Commons Sitting of 3 August 1857

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act (1855) Amendment.
3°Superannuation Act Amendment.

OATHS VALIDITY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
Sir FREDERIC THESIGER: Sir, seeing the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London in his place, perhaps I may be permitted to ask him, supposing the House should agree to the Motion of which he has given notice for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider whether the Act of the 5 & 6 Will. IV., chap. 62, is applicable to Oaths appointed by law to be taken by Members of this House at the Table, what he proposes to do with the Bill which stands for to-night in his name for a second reading?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I propose to postpone that Bill for a week.

LIABILITIES OF TRUSTEES.—QUESTION.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he intends to bring in a Bill this Session or the next to relieve trustees from certain liabilities at law in respect of trust
930
property, consequent on acts done by them in the reasonable exercise of their judgment, and without fraud; and from the acts of co-trustees, deposits with bankers, and other dealings, such as would be reasonable and proper in the conduct of private business?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he certainly was anxious to accompany the measure designed to prevent frauds by trustees with another measure almost equally necessary, of the nature indicated by the hon. Member. A noble and learned Lord in another place, however, had given notice of his Intention to introduce such a Bill, and he (the Attorney General) had thought it desirable to postpone his measure until he had seen the Bill of that noble and learned Lord.

LEASES AND SALES OF SETTLED ESTATES ACT AMENDMENT ACT.
  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, in reply to Lord Robert Grosvenor, if he should not be able to bring on the second reading of this Bill to-morrow he should postpone it until the next Session.

  COMMUNICATION BETWEEN LONDON AND DUBLIN.—QUESTI0N.
  MR. REPTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of the Correspondence between the Government and the London and North Western Railway Company relative to the improved communication between London and Dublin?
  MR. WILSONsaid, the correspondence was very voluminous, but he should lay on the Table the terms of the contract if that would satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

  MONEY DUE FROM THE MONTE VIDEAN GOVERNMENT.—QUESTION.
  MR. WYSEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of the Treasury what is the total amount of the money advanced to Mr. Ouseley on account of the Monte Videan Government, by whose authority the advances were made from the Civil Contingencies Fund, and what prospect there is of the repayment of the £37,395 stated to be the balance now due to this country; whether it is the practice of the Foreign Office to draw on the Treasury for payments of this character to Foreign Governments without the consent and knowledge of Parliament?
  MR. WILSONsaid, the total amount due to Her Majesty's Government from the Monte Videan Government was £50,909, of which £37,395 had been advanced from Civil Contingencies and the rest by votes of that House. With regard to the prospect of repayment, all he could say was that Her Majesty's Government were doing their best to induce the Monte Videan Government to repay what the English Government believed to be a just debt due to them from the Government of Monte Video. The money was advanced by the English Consul General some years ago for the benefit of the community of Monte Video during a time of disturbance, and his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office was doing what he could to procure the liquidation of the debt. With regard to the last question, he thought if the hon. Member would consider what the nature of the Civil Contingencies Fund was he would see that it was a sum of money voted by that House annually for the purpose of meeting unforeseen emergencies, and that if any emergency arose, whether at home or abroad, it was to that Fund that the Ministry looted for the payment of the expense. The Foreign Office did not draw on the Treasury, but, on an emergency arising, the Foreign Office applied to the Treasury, and if the latter department thought the expenditure fitting they made an advance for the purpose on their own responsibility.
  MR. WISEsaid, he wished to know how it was that Parliament had been kept in total ignorance of this Vote since 1851?
  MR. WILSONsaid, Parliament had not been kept in total ignorance of the Vote. It was not a Vote; the money was advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to ask what authority the Consul had to expend the money?
  MR. WILSONsaid, when Sir William Ouseley was acting as agent for this Government at Monte Video he was acting under the general power given to him by the Foreign Office for the purpose of protecting British interests in those parts, the same as every other Foreign Minister must do when abroad serving his country, and he must be presumed to have exercised a certain amount of discretion in the matter.

  GALWAY TOWN ELECTION.— CONFERENCE.
  The time being come for the Conference with the Lords upon the subject matter of an Address to be presented to Her Majesty,
  932
  under the provisions of the Act of the 15th and 16th of Her present Majesty, c. 57:—
  Ordered,—
  That a Committee be appointed to manage the Conference:—and a Committee was appointed of Mr. MASSEY, Lord LOVAINE, Colonel WILSON PATTEN, Mr. GEORGE CLIVE, Sir JOHN YARDE BULLER, Mr. FITZROY, Mr. DODSON, Mr. ESTCOURT, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. THORNELY, and Captain VIVIAN.
  Then the names of the managers were called over, and they went to the Conference; and being returned,
  MR. MASSEY reported,—
  That the managers had been at the Conference, which was managed on the part of the Lords by the LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL, and that they had delivered to their Lordships the Address agreed upon by this House, to which they desired the concurrence of their Lordships, and that they had left the said Address with their Lordships.

  WORKS IN INDIA.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Control whether there is any objection to the following Returns being annually laid before Parliament previous to the Indian Financial Statement:—

  1. A Return of the Sums expended in each year in British India in the construction of roads, and bridges, and works of navigation; specifying the districts in which they have been constructed, and the length and expense of new road and navigation in each district.

  2. A similar Return as regards the construction of works of irrigation, distinguishing those which serve the purpose of navigation and irrigation, and including the construction or improvement of water tanks.

  MR. VERNON SMITHreplied, that there would be no objection to lay those Returns annually before Parliament.

  THE MILITIA.—STATEMENT:
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON, having presented, by command of Her Majesty, certain Supplementary Army Estimates, said, —These are Estimates for the service of such portion of the Militia as Parliament may authorize Her Majesty to embody, and as Her Majesty may be advised to embody, during the course of the year. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for the War Department will present to-day to the other House of Parliament a Bill to empower the Queen, though there be no war or insurrection within the realm, which are the conditions requisite at present

  933
  for the embodiment of the Militia, to embody between this and the 24th of March next any portion of the Militia which it may be advisable to call out.

  THE BENGAL ARMY.—QUESTION.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he would beg to ask whether the Noble Lord had made any inquiries relative to the missing despatch of Sir Charles Napier respecting the organization of the Bengal Army.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid in reply, that a letter from Sir Charles Napier directed to the Duke of Wellington, and not to Lord Dalhousie, had been found at the Horse Guards. It was dated June, 1850, and related to the arrangements in regard to the Queen's Army, and also, in another part, to the organization of the Army of the East India Company. He would lay before Parliament that portion of the letter which related to the Indian Army.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that Sir William Napier, than whom there could not be a better authority, had stated that he had published this very letter some three years ago. ["No, No!"] Sir William Napier had distinctly stated that this letter, written by Sir Charles Napier, was now before the public in the posthumous work of the latter on Indian Misgovernment. There need not, therefore, be any difficulty in regard to its production.

OATHS TAKEN BY MEMBERS.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: In rising to make the Motion of which I have given notice, upon a subject which concerns the seats of Members in this House—a Motion which my noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) has allowed me to make in precedence of the Orders of the Day—I should be wanting in respect to the House, if I did not lay before it the grounds of that Motion; although, on the other hand, it would be highly presumptuous in me to attempt to submit to the House anything like a complete argument upon a question of law which I ask to have discussed by the persons most competent to deal with it. I shall, therefore, endeavour to lay such a statement before the House as may justify me in asking for the appointment of the Committee which I propose, leaving the complete discussion and sifting of the question to the members of the Committee. Sir, I have upon the paper to-night a Bill
  934
  respecting the validity of certain oaths. Since I introduced that Bill, Baron Rothschild has informed me that the suggestion has been made to him—it is not material, at the present moment, to say by whom— that the Act to which I have referred in my notice would enable this House to make an order by which he could take a declaration at the table, in lieu of the oath of abjuration; and that, if the House should be pleased to adopt that course, he would feel no objection to make a declaration so established by order of this House. When I was thus informed, I looked carefully at the Act to which I was referred, and I will endeavour to state the general purport of that Act, and the policy upon which it appeared to me to be founded. At the commencement of the reign of William IV. it was the opinion of Parliament that some endeavours ought to be made to reduce the great multiplicity of oaths, which had become a scandal to this country, and which frequently led to an appeal to Almighty God in cases the most frivolous, and even in cases in which it was notorious that the oaths were unnecessary. Among those whose special attention was directed to this subject was the Duke of Richmond, a man of very great capacity, and of the highest integrity. The Duke of Richmond brought the question before the House of Lords; and on his suggestion, or the suggestion of some other person, a Bill was passed, relieving the departments of the Excise and Customs from a great number of unnecessary oaths. In 1835, a further step was taken in the same direction, and a Bill was presented to the House of Lords, by which, starting from the principle of the first Act, it was proposed to include all the great departments of the State, and to enable the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to appoint certain declarations which were to be taken in the office of the Treasury itself, in the offices of the Secretaries of State, and, in fact, in all the highest and most important offices in this country. The policy, therefore, was, as it were, an ascending policy, mounting from the minor departments of Custom-house officers and excisemen to the distinguished personages administering the Government of the empire, and, as the Act which I propose to amend was supposed to extend only to oaths taken in courts of justice, so the Act to which I am now referring was one of a totally different description, and applied to all those oaths which had been appointed to be taken by persons having

  935
  a share in the administration of affairs. I shall state some of the provisions of the 5 Will. TV., cap. 8, which is, in fact, the foundation of the Act to which my Motion relates. That Act was entitled:—
  "An Act for the more effectual abolition of oaths and Affirmations taken and made in various Departments of the State, and to substitute Declarations in lieu thereof; and for the more entire suppression of voluntary and extra-judicial Oaths and Affidavits."
  It was provided in the Act that it should come into force on the 1st of June; but it did not receive the Royal assent till the 12th, and therefore it was necessary to pass another to amend it. The latter is the Act to which my Motion refers,—namely, the 5 & 6 Will. IV., cap. 62. It is called an Act to repeal the former Act, and to make other provisions for the Abolition of unnecessary Oaths. In the 6th section the oath of allegiance is declared to be an oath for which no substitution of a declaration shall be allowed. That is very remarkable, because it shows the intention of Parliament with regard to the oath of allegiance, separating it from the oath of abjuration and various other oaths. The 7th section excepts judicial proceedings, and declares that the Act shall not extend to them, thus still more clearly confining the Act, and pointing it to the administration of oaths in the higher departments. The 8th section is to the following effect:—
  "And be it enacted that it shall be lawful for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and for all others bodies corporate and politic, and for all bodies now by law or statute, or by any valid usage, authorized to administer or receive any oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit, to make statutes, by-laws, or orders, authorizing and directing the substitution of a declaration in lieu of any oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit, now required to be taken or made."
  The Act likewise provides a schedule showing the form of affirmation which was to be taken instead of an oath, where, by any proper authority, the one was substituted for the other. "I, A. B., do solemnly and sincerely declare that"—here there was a blank for the substance of the declaration —
  "And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of an Act made and passed in the——year of the reign of His present Majesty entitled, &c."
  I beg again to read the words of this section:—
  "It shall be lawful for *** all bodies corporate and politic, and for all bodies now by law or by statute, or by any valid usage, authorized to
  936
  administer or receive any oath, to make Statutes, by-laws or orders, authorizing and directing the substitution of a declaration in lieu of any oath."
  Now, Sir, it is plain from those words, placing upon them the usual construction that words should have, that the House of Commons, being a body authorized by valid usage to administer and receive oaths, is a body which is included within the provisions of that Act of Parliament. In stating this opinion, I, of course, am only saying what occurs to me, as a plain unlearned man, as to the meaning of this Act; but, in proposing a Committee, I am proposing to refer to the most learned persons in this House to inquire what is the true meaning of this statute. When, upon former occasions, I proposed Resolutions, and thus aided in preventing Baron Rothschild and Mr. Alderman Salomons from taking their seats in this House, by virtue of what I conceived to be the existing law, I took the opinion of the Attorney General of the day, whom I considered to be the best fitted to guide upon those occasions. Although there were learned authorities, upon each occasion, who differed from me—and I will not say now that I am perfectly convinced I was right as to the law—yet, as I took the best advice I could obtain, so I should hope that this House will, upon the present occasion, have the assistance and opinion of the learned Attorney General, who, not only by his official position, but from his eminent abilities—abilities of which we have had such recent proof in this House—is peculiarly qualified to lead this House, and to give them an opinion upon this matter. But, passing from the question of the plain meaning of these words it occurs to me that it may be said in reply that it was not the intention of Parliament, in passing that Act to include therein oaths to be taken at the table of this House. I can see no reason for that exception, because, as the Act especially excludes proceedings before Parliament, and judicial proceedings, thereby providing for the case of impeachments, we must thence conclude that the oaths to be taken in Parliament, at the table of this House, were to be included in the Act. But I think it would ill become those who have excluded the Jews, by virtue of a harsh and strict literal interpretation of the present law, to insist now that what would appear to be the plain construction of the Act to which I have referred ought not to be carried into effect, if it could by any means be shown that it was not the intention

