forward, unsupported by evidence, was not | the result of the consideration which he fit to sit in this House. The question he had given to the documents submitted to had to put to the hon. Member for Athlone him last Tuesday. He had carefully conwas this-whether he had sent his affida- sidered the affidavits; and from the best vits against Sir C. Taylor to the Secretary inquiry which he had been able to instiof State for the Home Department, in tute, the impression which he at first order that they might be followed up by entertained, and which he had expressed an ample inquiry? to the House, was, he thought, the right one. It was, that the affidavits were extra-judicial, and if false, no indictment for perjury would lie against their authors. Again, if false, although they were were clearly slanderous, no civil action could be brought against the parties issuing them. If they were false, there was, therefore, no remedy against their authors

it could not be doubted but that a criminal information might be filed against Sir Charles Taylor in the Court of Queen's Bench, certainly the most fit tribunal for the institution of such an inquiry. He was not prepared to include the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Collett) among the parties prosecuted; but, actuated by public spirit, as the hon. Gentleman was, the proper course for him to pursue, if he put faith in the affidavits, was to become prosecutor, and proceed against Sir Charles Taylor at law.

VISIT OF IBRAHIM PACHA.

MR. MONCKTON MILNES inquired whether Government had invited the distinguished son of that great man, Mehemet Ali, to visit this country?

MR. COLLETT remarked that the questions of which notice had been given were three; and he hoped, in his character of an Irish Member, to be allowed to reply to them all, though he had yet only heard one. He had put himself to considerable personal inconvenience for the purpose; but the three questions of Wednesday had dwindled down to one on Thursday. In but on the other hand, if they were true, reply to the first question, he had to state that, since Monday last, he had taken no further steps in the business. In answer to the second, whether he had lodged his affidavits in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he would mention that on Tuesday morning, before the hon. Member gave his notice of questions, he (Mr. J. Collett) had employed himself in making copies of all the documents which he had sent to the right hon. Baronet, with a letter, which, perhaps, he might be allowed to read to the House. The hon. Member read the letter, to the effect that he had sent the affidavits, &c., respecting which he hoped that the earliest opportunity for inquiry would be taken, and the result be stated to the House, and that he deliberately repeated his belief in the truth of the affidavits; and that as the right hon. Baronet had asked for the affidavits, in order to found a prosecution upon them, he trusted that, if such prose-likely that Ibrahim Pacha would visit this cution should be instituted by Her Majesty's Government, he should be included in it. This was not meant as an idle threat, but seriously, because if the other parties deserved to be prosecuted, he was most materially involved in the charge. The last question of the hon. Member for Cheltenham was, whether he (Mr. J. Collett) intended to take further proceedings, or to allow the matter to remain where it was? To that he might reply, without pledging himself as to what further proceeding he might think proper to adopt, that he was desirous of the fullest and most searching inquiry, and that if the hon. Member would move for a Committee for the purpose, he would second the Motion with the utmost pleasure. SIR JAMES GRAHAM felt himself at liberty to state to the House what was

SIR R. PEEL would best perform his duty by simply stating that, on its being intimated to the Government that it was

country, a direct assurance was immediately conveyed to him that, if he did, it would be the wish of the Government to show him every attention in their power.

EQUESTRIAN STATUE TO THE DUKE OF

WELLINGTON.

LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR wished to put a question as to the intended equestrian statue to the Duke of Wellington. Some three weeks ago a scaffolding had been commenced round the arch on Constitution-hill, and on inquiring what was going forward, he was told that the enormons colossal statue to the Duke a statue much too large for the intended base, was to be immediately placed upon the summit of the arch. Since that period, however, objection was taken to the destination of the statue, and some attempt was made to

ascertain whether the arch was strong | have withheld their subscriptions if they enough to bear its intended load-the re- disapproved of the site on which it was prosult of which was a report that a large out-posed to place the statue. He had felt lay would be required to put the building disposed to think that a better site might into a condition to support the statue-and be chosen. However, there was great difa rumour that Government was likely to ference of opinion as to the best mode of interfere and put a stop to the operation. placing the statue. Then the architect's Since then, however, he had heard that opinion as to the strength of the arch was proceedings were still going on; and what to be considered. On the matter being he wished to know, and what he was sure brought before him, he had proposed, on the public wished to know, was whether the part of the Crown, to give almost any the site in question was to be disfigured by other site that might be agreed upon. The the Wellington Statue Committee. statue might be placed either between the Athenæum and the United Service Club

of the Duke of Wellington's residence, or near the Horse Guards. He had also undertaken, on the part of the Government, to propose to Parliament to vote a sum for the erection of a suitable pedestal, and that, on the whole, he had thought would have been the more satisfactory mode of settling the matter; but the Committee having again considered the subject, thought, that the consent of Her Majesty having been formally signified to them, and considering that many of the subscribers had subscribed with the idea that the site originally fixed upon would not be departed from, doubted whether they had the right to make any alteration in the site, and therefore it was determined by the Committee (he believed unanimously), that the site should not be altered. Now, certainly these assurances having been given on the part of the Crown, and the Committee having come to the resolution that they could not alter the site, he could not advise Her Majesty to withdraw the consent that had been given by herself and her predecessor.

