to say that I ever said, directly or indirectly, I had ever
tampered with any member of this house; and, therefore,
I say the charge is as false and malicious as it is
unjust and untrue. But the hon. member is not
content with referring to these charges—he talks of
disgorging—he says that I am called on to disgorge a sum
of money. I admit, by the decision of that tribunal, I
am so called on; but neither that, nor any tribunal,
will venture to say I am called on to disgorge what, to
a great extent, I never received. It is true that by a
legal construction I am placed in this unfortunate
position, but from that position I am advised I have a good
right of appeal. I say again, that it is admitted even by
my opponents, that a large sum of the money which 1
have been charged to refund to that company never
reached, and never could have reached, my hands by
any possibility. I say, therefore, my position is one of
misfortune—morally right, but legally wrong. I invite
the hon. member—I have no objection, if the house
thinks right—to take me from my cradle and follow me
to this day, and if they can fix on me any charge of a
dishonourable character, or which would render me
unworthy of the confidence of my friends, of a seat in
this house, or any public position, I shall retire. But
till I am convinced I have done anything not only legally
but morally wrong, I shall abide amid the vituperations
of the press or of any individuals who may think it
right to attack my character and position. If I had
consulted, perhaps, my own position, I might have
pursued that press by prosecutions in the courts, but
through a long life I have hitherto abstained. I have
known what it is to live in popularity and favour, and
to enjoy the confidence and smiles of the world. I have
had the bitter reverse. I bear against it, I hope, with
the fortitude with which it is right for a man to bear it
who is conscious of his own innocence; and I may,
perhaps, refer in future life with as much pride and
satisfaction—I may leave to posterity the works of utility
which I have either projected or promoted (and they
will perhaps bear my name when the hon. member for
Finsbury and I are gathered to our fathers), which will
bear comparison with anything he has ever done in
public or in private life. I hope he will pursue the
course he wishes the government to follow. I am ready
to unravel and unfold everything. I have stood the
brunt before a jury of my countrymen, and, when
attacked by all that the intelligence and ability of
counsel could bring to bear against me, I have left the
court, after an examination of two or three hours, amid
the congratulations and smiles of my friends and the
discomfiture of my enemies." Mr. Hudson's speech was
listened to in silence, and was not followed by any
remark.

On Thursday, Feb. 9, Mr. CAYLEY moved for a select
committee to consider the duties of the member Leading
the Government in that House, and the expediency of
attaching office and salary thereto. In this motion,
which he had brought forward, he said, without any
communication with the noble lord, he could be actuated
by no possible motive but a sense of public duty, and of
the duty which the public owed to those who served it.
He dwelt upon the severe labour which fell upon the
government leader, whose toils multiplied in proportion
to the increase of the business of the house, and he asked
whether it was reasonable or fair that services of this
kind, which taxed so heavily the physical powers, and
disabled the individual from holding any public department,
should be unrewarded. He thought there was no
public office which entitled the holder to a higher
reward, but he only sought for an inquiry into the best
mode of correcting a manifest anomaly.—Sir C. WOOD
assumed that the object of Mr. Cayley was to attach a
salary to an office which did not in fact exist, or of which
the duties were undefined. The leadership of the house
was generally held in conjunction with some high office
of the government, and it was not consonant with
constitutional principles to affix a salary to the discharge of
the former functions. He hoped the house would reject
the motion, for which, he thought, no ground had been
laid.—After some observations from Mr. WILLIAMS,
Mr. WALPOLE, and Lord John RUSSELL, Mr. Cayley
withdrew his motion.

On Friday, Feb. 10, Lord J. RUSSELL moved for
leave to bring in two bills designed to Secure Electoral
Purity. By one of these measures the laws relating to
bribery, treating, and undue influence at elections, were
to be consolidated and invigorated; by the other he
purposed to amend the enactments regulating the trials
of election petitions and the inquiries into corrupt
practices. Acknowledging the improvement which
recent acts and public opinion had already effected, the
noble lord gave an outline of his intended measures.
Respecting bribery, he intended to abolish the £500
penalty inflicted under the existing law on the receiver
of a bribe, and to make his offence a misdemeanour,
punishable by fine and imprisonment, and further visited
with forfeiture of the franchise for ever. Upon the
candidate who should bribe, or employ undue influence
of the description to be defined in the bill, in addition
to a fine of £50, the punishment of perpetual disqualification
was to fall, with minor penalties for any persons
who should resort to such practices not on their own
account. With regard to election petitions, he proposed
to establish a preliminary tribunal composed of fifteen
members, and having duties analogous to those of the
grand jury in criminal cases. They were to examine
the petitioner's case, whenever bribery or undue
influence were among the allegations, and hear evidence
thereon, and decide if it deserved to be proceeded with.
After being thus confirmed, the petition should go before
the usual committee, as at present constituted, and if
the petitioner were then successful, his costs were to be
defrayed at the public charge: if defeated, he would be
required to pay the costs of the defence. In addition,
he proposed to enact that, when an elected candidate
was found to have obtained votes by bribery, his opponent
should obtain the seat, provided he had not been
inferior by more than one-third in the number of his
votes on the poll. Lord J. Russell concluded by
explaining some of the working details of his proposed
measure. After some conversation, leave was given to
bring in the bill.

Mr. BAINES moved for leave to bring in a bill to
amend the laws relating to the Settlement of the Poor
in England and Wales. After detailing the chief points
of the bill he proposed to introduce, he said, the
principle on which it was founded was this—that the right
to relief depended not on settlement, but on destitution.
The bill would therefore at once abolish the power for
the compulsory removal of paupers, and enlarge the area
of rating and chargeability. For these new areas he
proposed to take the unions established under the poor
law. These presented the advantage of tolerable
uniformity, and of identity in interests; offering a judicious
mean between the national rate suggested by some
reformers and the 14,614 existing parishes; and
preserving in full activity the wholesome agencies of local
government. Respecting the proportion of the rate to
be contributed by each parochial member of the new
districts he designed to aim at an ultimate equality, but,
not to interfere too rudely with existing interests,
proposed to appoint a period, say of ten years, during which
the present ratings were to be gradually melted down
and approximated to an equal average.—Mr. HILDYARD
denounced the injustice which would be committed
under the proposed measure upon proprietors in well-
regulated parishes by compelling them to pay towards
the rates of other worse managed members of the union
to which they belonged.—Several other members having
spoken, leave was given to bring in the bill.

On Monday, February 13, Mr. LAYARD wished to
put two questions relative to the Turkish Question,
first, concerning the return of the combined fleets to
Beicos, whether the ambassadors or the admirals were
in the wrong? Secondly, touching Count Orloff's
mission to Vienna, whether the government had any
official information of its purpose, and if not, who was
in fault for the omission?—Lord John RUSSELL replied
to the first query, that both the ambassadors and the
admirals had done their duty; the former politically in
sending the fleets into the Black Sea; the latter
professionally by returning when they found the harbour
of Sinope unsafe, and the weather tempestuous.
Respecting the mission of Count Orloif, he remarked that
that envoy had only terminated his negociations (as the
noble lord believed, unsuccessfully) on the 8th, and that