  937
  of Parliament, in passing the Act, to maintain that construction. Every one knows now that the words "on the true faith of a Christian," which exclude the Jews, were placed in the oath, not to exclude Jews, but a certain class of Roman Catholics. Every one knows that that class of Roman Catholics has now ceased to exist; but that even if such persons did exist, they could take seats in this House, and hold office, because the Roman Catholic oath which they would now take does not contain the words, "on the true faith of a Christian." Therefore, I think it would be a bold proceeding for persons who have kept out the Jews by all sorts of technicalities, by insisting, against the meaning and against the intention of Parliament, for a strict literal interpretation of the words, to come now and say, "It is quite true the construction of the Act is so; it is quite true that the words cover a declaration ordered by Parliament; but we do not think Parliament could have intended as much, and we will apply just the reverse argument we have hitherto applied, and, having formerly excluded the Jews by a strict and literal interpretation, we will now exclude them by a lax interpretation, being determined never, in any way, to let them into Parliament. "That appears to me to be the nature of the case, as it stands upon this Act of Parliament. But there is a further question which I have heard raised. I have had the advantage of speaking to several gentlemen learned in the law, and I am told that doubts may be started even if the House should make an order, as they are empowered to do by this Act, that instead of the oath of abjuration a declaration should be ordered to be made, whether in that declaration the words "on the true faith of a Christian" should not be introduced. With respect to that argument I should say we have plenty of precedents to guide us, and to induce us to leave out those words. In the first place, these words constitute an oath, and they are as such left out, we shall be following, so far as I can collect, the precedent of the ease of Mr. Pease? What was the case of Mr. Pease? That gentleman came to the table and asked to be allowed to affirm. He was ordered to withdraw. A Committee was appointed, who came to this Resolution—that Mr. Pease should be permitted to take his seat upon making a solemn affirmation and declaration to the effect of the oaths. Mr. Pease was examined by the Committee and
  938
  asked whether members of the Society of Friends objected to use the words "on the true faith of a Christian," and he replied, "Yes, I believe they would almost universally object." He was then asked, "Would they consider the words, 'on the true faith of a Christian,' to be swearing?" Mr. Pease replied, "Yes, many would object under such a view." It appears, therefore, as far as can be ascertained—for the public records were destroyed by the fire of the old Houses of Parliament—that Mr. Pease, not feeling himself able to take the oath of abjuration, and there being no special form of declaration which he was authorized to make at the table of this House, the Select Committee—which included a man of the greatest eminence, one who fully understood the forms, precedents, and privileges of this House — Mr. Charles Wynn—recommended that he should be permitted to come to the table and make an affirmation. But there is further evidence in an Act which was passed in the course of the same Session, the 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 49. That Act was introduced by the present Lord Carlisle, and it seems to have been the opinion of those who drew that Act that it was desirable, in order to prevent all doubt or cavil thereafter arising, to lay down the precise form of declaration to be taken on any future occasion in lieu of abjuration. The form is accordingly set forth. But first they state in the preamble the object of the Act:—
  "And whereas some doubts may arise as to the form of the Affirmation to be taken in lieu of the Oath of Abjuration by persons of the persuasion of the people called Quakers;"
  They then set out the form of the declaration, which ends with these words—
  "And I do make this recognition, acknowledgment, renunciation, and promise heartily, willingly, and truly;" omitting "on the true faith of a Christian."
  Those words are very remarkable. I don't know that in general Acts of Parliament are intended to be sarcastic or contemptuous, but the words, "whereas some doubts may have arisen," would seem to mean that there are some people of weak understanding who might raise doubts, and it was only to remove the scruples from the minds of those persons that the Act of Parliament was required. In the declaration therein enacted the words were, "I declare willingly and truly," omitting the words, "on the true faith of a Christian." Now, upon the Act to which I have referred, and

  939
  the precedent I have quoted, I rest my proposal that a Committee of the House should sit in order to ascertain what is the proper construction of the Act; and if they should be of opinion that the terms of the Act would bear an interpretation that would admit of the substitution of a declaration instead of the oath of abjuration, then the question will arise in what manner the House should make an order for that purpose. "Order" is the word in the statute, and "Orders" are the very form by which the House carries into effect its own regulations. If they can do so it will be a great relief to many persons. My noble Friend at the head of the Government, in proposing an alteration of the oath, said in regard to the oath of abjuration and that portion of it referring to the person calling himself Prince of Wales and afterwards James VII. Of Scotland, that it was difficult for Members of this House to swear to all those propositions without an inward blush. If we should be enabled to substitute a declaration for an oath, it will be far less offensive to make a declaration of what in a great measure is mere harmless nonsense than to make a solemn public oath as to such matters. We are precluded by the vote of the House of Lords from adopting the sensible form of oath which the Government proposed early in the Session. They have decided we shall not have the power to alter the oath; they will not give their consent to any such alteration; and, therefore, it behoves us to consider how we may best release ourselves from the reproach which rests upon us. Above all, when a Member is elected to this House by a numerous and respectable constituency, when he has a prima facie right to his seat, if he be duly elected, it would be very desirable, if possible, to find that the law interposes no obstacle to his enjoyment of the privilege to which he has been elected. Everything of the nature of a restriction ought to be, according to the spirit of the laws of England, an exception; and, if the law entitles us to make such a change as I have just referred to, I think it will be hailed by this House as a relief from the present difficulties. The noble Lord concluded by moving for a "Select Committee to consider whether the Act 5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 62, is applicable to Oaths appointed by Law to be taken by Members of this House at the Table previously to their taking their Seats, and in what
  940
  manner the said Act can be so applied, and to report their Observations thereupon to the House. That the Committee do consist of the following twenty-five Members:—Viscount PALMERSTON, Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. DISRAELI, Mr. WALPOLE, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Sir FREDERIC THESIGER, Sir FITZROY KELLY, Lord STANLEY, Mr. HORSMAN, Mr. HENLEY, Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. MALINS, Mr. HEADLAM, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. DILLWYN, Mr. NAPIER, Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR, Mr. WHITESIDE, Mr. COBBETT, and all gentlemen of the Long Robe, Members of this House."
  SIR FREDERIC THESIGER: It is not my intention to divide the House on the Motion of the noble Lord for a Select Committee of inquiry, but at the same time I cannot permit the matter to pass without some observations. The noble Lord professes to have discovered, or rather to have had suggested to him, the existence of an Act of Parliament, long overlooked or forgotten, which will accomplish the darling object of a ten years' wish of the noble Lord, which will render of no avail the opposition of the House of Lords, and place the last stone on the edifice of civil and religious liberty. The noble Lord instead of coming forward with a Resolution that this Act of Parliament, which the Committee will be called on to consider, does accomplish that object, proposes to delegate the functions of the House to a Committee, which is, to say the least, of a most extraordinary character. There is nothing that that Committee will have to do but to consider the effect of the Act of the 5 & 6 Will. IV. There are no other labours the Committee will have to perform—no search for authorities or precedents, no inquiry after any other Act of Parliament which may be supposed to bear on the question;—all the Committee has to do is to anticipate the functions of the House by reporting whether the 5 & 6 Will. IV. does or does not attain the object which the noble Lord has in view. Now, considering that the Committee ought to proceed to their duty with unprejudiced minds, and that the subject ought not to be prejudged, I think it would have been better if the noble Lord had abstained, as he promised, from entering into any argument as to the effect of that Act; but inasmuch as the noble Lord

  941
  thought proper not to abstain from entering into such Arguments as would, he thought, induce the House to acquiesce in his views, I am compelled to follow his example. I have been taught by him, and in the words of the dramatic Jew, with which the noble Lord must be familiar, "it shall go hard but I will better the instruction." This is not by any means a new question to the House. If there had never been any earnest and intelligent minds previously directed to this subject, one might have supposed it possible that this Act of Parliament—which has now been in existence for more than twenty years—had escaped observation; but that this wonder-working statute should, under all the circumstances that are familiar to the House, have been left to the discovery of this year, is to my mind perfectly astonishing. It will be recollected that in 1850, after two defeats which the noble Lord had sustained on Bills introduced by him to enable the Jews to sit in Parliament, that most learned and excellent person, the present Vice Chancellor, Sir William Page Wood, who had earnestly and zealously contended in favour of the Jews, moved for a Committee to ascertain whether it could not be possible to avoid the opposition of the House of Lords, and by means of a Resolution accomplish the introduction of the Jews into this House. [3 Hansard, cix. 810.] I wish the House to see what was the form of the appointment of that Committee, because it affords no precedent to the noble Lord in the proposal he has made on this occasion. The Motion of Sir W. Page Wood was:—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to search the Journals of this House, and report such precedents and such Acts, or parts of Acts of Parliament, as relate to the question of Jews or other persons being admitted to take their seats in Parliament without being sworn upon the Holy Gospels; and further to inquire and report in what manner Joseph Pease, Esq., on taking his seat in this House, in the year 1833, made affirmation to the effect of the oaths required by law to be taken by Members before taking their seats in this House; and also to inquire and report in what manner Jews and other persons, not professing the Christian religion, are permitted to make oath in courts of justice and other places where an oath is allowed, authorized, or required to be taken."
  The House will remember that the fruit of the Committee's labours was a very able and voluminous Report, containing the provisions of all the Acts of Parliament bearing on the subject, from the time
  942
  of Elizabeth down to the passing of the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 105—the Act to which the noble Lord's Bill which is now before the House applies—a Bill which he calls a declaratory, though it seems to me to be an amending Bill. It is remarkable that from the beginning to the end of that Report there is no allusion made to the 5 & 6 Will. IV., and we should be doing injustice to the learned and diligent persons who formed that Committee to suppose that that Act had escaped their observation. It is perfectly clear that such an Act, which had been fifteen years in existence at that time, must have been in their recollection, and that they must have adverted to it, but believing it had no bearing on the question they omitted it from their Report. What were the apprehensions entertained by the sagacious mind of Sir Robert Peel on the movement of Sir W. Page Wood on that occasion? He foresaw that the object of the Motion was to obtain the admission of the Jews to Parliament by means of a Resolution, and I entreat the attention of the House most earnestly to the observations he then made, because I am afraid we are on the eve of a crisis on this question. I earnestly hope every Member will feel the necessity of caution and discretion on this question, and not push matters to an extremity, unless in case of absolute necessity. On the occasion to which I have referred Sir Robert Peel said:—
  "He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford to propose a Committee to make an inquiry which should not prejudge the question at issue. If that were the understanding, he (Sir Robert Peel) would offer no objection to the appointment of the Committee; but this he must say distinctly, that there was no hon. Gentleman who had voted strenuously against the admission of the Jews who would watch with greater jealousy than he would watch any attempt by the House of Commons to supersede the authority of the House of Lords."
  And afterwards he said:—
  "Still he must say again that, after having twice voted for the admission of the Jews to Parliament, there was no gentleman in that House who would watch with greater jealousy than he would lest any interference should be attempted by the House of Commons with the House of Lords."
  The result of the Committee of Sir W. Page Wood was that which had been anticipated by the foresight and sagacity of Sir Robert Peel; an attempt was afterwards made by means of a Resolution to induce the House to decide that Baron Rothschild, having refused to take the oath of abjuration,

