HL Deb 27 June 1856 vol 142 cc2050-64

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

LORD LYNDHURST

I wish, my Lords, to say a few words with respect to this measure. I object to it altogether. I object to it both in form and in substance. I cannot find in the Statute-book any Act of Parliament which resembles it. I will first point out my objection to the form of the oath. My noble Friend, in his Bill, refers to the oath of abjuration, and then proceeds to enact that a large passage of that oath shall be excepted. He then goes on to say, after a few lines, that a line and a half in addition shall be excepted. Again, going on further, he says that another line and a half shall be excepted; and I believe he repeats this a third time, that a line and a half shall be excepted. Then he says, a fourth time, that a passage shall be excepted, and that something shall be substituted in lieu of it. Then that a word shall be excepted in a subsequent part of the oath, and that afterwards another word shall be excepted. My Lords, I cannot understand how the oath can be administered at all. What is the form in which the oath shall be taken? Is the clerk at the table to take the oath of abjuration in his hand and strike out certain passages with a pencil, or with a pen, and then the noble Lord at the table shall read the oath, skipping over particular parts? Why, if so, the inconvenience might be obviated at once, by the clerk drawing out a form of oath, leaving out those excepted passages. But how will that apply? Will not the noble Lord at the table be desirous of knowing whether the oath tendered to him is according to the oath prescribed by Act of Parliament? Will he not desire to look first at the oath of abjuration, and then at the exceptions, and then compare these with the oath to be administered to him? Indeed, my Lords, my objection in point of form is in reality an objection in point of substance. Why either my noble Friend, or the noble Lord who drew the Bill, did not add these words, "namely, as follows," and then set out the oath, I find it difficult to conjecture. But, my Lords, I am quite sore that it was not my noble Friend who drew the Bill. I knew the handwriting at once—I knew the style and pencil of the artist—a shrewd and subtle practitioner, and one who loves to challenge difficulties that he may encounter and overcome them. But what is the object of the Bill? The object is this—that my noble Friend might not appear to be presenting a new oath to be imposed on Her Majesty's Protestant subjects. But, my Lords, take the existing oath, leave out certain parts of that oath, and add other parts, and whatever the ingenuity may be of my noble Friend, depend upon it that that is in substance a new oath on the Protestant subjects of this empire. So much for my objection as to the form of this measure. I will now say a word as to the substance. I will again call your attention, my Lords, to the reign of William III. In the first year of the reign of that monarch his title was established by Act of Parliament, his supremacy was established by Act of Parliament, and the succession to the Crown was established by Act of Parliament; and after all these provisions had been made, then the oaths came to be considered. They were considered, and what were they?—the oath of allegiance and the oath of supremacy, and nothing more. That was all that was required in the first year of the reign of William III. for the security of the throne and the security of the succession. Two years afterwards it was proposed to add something to the oath, but that was opposed by the Monarch and opposed by Parliament. Subsequently, certain events occurred which led to the passing of the oath of abjuration. The oath of abjuration applied to events of that time only—events which cannot again occur—of which there is no trace. Why should not that oath be entirely abrogated? Why not put ourselves in the position in which Parliament stood at the time of William III., when only two oaths were required—namely, the oath of allegiance and the oath of supremacy? After all, my Lords, what are oaths worth? Who ever supposes that they have any effect in times of difficulty? Did any oath ever prevent a revolution? I admire the eloquence of my noble Friend sitting at the table (Earl Stanhope), who spoke the other night upon this question; but I must appeal from my noble Friend speaking in the excitement of debate to my noble Friend, calmly deliberating in the closet and viewing this subject in the light of history. Let me quote a passage from the writings of my noble Friend, in the propriety and truth of which I entirely concur. It relates to the security afforded by these oaths, and I think your Lordships will, with me, entirely concur in the propriety of the observations made by my noble Friend. They are to this effect. Speaking of the Jacobites he says:— Yet they still retained all their first principles, and the oath, however it might torture their consciences, did not influence their conduct. Such is, I fear, the inevitable result of any oath imposed by any Government for its security. Examples of that kind are too common in all countries. Swearing allegiance to King George did not shut out all the Jacobites from Parliament; swearing allegiance to King Louis Philippe does not shut out all the Carlists from the Chambers. I quite agree, therefore, with my noble Friend as to the uselessness of these oaths. Hear