SIR R. PEEL should like to leave on record what had passed that evening, as an in-houses, or in the immediate neighbourhood stance of the number and variety of ques tions a Minister of the Crown was expected to answer on one day. First, he had been called upon to answer a question respecting the Customs Tariff of this country and of the Zollverein; then came a question about the Bingley union; then another respecting the visit of Ibrahim Pacha; and now came a question respecting the Duke of Wellington's statue. He believed the facts were these-and when they were stated, he did not think that there would be found any ground for any accusation against Her Majesty's Government. Some time ago a subscription had been proposed for erecting an equestrian statue to the noble Duke, and a Committee had been appointed by the subscribers to direct the application of the fund. But before the subscriptions were raised a communication had been made to His late Majesty King William IV., who had been requested to state whether, in the event of the proposed subscriptions being raised for a magnificent equestrian statue to the Duke of Wellington, His Majesty would give his consent to its being placed on the arch at the top of Constitution-hill. Subsequently, a similar request had been made to Iler present Majesty; and, he believed that Lord Melbourne, who was then Prime Minister, had been authorized to communicate to the Committee that Her Majesty would confirm the intention of Her Royal predecessor. Therefore the subscriptions had been raised after two successive Sovereigns had declared that they had no objection to the proposed site of the statue. He would not give any opinion on the question; but the noble Lord was of opinion that the statue, if placed as proposed, would disfigure the neighbourhood. The subscribers, on the contrary, thought it would be a very great ornament to the neighbourhood. In fact, they ought to VOL. LXXXVI. {

Third

Series

MR. BAILLIE observed, that it was generally reported that the statue was too large for the arch, and that it was conscquently to be placed lengthways to the arch, so as to look east and west, or at right angles to the road; and what he wished to suggest was, that at all events the statue should be placed properly on the arch.

SIR R. PEEL apprehended that if the statue were to be placed north and south, it would somewhat obstruct the thoroughfare by breaking down the arch.

THE OFFICERS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL
COMMISSION.

SIR J. GRAHAM, seeing the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Evelyn Denison) in his place, would take the opportunity of

2 I

sumed. The first charge made against Mr. Murray was, that he was a dealer in railway shares to the amount of 260,0007. The facts were, that Mr. Murray, in 1844, became a director of an established com

making an explanation to him on behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman had lately brought under the notice of the House the conduct of the Solicitor of that Commission, who had circulated a paper with reference to a discus-pany-the South-Eastern Company. Findsion in a Committee of this House, which ing, however, that the Commissioners obhe had the high authority of the Speaker jected, his name was immediately withfor saying was a breach of the privileges of drawn. But while he was a director, it the House. He was, however, directed by was proposed to extend the line, and it bethe Ecclesiastical Commissioners to express came necessary that another subscription their regret, that their Solicitor should contract should be deposited, in order to have violated the privilege of the House- satisfy the Standing Orders. The sharea regret which they felt the more deeply, holders being very numerous, and it being inasmuch as the document contained com- quite impossible to collect them in order to ments on the conduct of hon. Members obtain their signatures, it was proposed by which were quite incorrect and unfounded. the solicitor that a certain number of the MR. J. E. DENISON said, that the in- directors should sign the contract as trustimation was perfectly satisfactory. When tees for the general body; and in the chahe had ascertained the contents of the let-racter of trustee only did Mr. Murray sign ter in question, he had written to the Earl it. The liability was now finally put an of Besborough, who was to preside at a end to, the responsibility being taken by meeting of the Commission the following the directors in a different form. He did morning, stating that the document was not think any blame could be attached to inconsistent with the privileges of the Mr. Murray on this head. Now, as to House, and not the less so, because the the other charge. It appeared from a statements it contained were incorrect. He statement made to him, that a gentleman, had further stated in this communication, the son of a clergyman, was employed by with regard to Mr. White, the writer of the the Eastern Counties Railway, not as one letter, that all he had done before the Com- of their servants, but in a confidential busimittee, was done with propriety and ability. ness which they were anxious to transact; He trusted that the explanation which had and it being very desirable that he should been now given would set him right with have a second room, where he could have all parties; he had every disposition to put his papers under lock and key, Mr. Murray a favourable construction on Mr. White's gave him the accommodation in Whitehall motive. Palace, and that was the sole ground of fastening on Mr. Murray the charge of having used his office for the purposes of the South-Eastern Company. He should add, that Mr. Murray performed very responsible duties with the strictest honour and integrity, and that he believed he might in all respects be relied upon.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that had he been aware at the time, which, from the noise in the House, he was not, that the hon. Member for Maldon was making some disparaging observations on the conduct of the Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Commission, Mr. Murray, he (the Attorney General) would not have lost the opportunity of declaring, that from Mr. Murray's high character, a character earned by thirty-five years' experience in a public capacity, nothing was more unlikely than that any step officially taken by that gentleman would be of such a nature as to require such animadversion. [Cries of " Order!" He thought he should have been allowed to rebut a personal accusation, which had given great pain to an individual.