  943
  with the words "on the true faith of a Christian," had fulfilled all that was required by the Act of Parliament, and was entitled to take his seat. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) defeated that attempt. The noble Lord had acted with caution and prudence. He was then Prime Minister, and proceeded very properly under the advice of the law advisers of the Crown [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: of the Attorney General of that day]. I must say the noble Lord's mind is peculiarly susceptible of impressions; for he adopted to the full the advice given him by the Attorney General, and expressed himself on that occasion with regard to proceeding by Resolution in the strongest and most emphatic language. I ask the particular attention of the House to what the noble Lord said, because his mind seems now to waver a little on the subject. He does not come boldly forward and say, "I believe we can seat Baron Rothschild by means of a Resolution," but he throws out hints and half intelligences and says nothing decisive, because the noble Lord knows that he might place himself in a situation from which it would be impossible to retreat without taking some step that would interfere with that constitutional course which he has generally, though I am sorry to say not universally, followed. The noble Lord on the occasion I have referred to said:—
  "I think myself that it is not in the power of this House to dispense with the words 'on the true faith of a Christian.' When that question comes to be debated I certainly, according to all the study which I have been able to give to the subject, shall feel myself compelled to vote against these words being omitted in the oath."—[3 Hansard, cxiii. 432.]
  Then we find him using these remarkable words:—
  "But according to my deliberate opinion, I cannot lend myself to the changing of the words of the oath, 'on the true faith of a Christian," without the sanction and support of an Act of Parliament."—[3 Hansard, cxiii. 434.]
  But what were the words of the noble Lord's master and instructor, the Attorney General upon that occasion? Sir John Romilly said:—
  "Here was a statute which compelled an oath to be taken. Could they tamper with that statute; could they say there was any part of the oath which was not of the substance of the oath; could they say where they had an oath in which there was the common adjuration at the end 'So help me, God!' could they say that the clause previous to that 'on the true faith of a Christian' meant the same thing, and was to be treated simply as a synonymous expression, and might
  944
  there fore be dispensed with and struck out? He must say he was not able to come to that conclusion; and though a great deal of ingenuity had been expended on the point by his hon. and learned friend, nothing that he had alleged was, in his view, able to get over the plain and common sense meaning of the statute. Here was an oath which was to be taken in certain set words. It was a statute they were bound to obey. They had not the power to vary it."—[3 Hansard, cxiii. 507.]
  The noble Lord was so instructed in the year 1851, when Mr. Alderman Salomons, having been returned for Greenwich, came to the table, and having attempted to qualify himself by taking the oath of abjuration with the omission of the words "on the true faith of a Christian," refused to withdraw from the House upon the assumption that he had a legal right to remain, having so taken the oath. The noble Lord upon that occasion also put himself prominently forward; he himself moved that Mr. Salomons should withdraw; he defeated an Amendment which was made, declaring the seat for Greenwich to be full by the election of Mr. Salomons, and having carried his Motion that Mr. Salomons should not be permitted to remain in the House, he moved a Resolution, which he also carried, in the following terms:—
  "That David Salomons, Esq., is not entitled to vote in this House, nor sit in this House, during any debate, until he has taken the oath of abjuration in the form appointed by law."
  The noble Lord saw the danger upon those two occasions of attempting to seat a Jew by means of a Resolution of this House, and without the aid of an Act of Parliament; but I cannot help fearing, from the observations which he has made as to some doubt which he entertains whether the law had been properly laid down to him on those occasions by his Attorney General, that he is really now of opinion that he can by means of a Resolution, by the aid of this suddenly discovered Act of Parliament, carry out all that he has in view. As he has chosen to discuss this matter, and to enter into an argument upon the Act of Parliament, in order to prepare the unbiassed and impartial minds of the Committee, I hope he will forgive me if I follow his example; and I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments while I show that nothing can be more absurd or unreasonable than the opinion that this Act of Parliament can apply in any way to this particular case. The noble Lord says he leaves it, not to wiser, but to more technical heads—to a Committe of twenty-five

  945
  Members, besides all the Gentlemen of the Long Robe—Members of this House—I can't promise him many at this period of the year—to put a construction on this Act. But I do not think it requires a lawyer to put a construction on the Act. Any person of fair intelligence looking at the objects of the Act which the noble Lord Las described, will find that its words speak plainly for themselves, and that they entirely exclude this particular case. The noble Lord says that this Act was intended to prevent frivolous oaths; and then, with an ingenuity not surprising in him, he tells us that the Legislature went upon an ascending scale; having first got rid of frivolous oaths in matters of Customs and Excise, that they then rose to the Treasury, and by this 8th clause to the two Universities, and other bodies politic and corporate. In this clause the Legislature was incautious enough to insert the words, "all other bodies," which words the noble Lord argues include this House, since this House is a body politic, and is empowered "by statute and valid usage to receive and administer oaths, solemn affirmations, and affidavits." I will read the words of this extraordinary clause which is to do such wonders, and I will ask any one of plain understanding whether it is not apparent upon the reading of them that these words were not intended by the Legislature to include the House of Commons? The clause runs thus:—
  "And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and for all other bodies corporate and politic, and for all bodies now by law or statute, or by any valid usage, authorized to administer or receive any oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit to make statutes, by-laws, or orders [the noble Lord would here insert 'standing'] authorizing and directing the substitution of a declaration in lieu of any oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit now required to be taken or made."
  Then comes the proviso,—and there is something very saving in this proviso:—
  "Provided always, that such statutes, bylaws, or orders be otherwise duly made and passed according to the charter, laws, or regulations of the particular University, other body corporate and politic, or other body so authorized as aforesaid."
  The very reading of these words is sufficient to show that the House of Commons was certainly not intended to be comprehended in them, for it clearly refers to bodies corporate and so on, governed by laws, charters, and regulations. "But," says the noble Lord, "how hard it is
  946
  upon the Jew; he is met at every turn—first of all by a strict interpretation of an Act of Parliament, and then by a lax interpretation." The noble Lord told us, and I am glad to hear it, that we are likely to have the benefit of hearing the opinion of the Attorney General in the course of this discussion. I quite concur in all that the noble Lord has said of the great legal knowledge and intelligence of my hon. Friend the Attorney General, of which the House has recently had such an excellent opportunity of judging; but my hon. and learned Friend will very much disappoint me if he lends the weight and authority of his reputation to the construction which the noble Lord has put upon this Act. If I am to have my hon. and learned Friend for an opponent, he will concede to me, I am sure, that it is one of the commonest rules of interpretation, that where there is a specific enumeration of persons or things, followed by general words, that those general words must be applied to persons or things of like kind; and I would ask whether the words in this clause, "all other bodies," must not be interpreted to mean all bodies like to corporations—bodies quasi corporations? Another rule is, that where an Act of Parliament begins with an enumeration of persons or things of a lower class, and then contains general words, that those general words cannot be applied to things of a higher class. It has been held, for instance, that where an Act of Parliament contains the words, "deacons, priests, archdeacons, deans, and others having spiritual preferment," that those words do not include bishops, because they were of a higher order than those enumerated in the Act, although it might be supposed that, they were included in the general words, "others having spiritual preferment." But there is another consideration. Suppose you should convert this, oath into a declaration, it would be impossible to get rid of the substantial part of the oath, and it has been decided over and over again, not only in this House, but in the courts of law, that the words "on the true faith of a Christian "are a substantial and essential part of the oath. I stated that the proviso was important in this matter. It shows most clearly that the provision of the Act cannot apply to this House. That proviso is that any order which is made is not to be contrary to "the charter laws or regulations of the particular University, or other

  947
  body politic or corporate, or other body so authorized as aforesaid." That clearly shows that it relates to bodies which have governing charters or regulations. The noble Lord has said that the House in the case of Mr. Pease did by a Resolution get rid of the words "on the true faith of a Christian" from the declaration or affirmation. I earnestly entreat the House for a moment to consider this, which is constantly referred to by the noble Lord and by those who support Baron Rothschild, as an authority and a precedent in this matter. Did the House by a Resolution get rid of the words "on the true faith of a Christian?" No. If the noble Lord will have the kindness to turn to the 8 Geo. I. he will find that a form of affirmation was given for every case in which it was to be taken, and that the form of affirmation to be taken by the Quaker in lieu of the oath of affirmation omits the words "on the true faith of a Christian." Then comes the 22 Geo. II., upon which Mr. Pease was seated. By the 22 Geo. II., c. 6, it was provided,—
  "That in all cases wherein by any Act or Acts of Parliament now in force, or hereafter to be made, an oath is or shall be allowed, authorized, directed, or required, the solemn affirmation or declaration of any of the people called Quakers, in the form prescribed by the said Act, made in the eighth year of his said late Majesty's reign, shall be allowed and taken instead of such oath, although no particular or express provision be made for that purpose in such Act or Acts."
  So that, so far from the House seating Mr. Pease by virtue of a Resolution that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" might be omitted, as has been over and over again asserted, that was done under an Act of Parliament the 8 Geo. I.;—he was seated under the general words of which the 22 Geo. I., provided that in all cases in which an oath was required a Quaker should be allowed to make an affirmation in the form prescribed by the 8 Geo. I. The noble Lord has adverted to the fact that an Act of Parliament was subsequently passed to remove doubts which were said to have existed in the minds of some unreasonable persons. Now, I believe that that Act of Parliament was passed in consequence of a doubt being entertained as to whether Mr. Pease could sit upon an Election Committee without being sworn. I am not one of those persons who come within the sarcasm of the preamble to which the noble Lord has referred. I think that the Acts of George I. and George II.
  948
  were sufficient, and that there were upon them no doubts that Mr. Pease might affirm upon acting on an Election Committee as well as upon taking his seat in this House. At the same time, for the noble Lord over and over again to urge this upon the House as an authority for seating Baron Rothschild seems to me not to be consistent with the research and the diligence which the noble Lord has invariably displayed in these matters, with the exception of this unfortunate Act 5 & 6 Will. IV, I do not want to go into the argument to which the noble Lord—I was going to say has provoked, but I will say has invited me—with regard to the general question of the right of the Jew to sit in the Legislature. I do not think that this is an occasion upon which I am called to enter into that question. At the same time I must make a single remark upon the extraordinary course which the noble Lord has pursued with regard to nominating this Committee. The noble Lord has pursued an unusual course in proposing to nominate the Committee at the same time that he moves its appointment. But he may say that he is pressed for time, and therefore it is important to save a day. That is a very good answer to anything which might be said upon this subject; but I think that upon a question which he considers of so much importance the noble Lord might have turned a little attention to the previously expressed opinions of the hon. Gentlemen who are, according to his Motion, to form the Committee. There are upon it twentyfive names, and those who have invariably opposed the admission of Jews number but six, while there are nineteen who are known supporters of the Jews. Now, do not let it be supposed for a moment that I mean to say that any hon. Members who may be selected as members of this Committee would violate their duty or decide contrary to their convictions; but I am old enough to know what is the effect of preconceived opinion and impression upon these matters. I confess that when I am the advocate of one side or the other I never feel myself so impartial as to think that there is much reliance to be placed upon my judgment; and therefore I do think that hon. Gentlemen who fairly and justly entertain strong opinions upon this subject, and have manfully and consistently maintained them, may have such impressions upon their minds that they may see the force of arguments in a manner

