigate those charges-or any notice being taken of them during the whole time those rumours were afloat. I cannot distinctly deny-for I have not the means of denial, that these corder. Sir, under these circumstances, rumours did reach Lord Campbell; but if they did, and if he had thought they had any valid foundation he, I am sure, would not, for the sake of serving any political purpose, have taken the course imputed to him. What foundation is there for the assertion of the hon. and learned Gentleman? I am not aware that in February, 1861, any political crisis was impending which could have induced Lord Campbell to act as has been stated. remember no such crisis-and I can appeal to every man who knew him to say whether Lord Campbell was base enough to act in the manner imputed to him. But, again, the hon. and learned Gentleman has rather im puted to myself some negligence in this matter, in not having instituted an inquiry at the Home Office, in order to ascertain whether the hon. and learned Member for Southampton should retain the judicial position he had for many years occupied as Recorder of Newcastle-on-Tyne. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that recorders do not hold office during the pleasure of the Government, but during good behaviour, and I am not aware of any investigation that could have been instituted by me with a view to ascertain on what foundation these charges were made. But if I had been of opinion

I can

I hold that no blame whatever can attach to the Government on this account. At the same time, I must say, that if there is an appeal now open from the decision of the Benchers of the Middle Temple to the Judges, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have recourse to it; for I must say the House is, in my opinion, incompetent to entertain such a question or to decide it as satisfactorily as the Judges.

MR. BOVILL: I beg to say that I did not impute the slightest blame, and never intended to make the slightest charge of neglect against the right hon. Baronet. I was led to make the observation I did in order to show that the hon. and learned Member for Southampton had never courted any investigation. With respect to the rumours I mentioned, I am exceedingly glad the right hon. Baronet has made the statement we have just heard. It is extremely satisfactory, and the right hon. Baronet cannot regret that an opportunity was afforded for making it.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER observed that he had heard no arguments adduced in reply to what he had advanced in moving the second reading of the Bill. He should however, follow the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Berk. shire (Mr. Walter), and withdraw the Bill pledging himself before the close of the

Session to lay on the table another mea- | and John Preston, Town Crier at Cheltensure to reform the judicial portion of the ham, at the Bar of the House this day, duties of the Benchers. The whole dis- discharged: Ordered, That the said Wilcussion showed that a change in that re- liam Isaacs, Clerk to Mr. Boodle, Solicitor spect was required. The case of the hon. at Cheltenham, and John Preston, Town and learned Member for Southampton just Crier at Cheltenham, do attend at the Bar amounted to this :-The Benchers, after of this House Tomorrow, at Four o'Clock, allowing the matter to sleep for eight or in reference to their Conduct with regard ten years, instituted an inquiry, the result to the Signatures to the Petition of Barof which was that they first absolved him bara Robinson and others of Cheltenham, from every charge, and then censured him. presented on the 22nd of May last, prayIt was the old story of the jury who found ing to be heard by Counsel against the the prisoner not guilty, telling him at the "East Gloucestershire Railway Bill." same time never to do so any more. would withdraw the Bill.

He

"That the word 'now' stand Question, part of the Question," put, and negatived. Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for three months.

JURIES BILL-[BILL NO. 86.]
COMMITTEE.

Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.

Clause 1 (Short Title of Act, &c).
MR. HENLEY said, it was a very
important measure, and he should be
glad to know whether the right hon.
Baronet the Secretary of State for the
Home Department was satisfied with its
provisions.

SIR GEORGE GREY said, he thought that, upon the whole, it would be a very useful Bill, and therefore he had made no objection to the second reading. Clause agreed to.

House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday.

House adjourned at nine minutes

before Six o'clock.

ITALY JOSEPH MAZZINI.
EXPLANATION.

LORD BROUGHAM remarked that in some observations which he addressed to

their Lordships a few nights since he had been misled by the accounts which he had received from Italy. Speaking of an individual, he had represented him as not only given to conspiracy and agitation in Italy, but as sparing his own person and keeping out of danger. He (Lord Brougham) had been assured that this individual had never shown any indisposition to take part in the enterprises which he originated or recommended; but that, on the contrary, he had frequently joined in these military operations. He (Lord Brougham) regretted that this individual had incited operations which could not

but be inimical to the cause of Italian

independence, because they could not fail to provoke the hostility of Austria, at the same time that they did not secure the support of France.