what is said by another eloquent writer, Mr, Macaulay. He is describing the debate which took place early in the last century upon the subject of oaths:— Do not flatter yourselves that the ingenuity of lawgivers will ever devise an oath which the ingenuity of casuists will not evade. What, indeed, is the value of any oath in such a matter? Among the many lessons which the troubles of the last generation have left us none is more plain than this, that no form of words, however precise, no imprecation, however awful, ever saved or ever will save a Government from destruction. Was not the solemn league and covenant burnt by the common hangman amid the huzzas of tens of thousands who had themselves subscribed it? Among the statesmen and warriors who bore the chief part in restoring Charles II. how many were there who had not repeatedly abjured him? Nay, is it not well known that some of those persons boastfully affirmed that if they had not abjured him they never could have restored him? And I recollect, my Lords, in one of the debates which took place in this House upon the subject of oaths, it was made a subject of merriment as to the number of violations of oath with which their Lordships themselves were chargeable. Another objection I have to this Bill is, that it is an insult to the Protestants of this country. My noble Friend in one part of the Bill requires every Protestant—for it applies to Protestants only, and not to Catholics—to declare that he makes this declaration without evasion, without mental reservation, and without equivocation. I should wish to know at what period of our history it was ever imputed to Protestants that they were guilty of evasion when oaths were administered to them. Undoubtedly such an imputation was cast upon the Catholics—whether justly or not I will not say—but no imputation of the sort was ever cast upon Protestants; and I therefore most strongly object that in this new oath brought forward by my noble Friend, an imputation of this kind should for the first time be alleged against the whole body of Protestants throughout this country. Nay, more, do the words included in this new oath, "upon the true faith of a Christian," at all add to the value of an oath taken by Protestant Members? If I swear to bear faithful allegiance to Her Majesty, does it add to the obligation of my oath that I make use of the words "on the true faith of a Christian? "Why, then, should these words be imported into an oath taken by a Protestant? I can understand why they should have been inserted in the case of a Catholic; but to thrust it in its present shape, and containing this phrase, upon Protestants, appears to me to be an insult to their understanding. My Lords, I have heard it said by a learned Friend of mine, for whom I have great respect, that the oath of allegiance is a meagre oath, that it is a mere modicum, and that this is one of the reasons why a new oath should be framed. I have the greatest respect for that noble Lord. I would, however, oppose to his opinion that of Lord Hale, who says he considers that oath simple, plain, and easily understood; that there is nothing cumbrous in it; and that it fulfils the whole duty owing by a subject to his Sovereign. These are the words of my Lord Hale, and I might, if it were necessary, quote another living authority, for which I have the highest respect, to the same effect. But, my Lords, I think I can understand the object of this Bill. It is directed against the Jews, and intended to exclude them from Parliament. The measure can have no other object—for any other purpose it is wholly unnecessary. At present, as the law now stands, we are simply on the defensive. The Legislature says to the Jews, "We do nothing; you cannot come into Parliament." But the Bill now before your Lordships assumes the offensive, and will directly exclude the Jews from Parliament. If this Bill be passed by the other House of Parliament, what will then become of the argument so repeatedly urged in the discussions on this question, that the Jews are excluded from Parliament by a mere phrase? Why, it will be at once said, should this measure become law, that there is direct legislation against them—that they are excluded by the direct votes of both branches of the Legislature. That is the object of the noble Earl's Bill. But what will be thought of it in the other House of Parliament? Is it possible that this Bill can be read a second time there? Impossible! After all that has passed, the House of Commons will consider it a mockery, not to use a stronger term, to send such a Bill down to them. I do not go so far as a noble Lord who spoke the other night and said that the effect of our resisting the claims of the Jews will be that we shall have to go as suppliants to the other House, in order to induce them to pass a Bill originating with your Lordships and relating to the improvement of the appellate jurisdiction. I do not suffer such ideas as these to influence me; but to send such a Bill down to the other House will be—I will not call it an insult—but certainly a mockery. Entertaining these opinions, I shall, in Committee, move at the end of the Bill, the words, "which oath, being so amended, is as follows," then setting forth the oath; and I shall also move to strike out all the concluding words of the oath, "without evasion, equivocation," and so on, to the end of the oath, including the words, "upon the true faith of a Christian."