  949
  totally different from what they would if their minds had been perfectly free and unbiassed. On that account, although considering what is the opinion of the majority of this House, I do not expect that the noble Lord will give us a Committee in equal terms—if I may use that expression—although I must expect that he will take the benefit of a considerable majority—it docs strike my mind that he has a little o'erflown the measure, he has gone a little too far, and has not dealt quite right with us in the names which he has selected to form his Committee. And, then, not satisfied with this, we are to have a flood of gentlemen of the Long Robe, who may attend; and why those who are named are so honoured, and are not allowed to come in under the general description, I do not know. Does the noble Lord think that the general description does not apply to us? This is a large Committee. How many Gentlemen may at this period of the Session find it convenient to attend, how many of those unknown Members who lie behind under the general term of "Gentlemen of the Long Robe" may avail themselves of their privilege, it is impossible for me to say; but I put it to the noble Lord's fairness and candour, whether he really thinks that he has done us justice in selecting a Committee of the complexion to which I have called attention? I have thought it right to press these observations upon your attention. I shall certainly not divide the House upon the Motion for the appointment of this Committee, but I do trust that when we come to its nomination we shall find that some little justice will be done to us. If we do not, I am quite prepared to resist so far as to enable us to get that justice to which I think we are entitled.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that the object of the noble Lord was not, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had sought to represent, to supersede the authority of the House of Lords, and seat Baron Rothschild by a Resolution, but to refer an existing Act of Parliament, which had already received the concurrence of the House of Peers, to a Committee to be composed chiefly of men the most eminent for their knowledge of constitutional law and of the rules of that House, or for legal attainments. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked why this Act had not been brought forward before? He believed that the reason of that was that it was
  950
  not known. If he was correctly informed, it was a gentleman of great legal knowledge, Mr. Anderton, the Under Sheriff, who, on reading over the Act, was struck by this clause, and brought it under the consideration of the Attorney General. That hon. and learned Gentleman read it, and expressed his opinion that there could be no doubt whatsoever as to the legal meaning of the words, and his surprise that his attention had not been called to them before. No unlearned person reading this clause could doubt that according to it the House had power to make a declaration under which the Member for the City of London, Baron Rothschild, could take his seat.
  MR. GARNETTsaid, he had voted with the Government in favour of the Bill introduced by them for enabling Jews to sit in Parliament; but, after that measure had been rejected by the House of Lords, and the noble Member for the City of London moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the 1 & 2 Vict. chap. 105, it appeared to him, from the temper exhibited by those who supported the noble Lord, that they were about to embark in a course of proceeding which might be attended with more or less danger not only to the character and dignity of that House, but to the constitution of the country. Now, however much he was attached to the theory of civil and religious liberty, he was more attached to the practical security of our glorious constitution. The course the noble Lord was pursuing seemed likely to bring that House either into direct collision with the House of Lords, or, what was still worse, into collision with the courts of law, and he had therefore thought it his duty as a humble Member of Parliament to give his vote against the Motion of the noble Lord. If that House had the right of exercising a control with respect to measures sent down to them by the House of Lords, surely the House of Lords had an equal power of deciding upon any measures sent to them by the House of Commons. He had no objection whatever to see a Jew take his seat in that House, and he had voted for a measure which would have accomplished that result from mixed motives. His impression was that they had arrived at such a condition of things as between the Church of England and the State that it was necessary to have some decided proof that no identity existed between the House of Commons

  951
  and the Church of England, and by admitting Jews into that House a proof would be afforded that such was the case.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am not going to enter into the arguments either of my noble Friend in favour of the interpretation he is desirous to put upon the Act of Parliament to which his Motion refers, or of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite who dissents from that interpretation. I am only going to say that I concur in the Motion of my noble Friend. I think the matter is one of sufficient importance to justify its being referred to a Select Committee as proposed by the noble Lord; and therefore I simply acquiesce in my noble Friend's Motion, reserving myself entirely free as to any opinion I may form of the interpretation to be put upon the Act, or of the observations the Committee may report as the result of their inquiry.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwould ask whether the noble Lord at the head of the Government approved of the mode of selection proposed, which was a most unusual course to take. The House ought to resolve in the first place that a Committee should be appointed, and then proceed to resolve that it do consist of twenty-five members, and then to nominate the members individually; but in this instance it was proposed to lump the whole together, and this, as it appeared to him, was a most unusual proceeding.
  MR. SPEAKERput the first Resolution for the appointment of a Select Committee.
  Motion agreed to nem. con.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLthen moved, "That the Committee do consist of the following twenty-five members," and was proceeding to read the names of the Committee, when
  SIR FREDERIC THESIGER SIR FREDERIC THESIGER rose to order. The noble Lord seemed to him to be anticipating the Resolution of the House, which had not yet determined that the Committee should consist of twenty-five members. He apprehended that the noble Lord should, in the first instance, move that the Committee do consist of twenty-five members, and if that Resolution were agreed to that he should then nominate the Committee.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, no doubt the mode of proceeding suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman was the course usually adopted; but if he moved that the Committee consist of twenty-five
  952
  members he would exclude many members of the legal profession, whose assistance would be most valuable to the Committee. It was the practice in old times to move such Resolutions in the form he had proposed, and Mr. Speaker would doubtless say whether the rule had been altered.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the form proposed by the noble Lord was in conformity with the ancient practice of the House, when the Committee was to exceed a prescribed number; it would, however, be necessary to put the proposition in two distinct Resolutions; and the mode in which he was about to put it would raise the question.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsuggested that the noble Lord might frame the Resolution in these terms, "That the Committee do consist of all Members of the Long Robe, and the twenty-five following Members.
  SIR FREDERIC THESIGERexpressed some doubt whether the noble Lord could at present move the nomination of his Committee. The House had determined that the Orders of the day should be postponed until the Motion of the noble Lord had been considered, but they had not determined that the Orders of the Day should be postponed until the noble Lord's Committee was nominated. The House had considered and adopted the noble Lord's Motion for the Committee; but it was anticipating the Resolution of the House to say that it should consist of twenty-five certain members. The House had not yet resolved whether it should consist of twenty-five or any other number.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLobserved that the hon. and learned Gentleman had very accurately assumed, in his former speech, that it was in consequence of the urgency of the time that he (Lord John Russell) had proposed to follow a course frequently pursued under similar circumstances, and now to nominate the Committee. He had given due notice of his Motion in the Orders, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman pressed his objection, and forced his Motion down to the end of to-night's business, and perhaps of every night's business during the week, the help the hon. and learned Gentleman had seemed to tender at the commencement of his speech would be entirely useless. He (Lord John Russell) did not think it desirable to adopt the suggestion of his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston),

  953
  for a Resolution in that form would seem to imply that the hon. and learned Gentleman nominated on the Committee were not "gentlemen of the Long Robe." He would, therefore, simply move "that the Committee do consist of twenty-five members."
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he was at a loss to understand upon what ground the noble Lord urged the nomination of the Committee with so much haste. He (Mr. Bentinck) strongly objected to the noble Lord's mode of proceeding, and he did not think the circumstance that the close of the Session was fast approaching was any reason for departing from the usual practice of the House. That practice invariably was that the House, having acceded to a Motion for the appointment of a Committee, the Committee should be named, and after proper time had been allowed for consideration the House should be called upon to decide on the constitution of the Committee. He (Mr. Bentinck) thought, therefore, the course now proposed by the noble Lord was fairly open to objection. This was neither more nor less than an attempt on the part of the noble Lord to introduce a second Jew Bill during the same Session. That course might not be unconstitutional according to the letter of the law and the custom of Parliament, but he (Mr. Bentinck) maintained that in spirit it was highly unconstitutional. He would put it to the Speaker whether the noble Lord was proceeding in conformity with the rules of the House?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, there was nothing irregular in the Motion of the noble Lord.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, it was an exclusive proposition to put it that the Committee should consist of "the following twenty-five members." No other name could be added to it. He would suggest, that the question should be put in such a form as would entile all gentlemen of the Long Robe, Members of the House, to be of the Committee.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he was in the hands of the House as to the form of putting the Resolution.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it appeared to him the correct mode of putting the Resolution was, that the Committee consist of twenty-five Members and of all the gentlemen of the Long Robe Members of that House.
  MR. HILDYARDsaid, that among the twenty-five names proposed, there were many gentlemen of the Long Robe.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that twenty-five Members would be nominated by the House, and all other Members of the House who were also gentlemen of the Long Robe would be upon it.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, in common with many of his hon. Friends around him he was at a loss to understand what really was the question before the House. They had now three questions before them, and he should like to know which of those questions he was to offer his opinion upon.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked if the noble Lord the Member for the City of London wished his Committee to consist of more than 100 Members? He believed there were ninety-seven Members of the bar in the House, and if twenty-five others were added the Committee would consist of 122. Now, he did not think such a Committee would do much work in the dog-days.
  MR. SPEAKERsuggested that, by a slight alteration, the Resolution might be put thus,—That the Committee do consist of twenty-five Members to be nominated by the House, and of all the gentlemen of the Long Robe, Members of this House.
  MR. COX MR. COX rose to remind the House, that there were Members of that House belonging to the legal profession who were not members of the Long Robe. There was the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfied), for instance, and himself. Now, he did not suppose that the addition of two or three names to the Committee would make much difference, and he thought that his hon. Friend and himself might be included. For himself, he was particularly desirous of being on the Committee, for 2,000 or 3,000 of his constituents were of the Jewish persuasion, and he was sure they would be better satisfied if one of their representatives was placed upon the Committee, by whom a question so important to them was to be decided. He would move that the words "Legal Profession" be substituted for the words "Long Robe." He understood the noble Lord had no objection to the alteration.
  MR. WARRENsaid: One word on the last proposal by the hon. Member for Finsbury. It seems the noble Lord the Member for the City of London will have us gentlemen of the Long Robe on his Committee, and the House too seems of that opinion: but gentlemen of the Long Robe are in the habit of being paid fees for their opinion; and, in that point of view, it is very agreeable to us to have a brace

  955
  of Attorneys on the Committee, to look after that little matter.
  Mr. FITZROYsuggested that the course to be taken with respect to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) and the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) would be for some Member to propose the addition of their names to the Committee when it was proposed to nominate the members of it.
  SIR FREDERIC THESIGERapprehended that could hardly be done, for if the Committee were to be selected that night notice must be given in the usual way before any fresh names could be added to it.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, there were already fifteen hon. and learned Gentlemen upon the list of the Committee, and if the Resolution were put in the form last suggested the House would be in the position that they would have to find other ten names to make up the Committee of twenty-five, exclusive of the gentlemen of the Long Robe.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the alteration suggested by Mr. Speaker met the difficulty.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsubmitted that they had better adopt the proposition made by Mr. Speaker.
  MR. SPEAKERthen put the Question, that the Committee consist of twenty-five members nominated by the House, and all the gentlemen of the Long Robe, Members of the House.
  MR. BENTINCK MR. BENTINCK rose to speak on the Resolution,
  MR. ROEBUCK MR. ROEBUCK rose to order, and said that the Question having been put from the Chair the hon. Gentleman could not speak upon it.
  MR. BENTINCK MR. BENTINCK rose to order. The Question now before them was a new Question, and he held that he had a right to speak upon it.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is precisely the same as that before the House when the hon. and gallant Member spoke last.
  MR. BENTINCKagain rose, and submitted that the Question the Speaker had now put was not the Resolution they had before them originally, as proposed by the noble Lord. That being the case, he must insist upon his right to address the House. Nothing could show more completely the error into which the noble Lord had fallen, and in which the House was about to follow him, than what had occurred during the
  956
  last twenty minutes. The noble Lord had taken the unusual course of moving for the appointment of a Committee and proceeding to nominate the Committee on the same day. One who was so well acquainted with the practice of Parliament as the noble Lord, ought certainly to have adhered to those rules by which it was provided that when a Committee was to be nominated Members should have due notice of the names proposed, and the opportunity of giving notice of such names as they might desire to substitute.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYconsidered the Resolution as now submitted was an Amendment upon the original Motion—and therefore it was open to Members to speak upon it.
  COLONEL KNOXremarked that the proper course would be for some hon. Member to propose the Amendment in the usual way, and then they would have had the opportunity of discussing it.
  MR. SPEAKER: There was some difficulty in carrying out the proposition in accordance with the orders of the House. I suggested the alteration of a single word in the Resolution to meet that difficulty, This the noble Lord the Member for London adopted, and in the form, as so altered, the noble Lord's Resolution was proposed and put from the Chair.
  Select Committee appointed,—
  "To consider whether the Act 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 62, is applicable to Oaths appointed by law to be taken by Members of this House at the table, previously to their taking their seats, and in what manner the said Act can be so applied, and to report their observations thereupon to the House."
  Ordered,—
  That the Committee do consist of twenty-five Members nominated by this House, and all Gentlemen of the Long Robe Members of this House.
  SIR FREDERIC THESIGERurged that there was a strong reason for not proceeding with the nomination that evening. There was a great desire on the part of many Members on that side of the House that some other names should be substituted for some of those proposed by the noble Lord. Under the circumstances, the noble Lord was aware that all they could do was to strike out those names to which they objected, as by the Orders of the House they could not move to substitute other names without giving previous notice. He trusted the noble Lord would be induced to postpone the nomination to a future day.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he really thought the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman was attributable to the