MR. HUME: I move that the Paper said to be an invasion of the privileges of the House be put in, thus giving an opportunity for discussion.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL re

MR. J. E. DENISON: The very singular and remarkable indiscretion of the Attorney General compelled him to enter a little further into a matter which, so far as he was concerned, he should willingly let drop. As to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he was incorrectly informed as to their conduct, and it was of course unnecessary to enter into explanation on that head. He should like to ask the House whether they would take the assurance of the Attorney General, or the opinion of four selected Members, and of seven Members from the Speaker's list, who, one and all, expressed it as their decided opinion that the prayer of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be

MR. HUME withdrew his Motion, and the discussion ended.

MR. W. SMITH O'BRIEN.

MR. SPEAKER: I have to acquaint the House that I have received the following communication from Mr. S. O'Brien:

'Prison, House of Commons, May 21, 1846. "Sir-I take the liberty to call your attention

to the following correspondence between the Clerk of the House of Commons and myself:

"Prison, House of Commons, May 20, 1846. "Dear Sir-I beg to call your attention to Standing Order No. 4, page 13, and shall feel obliged if you will inform me where I can find the appointment of a Committee of Selection pursuant to that Order, as I have in vain searched for it in the Votes of the House of Commons.

66

'It being my intention to cause the attention of the House of Commons to be directed to this will send me an immediate and official reply.—I Correspondence To-morrow, may I request that you have the honour to be, your obedient faithful servant, WILLIAM S. O'BRIEN.

"To John Henry Ley, Esq., Clerk of the House of Commons.'

heard in opposition to the preamble of the | tleman, he refrained from stating them to Bill was not well advised, and should re- the House-he asked whether he was disceive the animadversion of Parliament? posed to deal harshly with this gentleman; The right hon. Gentleman said that he had and, further, whether he was not justified used a strong expression with regard to in the remarks which he now made under Mr. Murray. That remark was, that a a sense of public duty? highminded man, having an immense amount of property passing through his hands, and having public interests of the gravest moment submitted to his consideration, would not have acted as Mr. Murray did. In justice to himself, he was compelled to give the House some further information as to this gentleman. When he spoke of Mr. Murray on a former occasion, he merely referred to two matters which forcibly came under public notice; first of all, the subscription to the railways; next, that his whole time was not given to the public service; and, lastly, he touched on the proceedings before the Committee. But the Attorney General had compelled him to state a circumstance which was very painful to allude to, but which he must divulge in justification of himself. It happened to him, about six weeks ago, to be admitted to an audience in explanation of a business which had been some years before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. On that occasion, a report was to be read for his information. Every member of the Commission had that report in his hand, and was completely conversant with its contents. Mr. Murray was desired to read it. part of that report a passage occurred, in which the surveyor of the Commissioners recommended them not to sell a certain property because its retention would give considerable political influence. Mr. Murray dropped the word "political," and read great influence; on which the Bishop of London, sitting near him, said, “read fully or fairly"-he could not say which—“it is political influence." Now, he asked the right hon. Gentleman if a counsel in a court, or any individual of character, was asked to read a public document for the information of the court, and that such officer was to omit the word which gave the whole point to the sentence, he asked whether such a man would come under the denomination of a highminded gentleman? He saw one of the Commissioners present who heard what took place. And he now asked the House this-when he was compelled by a sense of duty to animadvert on the public conduct of Mr. Murray with regard to matters before the House, and when, though he communicated some Under these circumstances, all the proceedother circumstances to the right hon. Gen-ings which have led to my imprisonment, have

In a

"To this note I received the following answer :

666 May 20, 1846.

"Dear Sir-In answer to your note, delivered to me by Mr. Mahony, I consider it will be sufficient for me to say that the Committee of Selection is appointed and named by the Standing Order No. 4, and that it was not considered necessary at the beginning of this Session to read that Order,

as has sometimes been done, and for the House to make an Order that the Committee of Selec

tion be appointed accordingly. You will, therefore, not find any entry in the Votes.-Your obedient faithful servant,

"JOHN HENRY LEY.'

the Committee of Selection was not appointed for

Mr. Ley's letter confirms my conviction that

the present Session in due conformity to Standing Order No. 4, which is worded as follows:

"That a Committee be appointed at the commencement of every Session, consisting of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders, and of the Chairmen of the Committee and of the Sub-Committees on Petitions for Private Bills, of whom Three shall be a Quorum. And such Committee shall be denominated the Commit

tee of Selection.'

"It is manifest from Mr. Ley's Letter that there is no Evidence in the authentic Records of the

House of Commons that Mr. Estcourt and the other gentlemen who have acted as a Committee of Selection,' have received due authority from the House to act in that capacity during the pre

sent Session.

66

"As I do not desire to throw upon you the re-ness, and resolution, has been entirely jussponsibility of expressing my opinion upon this case, except under the sanction of the House of Commons, I do not expect an answer to this letter, but respectfully request that you will do me the favour to lay it before the House of Commons today, at five o'clock, and to invite the opinion of the House upon it.-I have the honour to be, your obedient faithful servant,