THE EARL OF DERBY

My Lords, I cannot but regret that, having stated very ably and forcibly upon another occasion his reasons for supporting the Bill then under consideration, my noble and learned Friend should think it expedient or necessary upon the present occasion to reopen a question which I understood had been decided at that time by a vote of your Lordships' House. I regret still more that the noble and learned Lord was not present upon the second reading of the Bill now before you, because, if he had been, it would have saved your Lordships the trouble of hearing me repeat a second time the grounds upon which the Bill was framed in its present shape. My Lords, I must say—and I hope it is not inconsistent with the greatest possible respect to my noble and learned Friend to say so—that his remarks upon this Bill, more especially with regard to its substance, contain a greater amount of misrepresentation than I ever recollect to have heard from the lips of any Member of this House upon any subject whatever. My noble and learned Friend tells me that I am now about to bring forward this measure for the avowed purpose of excluding the Jews from Parliament by certain words. Now, I beg my noble and learned Friend to answer me this question,—how this Bill in the slightest degree affects any one Jew with regard to his rights existing or hereafter to exist? I wish to know what provision there is in this Bill in the slightest degree touching the Jews? I wish to know in what particular this Bill does not leave the law in the position in which it finds it? My noble and learned Friend tells me that I am introducing a new disqualification of the Jews; that I am imposing, forsooth, a new oath, by the terms of which I shall exclude the Jews from Parliament. Now, my Lords, if I recollect rightly, in the Bill supported by my noble and learned Friend the other night the existing oath was altogether done away with; unless my memory greatly fails me, a new oath was there set forth; and, after repealing the former oath, he did by his Bill that which the present measure does not do—namely, impose a new oath upon the Jews. My noble and learned Friend says, further, that this oath, which he maintains is for the purpose of excluding Jews from Parliament, but which I contend does not in any way affect the position of the Jews as regards admission to Parliament, will be offensive to the feelings of the Jews, and also to those of the other House of Parliament, and that I am re-enacting certain words which it is impossible that the other House can assent to. Now, my Lords, I stated the other night, and I state again now, that my intention is carefully to avoid the re-enactment of specific words which would perhaps bring your Lordships' House into an unnecessary collision with the House of Commons; and for that reason I have retained the oath as it at present stands, omitting only those parts of it which relate to the descendants of James II. As I understand the matter, your Lordships have decided one question in a sense opposed to that evinced by the other House of Parliament—namely, the question of the omission of the words, "on the true faith of a Christian;" but that was plainly a question which did not necessarily involve anything in connection with the descendants of James II. My noble and learned Friend has paid me too great a compliment, and himself too poor a one, in saying that I have acted as a subtle practitioner in framing this new exclusion against the Jews. Now, my noble and learned Friend must permit me to remind him of that of which, from his great experience and acuteness, he cannot be ignorant—namely, that if any of the subtleness of the practitioner has been displayed in this matter at all, it has been displayed by my noble and learned Friend in the Bill which he brought before your Lordships. My noble and learned Friend, in the preamble of his Bill, having recited that the oath of abjuration, so far as regarded the descendants of James, was unnecessary, inasmuch as there were no such descendants, then went on to say, "therefore be it enacted that a certain oath, which, whatever was its original intention, has had the practical effect of excluding Jews from Parliament, shall be repealed." If, therefore, there has been any subtlety, that subtlety has been displayed by my noble and learned Friend who introduced a Bill professedly for one purpose, but in reality for another. I cannot, however, call it great subtlety on the part of my noble and learned Friend, because, in point of fact, the plan was too palpable to deceive the minds of any one of your Lordships, except, perhaps, the ingenuous and unsophisticated mind of a noble Friend of mine, not now in his place, who announced to your Lordships that, although he saw the inconvenience of admitting Jews to Parliament, he was prepared to give his assent to a Bill which would have the effect of indirectly admitting them, although, indeed, he should feel himself bound to oppose any measure brought forward directly for that purpose. But, my Lords, I can quite sympathise with my noble and learned Friend, because if your Lordships agree to the present Bill he will lose the stalking-horse he has found so convenient—the abjuration of the descendants of James—and will, no doubt, find considerably more difficulty on future occasions in inducing your Lordships to assent to that which mainly caused the rejection of his measure. I can easily allow for the annoyance which my noble and learned Friend feels at the prospect of a Bill being carried which will remove the substantial cause of quarrel which your Lordships may have with the oath in its present form, and increase the difficulties against which he will have to contend in carrying out the object which, he really has in view. It appears, however, to me, that the course which I have pursued in proposing this Bill is both straightforward in form and convenient in practice. It is straightforward because the object of the Bill is clearly and openly set forth in the preamble, that object being to give effect to the objection entertained by your Lordships and the other House of Parliament to the retention of terms which the lapse of time and other circumstances have rendered wholly unnecessary. The Bill, therefore, having recited the circumstances which render the alteration of the oath expedient, provides that alteration in strict conformity with the circumstances so detailed; and in drawing it especial care has been taken not to throw down the gauntlet of defiance to the other House of Parliament, which we should do by abolishing the existing oath altogether and enacting another containing words to which the House of Commons has expressed its objection. The measure has been brought forward in a spirit of good feeling, and with a desire of obtaining that which your Lordships and the House of Commons are desirous of obtaining, and, at the same time, of obviating the introduction of words which would necessarily lead to a considerable difference of opinion, and perhaps endanger the success of the measure. I hope, therefore, that it is not unreasonable to expect and to trust that the House of Commons will not think it necessary, for the sake of renewing this discussion, to insist upon an alteration in the form of this Bill. If the form of the Bill be altered one of two things must happen—either your Lordships must go back from the position which you took up the other evening, or else, by insisting upon the retention of these words, you must throw down to the House of Commons a challenge which I am desirous of avoiding. If the House of Commons take what I should consider the ill-advised course of insisting upon the omission from the oath of those words which your Lordships are desirous of retaining, either those who have charge of this Bill will be compelled to abstain from attempting to carry it into law, or else the Bill will be again altered to be again rejected; and then I wish to know how the Jews will be in a better position than they at present are, while there is no doubt that such a course would be most likely to excite continual irritation. My noble and learned Friend studiously seeks to keep open a question which will give rise to a controversy which this Bill studiously keeps out of sight. The argument that this Bill is brought forward with a want of form is, I think, hardly worthy of the great ability and long experience of my noble and learned Friend. But when my noble and learned Friend argues upon the insult which this Bill offers to Protestants, and upon the injustice, the inexpediency, and the unavailingness of oaths at all, he takes up a question totally beside the discussion. But, my Lords, if such were the opinions of my noble and learned Friend, I want to know why it was that he proposed to re-enact the oath? And I want to know why he proposed to re-enact in his Bill that very portion of the oath which I would retain in the form in which it now stands?