  957
  unfortunate position in which he and those who agreed with him stood in the House. According to party distinctions there was as fair a division in the constitution of the Committee as could possibly be; but it so happened that some of the most distinguished members of the party to which the hon. and learned Gentleman belonged were in favour of the emancipation of the Jews. He could not leave out of the Committee the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), or the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir.T. Pakington), or the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley). They were persons with whose general politics he did not agree, although upon this subject they were too enlightened to oppose the views of which he was the advocate. He was disposed to go on with the nomination of the Committee, and would move "that Viscount Palmerston be a Member of the Committee."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Viscount Palmerston be one of the Members of the said Committee."
  MR. NEWDEGATEmust be allowed to state, that in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, it would appear that the presence of some 200 Members of that House was about to be ignored altogether. They might have the misfortune of differing from certain hon. Gentlemen on their own side of the House, still the question before them was one which affected the whole House of Commons; and, therefore, on the part of more than 200 Members he claimed a fair opportunity for discussing the constitution of the Committee, and he would call upon his friends now to associate together in the assertion of their constitutional rights. The constant endeavour had been to represent that this was a struggle between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and that not a single Member of the House worthy of consideration was opposed to the measure. It was evidently, therefore, a question touching the independence of 200 Members of that House, and unless due opportunity was afforded them of discussing the nomination of the Committee he trusted those 200 Gentlemen would show that they were capable of forcing upon the attention of the very Liberal majority the fact of their existence. He would be very loth to have recourse to anything bearing the slightest appearance of foul play; still he must acknowledge he was not
  958
  disinclined to have recourse to the forms of the House to defeat a measure of that important nature, when it was attempted to be brought forward at two o'clock in the morning. The noble Lord, however, had endeavoured to vindicate his claim. Well, he (Mr. Newdegate) hoped that those who acted with him would manifest a similar determination, and refuse to be balked of their claim. And although, unfortunately, they might be deprived of the leadership of certain hon. Gentlemen on the front benches, still he was happy to say they were not without leaders even on that bench—Gentlemen who were recognised as the real leaders of the Conservative party of this country. He would move, then, that the nomination of the Committee be postponed, in order to allow him and his friends an opportunity of submitting to the House a notice indicative of their opinions with reference to the constitution of the Committee. He had no desire to oppose this inquiry if adequate grounds could be shown for it; but it should be remembered that the present notice had only made its appearance on Saturday morning, and consequently that was the first opportunity which had been offered of giving notice of objection to the constitution of the Committee. Feeling, then, that no other means were open to him of frustrating what he must designate as this deliberate attempt to interfere with the privileges of Members of that House, he should move that the nomination of the Committee be postponed.
  MR. SPOONERseconded the Amendment.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would not follow the hon. Gentleman opposite into the personal considerations which he had raised. At the same time he could not overlook the fact that it was owing to the kindness of his noble Friend at the head of the Government in postponing the Orders of the Day that he had been allowed to bring forward the question that evening. That would make him very unwilling to stand in the way of the ordinary business of the day, and which, no doubt, his noble Friend was anxious to push forward. If, therefore, his noble Friend should prefer it, he would postpone the nomination of the Committee until to-morrow, subject, however, to the presumption that in case the nomination was postponed, advantage would not be taken of the circumstance to throw fresh obstacles in the way of the Committee being formed.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he had postponed the Orders of the Day hoping that the Motion of the noble Lord would not altogether defeat the progress of other business to-night. Perhaps the course now proposed—namely, to give notice of the nomination of the Committee for tomorrow—would be the best, and he would promise that it should have precedence.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: At the evening sitting?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONassented.
  MR. HENLEYcalled the attention of the noble Lord to this fact, that putting aside for a moment the names of Gentlemen who were Gentlemen of the Long Robe, there were thirteen Members not of the Long Robe, including the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir G. Grey), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), who, though hon. and learned, were not usually classed with hon. and learned Gentlemen. But of those thirteen only two opposed the views of the noble Lord. He thought thirteen to two was rather too great a disproportion.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he thought there were four opponents of the Oaths Bill on the Committee.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that as the noble Lord had made an error in counting he hoped he would now correct it.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsuggested that the noble Lord should not depart from the usual and salutary practice in the appointment of Committees—that of consulting with the leading members who wore opposed to the course which it was proposed to take as to who should be nominated.
  SIR FREDERIC THESIGERdid not intend to offer any factious opposition to the noble Lord, but wished it to be distinctly understood that he might propose some alterations in the constitution of the Committee.
  MR. BENTINCK, in order to prevent misconception, called the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that no pledge had been given by a large body of Members on the Opposition side of the House as to the course they might take to-morrow. If the noble Lord was determined to press two Jew Bills through the House in one Session he must expect to find a determined opposition given to a proceeding at once so unusual and so unconstitutional.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYthought
  960
  that the Committee was very unfairly constituted, and hoped the noble Lord would revise the list of Members, which at present stood nineteen to six.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  BEVERLEY ELECTION.
  House informed, that the Committee had determined,—
  That Edward Auchmuty Glover, esquire, is not duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Beverley:
  That the last election for the said Borough, so far as regards the return of Edward Auchmuty Glover, esquire, is a void election.
  And the said determinations were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

  PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINIS TRATION BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that when the Chairman reported progress on the last occasion that this Bill was in Committee, he was proceeding to move a clause to secure to the proctors compensation for the loss of their practice, of which the Bill would deprive them, and as he now rose with the same object in view as originally framed, the Bill confined the business of the District Courts of Probate to wills in cases where the property was under the value of £1,500; but upon a division, that proposition was negatived by the House. It was subsequently proposed to extend the limit to £3,000, but that proposition was also objected to, and negatived without a division. The Government then proposed to make a limit as to the nature of the property which was to be proved in the district courts, and included the cases of wills where there was Bank stock, East India stock, and other like descriptions of property. This proposition, however, met with the same fate as the previous proposals of the Government, and the result was that the District Courts had jurisdiction, under the Bill as it stood, in all cases, whatever the nature or the amount of the property embraced by the probate. The nature of the Bill had consequently been altogether changed since its first introduction into that House. It had originally formed no part of the Government scheme to grant compensation, and as the Bill then stood, there was less ground for asking it; but the business of the proctors

  961
  in Doctors' Commons would, if the Bill passed in its present shape, be altogether annihilated. In the observations which he should make, he should refer chiefly and primarily to the claims of the London proctors; but those of the diocesan courts of Chester, York, Durham, &c., stood upon the same footing. The proctors of Doctors' Commons were from 114 to 120 in number. They were a body that had enjoyed their exclusive privileges for a period of not less than six centuries. They enjoyed the exclusive privilege of proving wills affecting personal estate, whether proved in the common form or the solemn form, and taking out letters of administration, in the Diocesan Courts of London and the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. Their duties had been very extensive and very valuable. When he said valuable, let it not be understood that the occupation of a proctor was lucrative—it was not so. As a body there were no more respectable men in England than the proctors. Their office, however, was not one in which they could accumulate large fortunes. But it was a kind of business that had been in families for several generations. The effect of the Bill would be at once to annihilate the whole of their occupations. Was such a proceeding wholly for the benefit of the public? This business, which had been so conducted for a period of six centuries, was by universal consent admitted to have been conducted for the benefit of the public. No complaint had ever been made against the manner in which the business had been transacted by the proctors. That it had been conducted satisfactorily was stated in the Report of the Chancery Commission, in which there was a recommendation that it should not be thrown open to attorneys or solicitors; but if it was thrown open, that the proctors ought to have compensation. When the Bill of the Government on this subject was before the House in 1854, he (Mr. Malins) presented two petitions, one of which was signed by 258 of the first bankers and mercantile men of London, urging that the business of the proctors was well done, with reasonable despatch and great accuracy; and the other signed by 122 of the leading solicitors and conveyancers of London, both deprecating the abolition of the business of the proctors. This proved that the privileges exercised by these gentlemen were not exercised solely for their own benefit, but greatly for the benefit of the public. This Bill annihilated all those privileges,
  962
  and he having been in constant communication with the whole body of these gentlemen, was informed that if the Bill passed it would be in vain for them to attempt to pursue their occupation. As the Bill originally stood it limited provincial probates to £1,500, and excluding Government Stock and East India Stock, and the hon. and learned Attorney General resisted all appeals for compensation on the ground that it would not affect the business of the London proctors. Even if the Bill had limited the provincial probate to sums of £1,500, that business was 79 per cent of the whole business of the probate courts, and that would have taken away just so much of the business of the London proctors. No less than 41 new districts for proving wills, which could only before be proved in Doctors' Commons, were introduced by this Bill, each of which took away a proportion of the business heretofore done in Doctors' Commons; and, in fact, Doctors' Commons would be only the forty-second district for London. All the proctors of York, Durham, Norwich, &c., had the power of practising as proctors in London; and the Judge of the Probate Court had unlimited power to grant the same privilege to as many persons as he thought fit. He had been speaking only of common form business; but the greatest amount of business arose from the contentious business, and that used to be the exclusive privilege of Doctors' Commons. By the Bill all that was swept away, and the whole body of 10,000 solicitors were admitted to participate in this business. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) on a former occasion conceded that the York and Chester proctors ought to have compensation; on which he (Mr. Malins) pressed on the noble Lord that the principle of compensation had been conceded; because if the business of the York and Chester proctors was swept from the face of the earth they were therefore entitled to compensation. Now that this Bill was about to sweep the business of the London proctors away, ought not the same principle of compensation to be applied to them? If he showed that it was possible, without throwing a farthing of burden on the public, to give compensation to these gentlemen, he felt that confidence in the justice of the House of Commons as to believe that it would not sacrifice a body like this for the public good without the public paying for it. This body consisted of 114 or 120 members, and of them not less than sixty had passed the middle age. Would

  963
  the House not reflect on the effects which this Bill would produce by annihilating the business of such a body of men—how many wives, children and grandchildren would be brought to penury? He had received statements of numerous cases, and he would mention one or two of them. One gentleman, in a petition to the House stated—
  "That he had been forty five years a proctor, and by labour and integrity in the discharge of his business had brought up a family of fifteen children, all of whom were adults; the labour of his life had been to educate and place them out in life, that he had not kept horses, carriages, or livery servants, but that he had not been able to lay by anything, and he had no resource for leaving anything to his family, except by life insurance: that he was sixty-seven years of age and had an invalid wife, five unmarried daughters, and three sons yet unprovided for; besides several grandchildren who had lost their parents, and if this Bill passed, it would consign them to a situation of great struggle; and besides one of his sons had entered into articles to the same business, in order that he might succeed him."
  He (Mr. Malins) could not believe that the House of Commons could treat a gentleman like this in such a manner as to turn him out on the world. Another of these gentlemen stated,—
  "That at twenty-one years of age he was articled to a proctor, paying a premium of 800 guineas."
  It ought to have been stated that this profession, though not lucrative, was a very expensive one, and premiums of 1,000 or 800 guineas were often paid on entering into articles, and the expense of being admitted as proctor was not less than £1,200. The petitioner went on to say—
  "That the expenses of his education had been very great, that he had invested a large sum in entering into a partnership, and had nine children dependent upon him."
  Another stated,—
  "That at twenty-two years of age he was articled to a proctor, paying a premium of.£1,200; that the stamp duty on his articles was,£120, and that the fees and stamps on his admission amounted to,£200."
  Another stated,—
  "That he was in his forty-second year, with a wife and six children, the eldest of whom was under ten years of age, and that he was wholly dependent on his professional income; that he had entered into a partnership for life with a partner eighty-four years of age, who from age and infirmity had not given him any assistance for many years; that he paid annually £150 as a special premium on an insurance on his life, in order to provide for his children, which would be totally lost to him if this Bill passed."
  He had related these out of many cases, in order to show that all these gentlemen's plans of life were founded on the permanency
  964
  of their profession, and if that was swept away they ought to have some compensation. The Commissioners had expressed an opinion that if the profession of the proctors was not preserved as an exclusive profession, justice demanded that some compensation should be made to them for the loss which they would suffer. But besides this, he had what might be called a Parliamentary title to compensation for them, for this was not the second or the third Bill which had been introduced on this subject. Bills had been introduced in 1855 and 1856, both under the auspices of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and what course had the Government pursued? The clauses which he (Mr. Malins) was now about to propose were identically the same as those proposed by the Government in their Bills in 1855 and 1856. How could that which was justice in 1855 and 1856 fail to be justice in 1857? But another Bill on this subject was introduced in 1854, in which exclusive privileges were granted to proctors for ten years; but when that provision came to be discussed, it was found to fall short of justice, and it failed. The principle was carried further in the Bill of 1855, and in that Bill it was proposed to do what he now proposed to do in the clauses of which he had given notice. How had this question been dealt with by the Government? He would read an extract from a speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General on that occasion. He said—
  "Then there remained the question of the proctors. It was first proposed to give to these gentlemen a priority of business in the new court for some time; but that course was afterwards thought to be not fair towards those gentlemen. He had a great desire to meet, in a liberal spirit, the fair claims of all these gentlemen with regard to the probable loss in their professions; he believed, however, that their apprehensions of loss would turn out to be unfounded, and that when they emerged from the shade of Doctors' Commons into the light of day, and exercised their profession on a more extended arena, their experience, skill, and sagacity, would enable them to compete successfully with solicitors now practising their profession in the courts of Westminster Hall. At the same time, they were entitled to some reasonable equivalent for the risk of loss of practice which they would, at least at first, have to incur. This Bill therefore, proposed to secure to these gentlemen for life an annuity equal to one-half of the clear income now received by each of them from the testamentary branch of their business. That allowance, if it erred at all, would do so on the side of liberality, because the junior class of those who would receive it would, in addition, have a larger field open to their professional exertions by this measure, while the seniors of the body would