DEFENCES OF THE KINGDOM.

MOTION FOR PAPERS.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE, in moving for Returns on the subject of the national expenditure on the Defences of the Kingdom, said, it was desirable, in his opinion, that a question like this, which was greatly agitating the public mind, should be discussed in that House, where many noble Lords could throw light upon it and speak with authority from their professional and official experience. He was aware that his own opinion could not carry any weight with it, and that it could only be of value when supported by facts. He should endeavour, therefore, to confine his remarks to those points in which he was supported by the evidence and Report of the Commissioners which had been laid before Parliament. It appeared to him that the

conclusions to which the Commissioners heretofore. He would assume, for a mohad arrived were borne out by the evidence, ment, for the sake of argument, that ironso far as regarded that part of their scheme clad vessels were invulnerable. It was clear, of fortifications which was intended to put in that case, that such vessels might apthe dockyards in a state of defence against proach as near as they chose to the harbours an attack by sea. He was not competent in which the enemy was collecting his transto go into the details, or to say whether the ports; they would not themselves suffer from particular fortifications which they recom- the fire of his fortifications, and though they mended were the very best that could be could not injure the enemy's ships of war, devised; but as regarded the broad principle which by the hypothesis were invulnerable, he thought the Commissioners had given yet they could destroy all the transports very good reasons for their opinion that the which were not protected by iron plates. dockyards could be more cheaply and more Now, let any one conceive the expense of efficiently defended against an attack by casing with iron all the transports which sea by a combination of forts and floating would be required for conveying an invading batteries, rather than by floating batteries army to this country, and let him judge alone. But there was another class of for- whether such a proceeding would be practifications, on which the Commissioners had ticable. He knew that iron-clad ships were recommended a very large expenditure. In not absolutely invulnerable, but he had their first Report the Commissioners went at argued on this assumption for the purpose considerable length into the question of the of showing that the tendency of the adopdefence of the country against invasion. tion of iron-clad ships was to make invasion They stated that this country could not now more difficult. Iron-clad ships, he admitted, rely on her fleets alone to repel invasion; were not absolutely invulnerable. We had that, owing to the application of steam to now got a gun which had penetrated, or very navigation, and from other causes, there nearly penetrated, a target that represented were now greater facilities than in times a section of the Warrior at a distance of past for throwing an invading army on our 200 yards. A Return had been moved for shores; and the Commissioners therefore in the other House on this subject, but the recommended the construction of certain Government refused to give it, though they works for the purpose of protecting our stated at the same time that they had no dockyards against an attack by land. objection to answer any question as to these The works proposed were very extensive, experiments. It was important that they and he believed they would cost more should know what was the actual result of than £2,000,000, without including the these experiments, because Sir W. Armmoney expended in the purchase of land. strong stated in his evidence that he asFor the money spent in the construction sumed the result produced at 200 yards as of a fort, if the fort turned out inefficient, the standard of efficiency, and that he hoped they got nothing. But for money laid to produce a gun which should have the out in the purchase of land they did, at same amount of penetration at 1,000 yards. some time, get some return, large or It had been stated at first, both in that small. The recommendation of the Com- House and elsewhere, that the shots from missioners that defensive works should the new gun had gone right through the be constructed being based on the assump- target, but it afterwards appeared, from tion that at the present time the facilities the statement of the hon. Member for for attack were greater than those which Wakefield (Sir John Hay) and of other performerly existed, it seemed to follow that sons who had examined the target, that if, since their first Report was issued, when the supports of the target were reany change had taken place tending to moved, it was found that the shots had not make an attack by a naval force more dif- penetrated the inner skin. But even supficult, dangerous, and expensive, the neces- posing that the most sanguine expectations sity for these works was, pro tanto, dimi- of the Commissioners were realized, and nished. It appeared that ships cased with that a gun was produced which was capable iron, in a great degree impenetrable by of penetrating iron-cased ships at 2,000 shot, would in future be the class of vessels yards, even then it appeared that it would used for war; and it appeared to him that be in the power of such vessels to inflict the effect of this change in naval warfare severe damage on wooden vessels lying would be to render the invasion of this within an enemy's harbour, while themcountry a more expensive, a more hazard- selves keeping at such a distance from his ous, and a more difficult undertaking than batteries as not to be injured by their fire.