LORD LYNDHURST

I would not re-enact it in the same form.

THE EARL OF DERBY

I am aware the noble and learned Lord proposed to leave out certain words; still he proposed to renew the oath, and thus he opposed the principle of his present objection. I assume that Parliament is desirous that the oath to be taken should be something more than the oath of allegiance. I therefore propose to continue the existing oath, with the exception of those words which, according to the preamble of my noble and learned Friend's Bill, are become wholly obsolete and unnecessary. I do hope that your Lordships will not consent to the Amendments which my noble and learned Friend has stated that he will propose, and the object of which will no doubt be to strike out from the oath words with which we are not now dealing; the sole object of the present Bill being to get rid of that which all acknowledge to be objectionable, without sacrificing a form which a majority of your Lordships and a large minority of the House of Commons have expressed the opinion that it is desirable to retain.

LORD LYNDHURST

said, that no doubt he had introduced into his Bill an oath for maintaining the succession to the Crown as established by law; because when he proposed, on a former occasion, to repeal the abjuration oath, he was told that a portion of that oath related to the succession to the Crown, and he was met with a great deal of opposition in consequence. The oath, as it was now proposed by the noble Earl, would contain the words "on the true faith of a Christian," the effect of which would be to exclude the Jews from sitting in Parliament. Whether that were done negatively or affirmatively, the effect was the same; and if the other House should assent to the noble Earl's Bill, both Houses of Parliament would, then, in fact, have pronounced judgment against the Jews. At the present time Jews were only excluded from Parliament by the vote of one House; and he opposed the Bill of the noble Earl because its effect would be to exclude the Jews by the votes of both Houses.