  965
  receive a handsome retiring pension: The number of proctors in London did not exceed 120, whoso own estimate of their professional incomes, derivable from all descriptions of business, did not average move than £700 per annum for each. Computing the incomes of the country proctors at the same amount, though they could hardly be so high, the compensation at the rate of one-half their incomes, to be provided for the entire body, would be£52,150. Adding this item to the other charges before mentioned for the Testamentary Offices, allowances to officers of diocesan and peculiar courts, compensation to Mr. Moore, &c., the whole would amount to £144,150. To meet this charge the annexation of the business of all the minor courts to that of the Prerogative Court, and the continuance of the fees of the latter tribunal would, according to the returns, provide a fee fund of £74,740. This would be the aggregate of the fees of this court. The great saving to the people at large by the change proposed would be in the fact of the public being only obliged to employ one legal man, and not, as heretofore, two—a proctor and a solicitor—which induced the payment of two bills of costs. In the fees of court he did not propose at present to make any material deduction, save in what was called the proctor's fee, which was now calculated on a percentage of the stamp on the letters of probate and administration; and as proctors were to be abolished, that would of course entail the abolition of the proctor's fees. The substitute for this fee he proposed should be this. By a return made to the House, he found that the proctor's fee, if the property was sworn under £100, was 9s. 2d., or within 10 d. of the amount of the stamp which was 10 s. He proposed that in future three per cent should be charged on the stamp, so that the public, under the new Bill, when the property was under £100, would be relieved of the proctor's fee, but would have to pay 1s. 6d. on the stamp. When the property amounted to £8,000 or £9,000, an approximation to the fee now paid to the proctor would be charged. The present fee now paid on such a sum was £3 8s. 2d., and the proposed charge under the substituted percentage on an amount so large would be £3 7s. 10 d., so that the charge would be always found less than that now paid. So, too, where the estate was £600, the proctor's fee of £2 4s. 10 d. would only be £1 13 s. This substitute for the proctor's fee he proposed should be paid into the testamentary fund. The income that the proctors would derive from the percentage fee would amount to the sum of £87,953; and this, with other fees, would yield a total of £158,661, which might be taken as the sum likely to be paid yearly in future to the fee fund of the Court. That sum of £158,661 was what they would have in order to meet the current charges of £144,000; thus leaving a margin of £15,000 for other purposes. And this would be effected without any increase in the stamp duty. It must not be considered that the £144,000 would be permanent charge against the fee fund—such would not be the case; and if the business of the Court increased, the fees would be augmented, and the fund would be increased proportionately. This fund would be raised without entailing any new burden on the suitors of the Court. He hoped this was a plan which all might support, because it did not burden the public, or deal injuriously with vested interests."
  966
  That was the proposition of the Government in 1855. Then came the Bill of 1856, which in this respect was to the same effect. He would not trouble the House with what his hon. and learned Friend said on the second occasion, as it was to much the same effect. His hon. and learned Friend, when he introduced the present Bill, intended to preserve to Doctors'Commons all the common form business, and there was a semblance of a reason for denying compensation to the proctors; but alterations had been made in the Bill in Committee, which it was admitted annihilated their business for the benefit of the public, and the public was bound to compensate them. He trusted his hon. and learned Friend would consider the necessity of conceding the claims of the proctors, which were so founded on the principles of justice, that he should be disappointed if the majority of the House did not concur in them. Now what had been the practice of Parliament in similar cases? The House had on many occasions adopted the principle that when institutions were abolished or altered for the good of the public, it was a matter of justice to err on the liberal rather than on the illiberal side. He would take as an instance the alterations in the Court of Chancery. When the Masters' offices were abolished, the Masters, ten in number, with salaries amounting to £2,500, received the full amount of those salaries as retiring pensions, although some of the Masters had held their office only three or four years. Then again there were the Six Clerks, some of whose incomes amounted, to £7,000 a year. In that case Parliament went too far, for the amount was allowed for their lives, and pensions to their widows. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Those were offices.] The Six Clerks held no offices; they were only solicitors practising in Chancery; in the strict sense of the word they were not officers At all. But if they were, how did that affect the matter? In 1854, 1855, and 1856 the Chancellor of the Exchequer as sented to the principle of compensating the proctors, and therefore he was estopped from now objecting that they held no offices, and were therefore not entitled to compensation. But what in fact were the proctors? They held their offices under an Act of Parliament which had secured to them exclusive privileges, which privileges they had exercised greatly for the benefit of the public. Now if these privileges were to be abolished for the benefit of the public, was the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared

  967
  to say to these 120 men, "You and your families may turn out to the wind and the air and find shelter where you can—you don't hold any office." He had much misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's character if he was prepared to act on a ground so unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, say that the public burdens are great and increasing, and probably would remind them that a large addition to them would result from the passing of the Civil Service Superannuation Bill. Now the proposition which he (Mr. Malins) had to submit to the House was this: He undoubtedly called upon the public to pay a considerable sum of money in the shape of compensation, but no increased burden would be thrown on the public. There were at present certain fees paid on the probate of wills into the probate offices, and he proposed that during the continuance of these compensations such payments should be continued. Assuming that the proctors numbered 120, he proposed to give them annuities for their lives equal to one-half of their emoluments. Most of these men were advanced in years, and probably but few of these pensions would continue payable after a period of twenty-five or thirty years. The country would have no great reason to complain if, when the Government propounded a measure conferring a great public advantage, the price at which that advantage was purchased was the simple continuance for a limited time of the same payments which were now made, and which must undergo a gradual diminution. This proposition, the principle of which had been recognized by the Government, would thus impose no new charge upon the public, and would prevent a respectable body of men from being entirely mined. He begged, therefore, to move the second reading of the clause, which stood in his name.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it would be necessary in point of form to defer the discussion on the hon. and learned Member's clauses until several clauses to be proposed by the Government had been first disposed of.
  MR. MALINSassented.
  Clause (Compensation to Registrars, &c., of existing Courts) brought up and read 1°and 2°.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask for an explanation of the object of the clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that by the abolition of the local Courts
  968
  a number of officers would be entirely thrown out of employment. Some of them had been appointed anterior, and some of them subsequent to the passing of certain Acts which took away the right of compensation. The first class of officers had a legal claim to compensation, which this clause was intended to satisfy. The second class would also receive compensation, but its amount would be regulated on a different scale.
  MR. SALISBURYsaid, he would move to insert the words "all business" after the word emoluments. His object was to provide for the case of the stamp distributor of the city of Chester, on whom the Bill, as it stood, would inflict great hardship. Amendment proposed in p. 29, 1. 1, after the word "emoluments to insert the words "or business."
  Question proposed, That the words "or business" be there inserted.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for an estimate of the total charge which the Bill would throw upon the country in the shape of compensation. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) told them that no new burthen was to be imposed on the country, because the sum required was to be raised by fees. But these fees were only another form of taxation, and the House ought to watch how they wore levied and how they were spent as strictly as they would any part of the public revenue. It appeared that the country was about to pay a heavy price for the advantages to be derived from this measure; and the least that the House could do was to insist upon knowing the full amount of the obligation to be imposed on the public.
  MR. MALINSexplained that he had taken the incomes of 149 proctors, according to the number given in the speech of his hon. and learned Friend in 1856, at an average of £700 a year each; and, granting them compensation equal to one moiety of their earnings, the total sum to be paid out of the fund to which he had referred would be between £50,000 and £60,000 per annum.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would first answer the question of the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby). By a return made in 1832, since which time there had been no alteration in the constitution of those courts, the whole amount of the emoluments of the Judges, Registrars, and

  969
  Deputy Registrars was given as follows:—.Salaries of the Judges, £13,271; of the Registrars, £28,076; and of the Deputy Registrars, £15,851. But then these Judges, Registrars, and Deputy Registrars included a number of persons who would be appointed to offices under the new Bill. The residue would be divisible into two classes of officers—those appointed before the statute 6 & 7 Will. IV., cap. 77, and those appointed since that time. The number appointed before that statute was now comparatively small. According to the best result at which he could arrive the aggregate amount of the salaries of the officers to be compensated was £29,000, after making a deduction for the appointment of some of the number to new offices under the Act. That amount represented the salaries of some who were entitled to full compensation, and of others, appointed since the Act of William IV., who were entitled to very limited compensation. He could not tell hon. Members how to work out the rule contained in the clause, because he could not tell the relative number of officers appointed before and since the statute of William IV. That Act was passed twenty-two years ago, and according to the ordinary course of things it was probable that very few persons now in office were appointed anterior to 1835. He would, however, assume that half the number were appointed before 1835, and the result would be that he should have to provide for the half of £29,000, say £15,000, according to the first description of compensation, and another £15,000 under the second. The consequence would be that the sum total of compensation would be certainly less than half the sum of £29,000. That sum would be raised by the fees to be imposed under the Act. It was contemplated that certain fees should be imposed, and that they should be transferred from the Testamentary Fee Fund. The latter fund would have to bear the compensation to be ultimately given, but the Consolidated Fund would be augmented from the Fee Fund. Whatever compensation the House might give would be levied as an additional tax upon the nation. He would not at that moment enter upon the question of compensation to the proctors. What they were then upon was the compensation to officers, and the proposition of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Salisbury) was that stamp distributors should be included under the denomination of officers, but he (the Attorney General) could not understand that any such
  970
  person was entitled to be so regarded. It was the habit of the Treasury to give the privilege of distributing stamps to certain persons, who might be appointed on Monday and discharged on Tuesday. The stamp distributor was selected as a man of integrity and standing, and he became pro hac vice the agent of the Stamp Office in the distribution of stamps. He was allowed a certain per centage, and might sell a large number of stamps in one year, and a fewer number in the succeeding year. He could not admit that a stamp distributor, who was employed for the hour, the day, or the month, could be entitled to compensation. It was a question, indeed, whether the stamp distributor would not be likely to gain rather than lose by the passing of the Bill, for the House had been told that the greater part of the business would be done in the country, and not in London. The Amendment was wholly untenable, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Salisbury) would not press it.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYremarked, that he could not understand the process by which certain fees would be imposed under the Act, then paid into the Consolidated Fund, and afterwards paid out of that fund in compensation. If Registrars were to be paid by salaries and not by fees, he could understand that the whole of the fees would go into the Fee Fund. But if a gentleman died his executor would take his will to the Registrar, who would receive certain fees authorized to be taken for preparing, engrossing, and stamping probate, &c. The Registrar, not being paid by salary but by fees, would receive these fees for his own use. Were there to be any other fees, or was any fund to be brought into existence and called the Fee Fund, which was to be afterwards transferred to the Consolidated Fund, and out of which the compensation provided by the Act, was to be paid? It was intended that the authorities in London should make out a table of fees, and were they to make out first a table of fees to be paid to the Registrar and next a distinct table of fees to be paid by the suitor, and to constitute the fund for compensation?
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that if his calculation was right, the compensation would be much more than stated by the hon. and learned Attorney General. By a document published in 1852 he found the salaries in the twenty-five Courts to amount to £63,000. Were all the recipients of these salaries to receive compensation?

  971
  If so, how would the sum named by the hon. and learned Attorney General reach them?
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to know from what fund the compensation to be paid to the officers in question was to be derived? It would appear from the 6th Clause that the money was to be paid cut of the Consolidated Fund, and he, for one, objected to the proposal as a charge which was most extravagant, inasmuch as he was prepared to contend that there were few men who would not be willing to abandon their profession if they were to have one-half of their average annual profits secured to them by way of compensation, as would be the case of the proctors under the operation of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) had referred to the case of the Six Clerks whose offices had been abolished, and who received £30,000 a year in the shape of compensation, but that, he maintained, was one of the most flagrant acts of extravagant expenditure that had ever received the sanction of that House, and afforded no good reason, as the hon. and learned Member seemed to think it did, why the proctors should be entitled to receive, by way of compensation, half their incomes. The petitioners for compensation under the Bill already amounted to 386, and might be expected, including the surrogates, to reach a much larger number. Now, he was of opinion that the amount of compensation which those various officers would be entitled to receive, if the clause which the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford had placed upon the notice paper were introduced into the Bill, would be found to be not less than £200,000 a year during their lives, and he could only say that to any such proposal as that he should offer his most strenuous opposition.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that if the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) had attended to the explanation which he (the Attorney General) had already given to the Committee, he would have been aware of the grounds upon which the calculation which he had made was based; while he had merely to observe, in reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) that he appeared to him to be throwing away a large amount of eloquence and to have "wasted his sweetness on the desert air," as the case of the proctors was not then before the Committee. The
  972
  hon. Baronet seemed to doubt the accuracy of the calculation which he had made, but he had stated distinctly that the sum, which he had mentioned as that which would be paid in the shape of compensation, was to be ascertained by deducting from the aggregate amount of the existing salaries of the officers in question, the salaries of those among them who would be appointed to new situations under the Act. Now, taking the existing salaries to be £63,000, the hon. Baronet must bear in mind that forty-one of the Registrars, who were now paid out of that sum, would receive appointments under the new Act at a rate of remuneration amounting to £1,000 per annum each. As far as he could judge from the returns of 1852, and from other causes, he believed that the amount required for compensation would be much less than £29,000, but that was a subject which would be more conveniently discussed upon a subsequent clause of the Bill. With regard to the question of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Fitzroy Kelly) he would find that the Registrars were to be paid by salaries. No doubt it was intended that fees should be paid to District Registrars at first, but as soon as they could form an adequate notion of the amount of business that would be done in a district, they should fix a salary, and the whole of the fees would go into a general fund and be applicable to compensation. The object of Clause 6 was to ensure a proper return of the fees. Instead of fees being paid to the Registrar stamps would be issued, and as the Treasury would thus become the recipient of the Fee Fund, the charges for compensation would be on the Consolidated Fund.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that by the law at present it would be within the power of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, with the consent of the Treasury, to vary the payments with reference to the number of stamps sold.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would still maintain that they ought to know the amount of compensation to be awarded to each person, and it ought to appear in a schedule. When the question of compensating the Six Clerks was before the House he objected to the amount being fixed by the Lord Chancellor, and he received from the Government an assurance that the amount awarded would not be more than from £500 to £700 a year. The Lord Chancellor gave each of them from £5,000

  973
  to £7,000 a year, and also £2,500 a year during a period of seven years after their decease, to be left to whom they pleased by will.
  MR. SALISBURYsaid, seeing the temper of the House, he should not press his Amendment.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYthen said, that the intention of the Bill was that if any person who had a claim to compensation received a subsequent appointment the amount of the emolument which he received for that appointment should be deducted from his compensation; but as the clause at present stood, if any person received a subsequent appointment, no matter of how little value it might be, he would forfeit his right to compensation altogether. He would therefore move the omission of certain words to correct the defect which he had pointed out.
  Another Amendment proposed in p. 29, 1. 1, to leave out from the word "Act" to the word "to" in 1. 2.
  Question proposed, that the words "and who are not transferred" stand part of the Clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not assent to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend. A person who on the passing of this Bill was transferred from one office to another would not receive compensation. [Sir F. KELLY: What!none at all?] It would depend entirely upon the election of persons whose offices were abolished by the Bill whether they would receive compensation or take other appointments. If a person who held an office of £500 a year was transferred to one of £200 a year, he would have no compensation; but if he did not choose to accept a new office he would receive compensation for the loss of his former office. The Bill provided, however, that all persons whose offices were abolished, and who were transferred to other offices, should receive offices as nearly as possible equal in value to those which they had relinquished, but they would not be entitled to any compensation. The practical result of the Amendment would be, that persons would be entitled to compensation for their former offices, although they might be transferred to offices nearly equal in value to those they had previously held.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, the proviso of the clause, as it appeared to him, would operate in this manner:—A Gentleman who was now a country Registrar,
  974
  with emoluments amounting to £600 a year, would be entitled to compensation of £400 a year; and if, after compensation was awarded, he received no appointment under the Bill, or under the Crown, he would retain that compensation to the end of his life; but if he received an appointment of the exact value of £400 a year his compensation would be suspended so long as he retained the appointment. Suppose, however, that a person entitled to compensation of £400 annually was appointed to an office of the value of £200 a year, he (Sir F. Kelly) wished to know whether it was the intention of his hon. and learned Friend that such person should be entirely deprived of his compensation and limited to an income of £200 a year, or whether he was, so long as he held the appointment, to retain £200 a year out of the £400 awarded to him as compensation? If the Bill intended that a person in such circumstances was to be altogether deprived of compensation he (Sir F. Kelly) thought the regulation was most absurd, because no man would resign a compensation allowance of £400 a year for an office of £200 a year. The consequence of such an arrangement would be that the country would have to pay the retired allowances, and new officials would be appointed to all vacant situations.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, in order to end the discussion, if his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly)would accept this, he would agree to the insertion of the words "of equal value" after the word "offices," at the end of line 2, page 29.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he was willing to accept the proposed arrangement.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  An Amendment made in accordance with the suggestion of the Attorney General,
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, we now had to propose the omission of the proviso that persons whose claims in respect of offices, held for life or otherwise, were excluded by the provisions of the 6 & 7 Will. IV., cap. 77, and the 10 & 11 Vict. cap. 98, but executed in person the duties of such offices, the said provision should not be deemed to exclude them from a just and proper compensation. He wished to call the attention of the House to some of the enormous claims for compensation which had been put in, and more particularly to the case of Mr. Raikes, the registrar of the Diocesan Court of Chester, who, he said, had been appointed

  975
  to that office in 1837, when he was 26 years of age, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, then Bishop of Chester. This Gentleman, he added, was now in the receipt of an income of upwards of £5,600 a year from his office, and by November next he would have received from it £112,140 in the whole. Mr. Raikes now appeared claiming compensation, stating that his income would be reduced by the Bill to £600 a year; but the House would bear in mind that he would, of course, be continued in the office of Registrar of the wealthy and populous county of Chester.
  Amendment proposed in p. 29, 1. 11; To leave out from the word "awarded" to the word "and" in 1. 18.
  MR. SALISBURYsaid, he must protest against depreciatory remarks on Mr. H. Raikes, the present Registrar of the Diocesan Court of Chester. They had never heard of any complaint of the manner in which the business was conducted in that court. Mr. Raikes did not depute his duties to others, but personally supervised every instrument which passed through his court. It was invidious to single him out for comment.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg to ask if this was a personal case, or if it affected the general question whether persons who were injured by an Act of Parliament were entitled to compensation?
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he would beg to refer to the 5th Clause of the 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 77, which provides that persons appointed after the passing of the Act to any office not within the province of Canterbury shall have no vested interest therein, or any claim for compensation in case it was afterwards to be abolished. The Act was passed in 1836; Mr. Raikes was appointed in 1837. He wished to ask the Attorney General whether or not Mr. Raikes was appointed subject to that Act. A young man who was making nothing by his profession had since that time acquired annually £5,000; and because for twenty years he had enjoyed such an office he now asked for compensation. The man had done nothing. He had no claim. It was throwing away the public money, and he protested against it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there could be no doubt that if Mr. Raikes had been appointed since the passing of the 6 & 7 Will. IV. he did come under the operation of that Act, and was by the Act prohibited from claiming compensation. If an officer were appointed
  976
  previously, under the operation of law he would have a freehold of his own with respect to the tenure of office, and have a right to full compensation. There were two classes of officers — those appointed previously, and those appointed since the Act. It appeared to the Government not a very reasonable thing to say to gentlemen appointed since the statute passed, so long ago as 1836, that they should have no compensation at all, because when Parliament passed the Act of Will. IV., they represented that they were about immediately to abolish the Ecclesiastical Courts. The reform had been a dead letter from that time to the present. The statute had grown rusty. It had been hung up against the wall, and Parliament had done nothing. Would it be fair and right under such circumstances to take down the Act which had remained unused for more than twenty years and apply it to debar officers from any claim to compensation? He thought, and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed with him, that it was not right so to deal with these gentlemen. But they could not treat the Act entirely as a dead letter, and accordingly two scales had been devised— a scale of full compensation to those who did not come under the ban of the statute, and a scale of compensation founded on the principle that those who did fall within the prohibition of the statute were appointed to offices removable at pleasure. He could not imagine a more strict measure of justice, and he did not think the Government had erred at all on the ground of liberality towards those who had been appointed since the statute in dealing with them as appointed during the pleasure of Parliament.
  MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, that the question raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) was a very important one. He could not agree with the doctrine of the hon. and learned Attorney General that this Act was a rusty one. Successive Governments had been unable to carry these necessary reforms, because of the opposition of the proctors. The House should well consider the measure before they came to any conclusion on the compensation clause. It might be a very important one, but still they might pay very dear for it. He had never yet been able to get at the amount of compensation to be paid for it, and therefore he hoped before the Bill came to a third reading the hon. and learned Attorney-