LORD CAMPBELL

said, that, notwithstanding the sincere respect which he entertained for the public career of the noble Earl, he could not admire the course which he had taken with regard to this Bill. The noble Earl had laid it upon the table just before the period fixed for the second reading of the Bill of his noble and learned Friend; evidently with the object that by removing certain words, which made the oath almost a profane one, he might cut away a considerable portion of the argument which might have been adduced in favour of the measure of his noble and learned Friend. He thought it very probable, if this Bill passed their Lordships' House, that the noble Earl might be in the position of an "engineer hoist by his own petard," and that it would be returned from the House of Commons divested of the words "on the true faith of a Christian." It was perfectly absurd to call this a Bill for the Amendment of the oath of abjuration, because in point of fact it did not amend, but abolished that oath altogether.

THE EARL OF EGLINTON

contended that his noble Friend had acted in a candid and straightforward manner in introducing this Bill, and observed that, while one noble and learned Lord charged him with having pursued a subtle course, the noble and learned Lord who had last spoken said that it was a positively ridiculous and foolish one. He thought that it would tend very much to the credit of their Lordships if they would pass a measure which would give them a sensible and clear oath, containing nothing that was obsolete and unnecessary.

LORD DENMAN

agreed with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), that the Bill was improperly styled an "Oath of Abjuration Amendment Bill," because it abjured nothing; and he suggested that it might be called the "Oath of Fidelity Bill," or some such name as that.

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH

said, that he was satisfied with the oath as he understood it to be proposed by his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) inasmuch as, practically, it left the Jews where they were at present, and where he trusted that they would continue to be left. He had always voted against the admission of Jews to Parliament, and he always must vote in the same way, because he had a feeling, superior to all reasoning, that it would be wrong to do that which he believed would disparage the Christian character of the Legislature. Upon that sole ground he had at all times opposed the admission of Jews to Parliament. But, while that was his opinion of the result of his noble Friend's measure, if passed, he must confess that he saw great weight in what had fallen from the two noble and learned Lords at the table (Lords Lyndhurst and Campbell), with respect to the manner in which it was probable that the Bill would be dealt with by the other House. The strength of their Lordships' House was in the defensive. It was by remaining on the defensive, although they possessed a commanding majority in that House, that they were enabled for ten years to support the Opposition led by the late Duke of Wellington. At the commencement of that great Opposition the noble Duke on one occasion adopted the offensive, in which he was successful in that House; but a counter Resolution was immediately carried in the House of Commons which overruled all that the Duke of Wellington and his Friends had done, and placed them in a much worse position than they would have occupied if they had never moved at all. He recollected well the noble Duke saying to him that he had been convinced their strength was in dealing with Bills sent up from the House of Commons, and that he never would again fall into the mistake of taking the initiative. Their Lordships could not occupy a better position than that in which they now found themselves. They had defeated by an ample majority—which but for an accident would have been larger—the attempt to admit Jews to Parliament. Let them leave well alone. They were now asked to send down to the House of Commons a Bill which must produce a renewed discussion, a renewed conflict, upon that subject. Whenever that conflict arose, he must always vote in the same way as he had done; but there was no discussion which took place during the Session in that House which was to him so disagreeable as the discussion annually forced upon them with respect to the Jews. He did not think it desirable for their Lordships to court a collision with the House of Commons upon that subject. If the House of Commons attempted to force their religious opinions—and he apprehended it was a religious feeling which animated the majority of their Lordships in refusing admission to the Jews—they were ready to defeat that attempt, and he trusted that the people of England would respect the principles and views upon which they acted. But if their Lordships, leaving their position of strength, descended into the arena and sought a conflict upon that subject, he doubted greatly whether public opinion would to the same extent support them, and he was sure they would do that which would be injudicious, which might produce inconvenience, and which might, even at this late period of the Session, with all the accidents which might possibly arise, imperil the position of strength in which they now stood.

THE EARL OF DERBY

wished to say a few words in reply to the noble Earl. His objection to remaining precisely where they were was not an objection founded on the admission or non-admission of the Jews, but that the continuance in the oath of abjuration of the words referring to the Stuarts would enable those who advocated the admission of the Jews to Parliament to renew the discussion upon that question under the pretext of abolishing an utterly indefensible part of the oath. It was his object to deprive them of that advantage by removing from the oath everything that was avowedly indefensible; and he wished to know which would he the more reasonable course—to do that which by the common consent of mankind ought to be done, or to refuse to adopt an acknowledged improvement unless something was done wholly foreign to the object of the Bill? But, whether the House of Commons adopted or rejected the Bill, their Lordships would not be troubled with a renewed discussion in the course of the present Session, because, rather than agree to the omission of words which would have the effect of admitting the Jews, those who would be charged with the Bill in the other House would at once throw it up.

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH

said, he did not like to differ from the noble Earl on a point of Parliamentary practice and rule, but his impression was that a Bill when laid on the table became the property of the House, and ceased to belong to any individual Member.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

said, he was glad that the author of the Bill had admitted that his object in introducing it was to remove a clog which he acknowledged to be a great obstacle to him in fighting the opponents of the oath of abjuration. Why, such being the case, did he refuse to adopt the manly course of repealing the oath and excluding the Jews by direct enactment? Not one word had he said in reply to the Lord Chief Justice, who had demonstrated the absurdity of the Bill, and showed that it would place the House in a ridiculous, perhaps an offensive light. The noble Earl opposite had told their Lordships that the Bill would be dropped in the other House if an attempt were made to omit the words "on the true faith of a Christian." Why should the noble Earl decline a conference with the House of Commons on the subject? Because he knew that one of the noblest passages in the Journals of their Lordships' House was that in which their ancestors declared, 150 years ago, that no English subject could be in a more miserable and unhappy condition than to be precluded by law from the full enjoyment of all the rights and privileges that properly belonged to him. He knew that that passage would he appealed to by the House of Commons in favou of the admission of the Jews; he was conscious of his inability to answer it; and it was because he could not meet it fairly that he had resolved to avoid it altogether.

Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

LORD LYNDHURST

then formally proposed his Amendments, which were as follows— To leave out the words in line 18, and the word 'abjuration' shall be omitted from the last sentence of the first oath, and the word 'renunciation' from the same sentence of the said oath and affirmation," for the purpose of inserting the following words?— And the following words shall also be omitted from the latter portion of the said oath—that is to say, 'And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to these express words by me spoken, and according to the plain common sense and understanding of the same words, without any equivocation, mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever. And I do make this recognition, acknowledgment, and promise heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian.' Also, in line 21, after the word 'affirmation,' to insert the words, 'which oath so amended will stand as follows.'— I, A B, do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare, in my conscience before God and the world, that our Sovereign lady Queen Victoria is lawful and rightful Queen of this realm, and all other Her Majesty's dominions and countries thereunto belonging. And I do swear that I will bear faith and true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and Her will defend to the utmost of my power against all traitorous conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against Her person, crown, or dignity. And I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to Her Majesty and Her successors all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which I shall know to be against Her or any of them. And I do faithfully promise to the utmost of my power to support, maintain, and defend the succession of the Crown against all persons whatsoever, which succession, by an Act entitled, 'An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better Securing the Rights and Liberties of the 'Subject,' is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants. Amendment in the title—after the word 'doth,' to insert the words 'commonly called the oath.'

THE EARL OF DERBY

wished to impress upon their Lordships that the practical effect of the Amendments would be expressly to carry out the views which they had negatived the other night. It was, moreover, opposed to the whole spirit of the Bill, and, therefore, he hoped it would be rejected by their Lordships.

LORD LYNDHURST

said, he did not mean to press his Amendments at this stage. He would withdraw them for the present, but would give notice that he would move them on the Report.

Amendments negatived.

THE EARL OF DERBY

suggested that his noble and learned Friend should give notice of his Amendments for the third reading, and, if he did so, he would be prepared to meet them.

Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.