  977
  General would lay on the table the names of the parties to whom compensation was due and the amount to be paid.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he was inclined to think that Mr. Raikes, when he accepted his office, know that he was not entitled to compensation. He was not acquainted with Mr. Raikes, and far be it from him to doubt the respectability of a man who for twenty years had enjoyed an income of £5,000 per annum, but assuming that he did know, compensation ought not now to be asked.
  MR. ROEBUCKobserved that, he was certainly startled by the doctrine of the hon. and learned Attorney General. A man twenty years ago accepted an office, the preceding year there being an Act of Parliament stating distinctly that there should be no compensation. His hon. and learned Friend said they had made a promise, when, in fact, none had been made. They had in reality conferred a great benefit on the person in question by continuing the Act, and he had had from £5,000 to £8,000 a year for twenty years, which was enough to polish the rusty Act of Parliament. The person accepted the office knowing reforms were in contemplation; he had been lucky enough to receive his money for twenty years, and the hon. and learned Attorney General would continue his luck. He had received at least £100,000, and yet the country was called on to pay him compensation. It was the widow and orphan, and brother or sister, deprived by death of their relations, who had to pay the money, and out of whose pocket the compensation was to come. The Act of Parliament was said by his hon. and learned Friend to have grown rusty. Did a beneficial Act grow rusty in twenty years? He hoped the House would look narrowly into the question before they awarded compensation.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that it appeared that during the best years of his life, the person in question had been engaged and had done everything required. It may have been wrong to appoint him, but if the Legislature by its delays occupied the best years of a man's life, he thought the House was bound to consider that fact. His office might have been an abuse from the first, but the fault lay with the Legislature, not with him, and to punish a man who had faithfully discharged all the duties required of him for a fault committed by Parliament itself would be at once unjust and ungenerous. It appeared
  978
  to him that this was a case for consideration, and that, at the same time, regard should be had in dealing with it to the large receipts as well as to the long tenure of office.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he thought it very desirable to know the whole amount of compensation which was proposed to be given, before the House decided. It was said the Legislature had been guilty of negligence for twenty years. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) had properly pointed out that the unfortunate widows and orphans on whose behalf the hon. and learned Attorney General had so often opened the stores of his eloquence, had been taxed with enormous fees for this sinecure, and he agreed with the other hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) that the compensation should be taken out of the public funds, and not out of the pittances of widows and orphans.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had already stated who the officers were who would be entitled to compensation. The effect of the clause would be to give the Commissioners of the Treasury unlimited discretion as to the amount of compensation to be given. The clause did not direct, but empowered the Treasury to give persons who received the salaries reasonable compensation. If the demand of the hon. Member (Mr. Barrow) were complied with, they would require his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to lay most imperfect information before the House, and if a preliminary estimate were laid upon the table, and the Commissioners of the Treasury were to make a different scale of compensation less in amount, great dissatisfaction would be caused.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he would warn the House that the course taken now would be quoted as a precedent when other useless offices were abolished, and if they granted compensation for offices the abolition of which an Act of Parliament declared should be followed by no compensation, they would have some future Attorney General rising up and referring to this Act.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the Bill had been printed and circulated through the country with this provision in it, and a large class of persons might fairly be considered to have abstained from setting forth their claims in

  979
  dependence on this proposal of the Government. The attention of the Committee had been so much turned to the case of a single individual, that many hon. Members might suppose that the clause was intended to give that gentleman, and that gentleman only, compensation; but the clause referred to a class, and would the Committee deprive of compensation some sixty or seventy ill-paid functionaries, it might be, having nothing but their salaries to depend on, because one individual might be regarded as having already got enough?
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that what they complained of was that they were asked to vote without knowing the detail. He had quoted two cases, but there were many others, and he wished to know by what right the Government took on them to grant compensation? The hon. and learned Attorney General said this was a rusty Act of Parliament; yet they had been since 1829 trying to get rid of it with all its nuisance and inconvenience.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know upon what principle compensation was to be given—whether upon any defined plan or at the absolute discretion of the Treasury?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, at present compensation was frequently given for offices which had been held during the pleasure of the Crown, upon which tenure a vast majority of civil offices were held. The Treasury had great experience in matters of compensation, and as a general rule he believed they were not at all lavish in the amount of compensation they awarded if he could judge from the number of complaints he received of inadequate allowances.
  MR. MALINSremarked that, a great deal depended, in the case of Mr. Raikes, upon the question whether that gentleman actually had received £5,000 a year net during twenty years. From a statement in Mr. Raikes's petition it would appear that owing to the increase of business he had been obliged to double the number of his clerks and also to double their salaries, as well as to purchase additional buildings for the security of the wills under his control. If all these expenses were deducted from the £5,000 a year it was a most material fact. With respect to the circumstance of Mr. Raikes having been appointed since 1836, as Parliament had not acted upon the warning that had been given at that time, it would be harsh now,
  980
  after occupying the best years of a man's life, to refuse all claim for compensation.
  MR. WIGRAMasked, whether it would be in the discretion of the Treasury to give or to withhold compensation at their pleasure?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Treasury endeavoured to act justly in all cases. The merits of each; case were gone into, and, as far as possible, a decision was adopted upon the circumstances of each individual case.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he would remind the Committee that the hon. and learned Attorney General, in introducing the Bill, had particularly called attention to this provision, and no objection had been made to it. Had it not been for his statement of the intention of the Government in respect of this matter, which induced parties to remain quiet, the Bill would, no doubt, be in a different position to what it now was.
  MR. CLAYobserved, that if any objection had been taken to the question of compensation upon the occasion of the second reading, the reply would have been that it was a matter of detail to be discussed in Committee.
  Question put, That the words "Provided that where persons, &c." stand part of the Clause.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 81: Majority 68.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would now move the addition of words to the clause, with the view of providing, that in computing any allowance, due consideration shall be had to the allowance for office or situation retained by the party.
  Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the words, "but that in computing any allowance, due consideration shall be paid to any office or situation retained by the party."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was idle to suppose that the Treasury, in making compensation at their discretion, would not take into consideration the office or emolument retained, and, therefore, it was useless to add the words which the hon. Member proposed.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Other Clauses added.
  Clause ("Whereas the fees and emoluments of the persons now practising as Proctors in the Courts to be abolished by this Act may be damaged by the abolition of the exclusive rights and privileges which they have hitherto enjoyed as

  981
  Proctors in such Courts; be it enacted that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, by examination on oath or otherwise, which oath they are hereby authorized to administer, may inquire into, and may, by the production of such evidence as they shall think fit to require, ascertain and absolutely determine the net annual amount of the profits arising from the transaction of proctorial business by such Proctors on an average of five years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act, or of such proportion of five years as shall have elapsed since each and every such Proctor was admitted to practise in such Courts, and shall award to each and every such Proctor a sum of money or annual payment during the term of his natural life, of such amount as shall be equal in value to one-half of the net profits derived by such Proctor in respect of such proctorial business upon the said average of five years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act, or of such proportion of the said five years as shall have elapsed since the admission of each and every such Proctor to practise in such Courts") brought up and read 1°.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he regretted that, through a misunderstanding, his speech on this subject should have been so far separated from his Motion. At an earlier hour in the evening he had delivered his views on the subject, and only regretted that there was not then a larger attendance of hon. Members to hear the arguments which he had brought forward. Other hon. Members, however, would now have an opportunity of expressing their opinions on this subject; and he would, therefore, conclude by moving that the Clause be read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. WIGRAMsaid, he wished to ask whether, if compensation were granted to the proctors, the Metropolitan Courts would be opened to other professional men, the same as the District Courts?
  MR. MALINSsaid, the proctors unanimously felt that, since the Bill was altered enabling the District Courts to deal with sums above £1,500, the privileges now enjoyed by them were not worth preserving; and therefore, if compensation were given, they were ready to give up all their exclusive privileges.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the proctors were only undergoing the fate of almost any other class belonging to the profession of the law. Since he began his professional life many reforms had been introduced, which had the effect of taking money out of the pockets of the profession, but nobody ever proposed to give those who suffered compensation. For example, the business of the special pleaders had been destroyed, but no compensation was given
  982
  to them. Again, the County Courts had destroyed in a great measure the business of the circuits. In one of the Welsh circuits lately, there was only one civil case brought forward, whereas the County Court Judge had had no fewer than 400 cases in his court. Nobody, however, proposed compensation to the barristers who suffered in their incomes from this cause. He would take a much harder case still. When, by the progress of machinery, the hand-loom weavers were thrown out of employment they were left to starve, and, though they applied, time after time, to that House for compensation, none was given. Now, he wanted to know what was the difference between their case and that of the proctors? Take also the case of turnpike trusts, which had been injured by the railroads. Who ever thought of giving compensation for the pecuniary loss sustained by turnpike trustees? If they admitted the principle that compensation should be given in all cases in which private interests suffered by what was done for the public advantage, there would be an end to all improvement. It was one of the misfortunes attendant on public improvement that individuals were apt to suffer, but that in no way implied a right to be compensated. The proctors had enjoyed a monopoly for 600 years, handed down from father to son, but they had done no service for the public for which they had not received ample remuneration, and therefore he felt bound to oppose the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. WHITESIDEobserved, that he could not see the force of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, that because Country Courts had been established therefore proctors ought not to receive compensation. It should be remembered that, upon the establishment of County Courts, many barristers got good places, whereas in this case the very profession of a proctor was destroyed, and that made a great difference. Reform was not synonymous with economy, and he should vote for a clause which would compensate a class of persons whose occupation was totally swept away.
  MR. KIRKsaid, he would propose that the proctors should receive the same amount of compensation as the Irish bar upon the introduction of the Encumbered Estates Court, which took a large proportion of business from that bar.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he came to the House very much resolved to vote against

  983
  compensation. The Bill, however, had undergone great changes. The proctors were almost deprived of their business. Now, it was admitted that these gentlemen conducted their business in a very satisfactory manner, and he thought to deprive them of their profession was a perfectly gratuitous act on the part of the Government. The Committee had just given compensation, against the express determination of an Act of Parliament, to one class of persons, and now they were called upon to withhold compensation from persons whose profession had been recognized as an exclusive one by the express terms of another Act of Parliament.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he regretted that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) on that subject had been heard by but few persons on that side of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who had evidently studied this case very fully and completely, made a statement to the House giving the reasons of his proposal, and had altogether established a strong case for compensation. But then the hon. and learned Attorney General, after allowing the hon. and learned Gentleman to conclude his speech, told him that was not the time for making it. He (Lord J. Russell) regretted the more that the hon. and learned Gentleman had made his statement under such circumstances, because he felt convinced that, if the Committee refused all compensation to these proctors, they would be committing a great injustice. He could not see any resemblance between the general case of barristers, to which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) had alluded, and that of the proctors. It could hardly be said that any positive loss had resulted to the profession of the law by the reforms made, because Acts of Parliament which took away one kind of business generally created a good deal of new business. The position of these proctors, however, was very peculiar. Their number was limited; it was not to exceed 120; and their duties related not merely to their clients, as in the case of barristers, but also to the public,—for, though they might be intrusted with the private concerns of individuals, yet if in examining wills they found any error in form or any deviation from what was ordered by the Wills Act, they pointed that out, and probate was not granted. In a great measure, therefore, they might be called public officers. These gentlemen paid largely before
  984
  they could arrive at the position they held; they had not been conniving at any abuse, but they acted under the law as it stood, and acted, he believed, with great fidelity and exactness. No one denied that the duties which devolved upon them under the law, and which it was necessary should be performed in London, were performed to the satisfaction both of the public generally and of the Judges who were best able to decide on this subject. There had been questions from time to time with regard to the reform of the testamentary jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and one Commission, at all events, said that if that jurisdiction were taken away compensation ought to be given, or else great injustice would be done. The Lord Chancellor brought forward a measure which proposed that, for a certain time, proctors should enjoy exclusive privileges in the court to which they belonged, and the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed to this House a Bill which contained the very clauses of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins). The Committee, therefore, had the Attorney General's high authority in favour of compensation. As it passed through the House of Lords the Bill did not make a new court and destroy all that existed, but it proposed that the proctors should be left to deal with amounts above £1,500. When that clause was rejected by the Committee, the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed that another kind of business—namely, that connected with the stocks and funds—should be reserved for the proctors in London. Both of these provisions had, however, been discarded, and, therefore, the measure which the hon. and learned Attorney General was now proposing differed entirely from that which he originally wished the Committee to accept. The whole occupation of these proctors was now destroyed, and, that being the case, they could not, he thought, pass this Bill without some compensation. The mode of giving it was that chosen by the Attorney General himself. It had always been the principle of Sir Robert Peel that, in making reforms in the law, compensation should be given. That principle had, perhaps, been acted up to rather too fully; but he could not conceive how the hon. and learned Attorney General, having proposed these clauses in former Bills, and seeing that his own proposal had been rejected in this Committee, could make up his mind to commit such an act of injustice

  985
  and spoliation as to deprive the proctors of their privileges without compensation.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, that he entirely concurred in what had fallen from the noble Lord. Although he was a lover of reform, he was also a lover of justice, and thought that whenever, in order to effect a great public benefit, injury was inflicted on private individuals, compensation ought to be given to them.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he would explain the position of the proctors. Their business was derived from three sources—the Testamentary Courts, the Marriage and Divorce Courts, and the Admiralty Court, in each of which courts they had at present a monopoly. A proposition was now made to compensate them for their proctorial business not derived from the Testamentary Courts.
  MR. MALINS: Not so. It is only for their testamentary business. It is your own clause exactly.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could undertake to say that there was no such confusion in his Bill. But, however, he would argue the case on the supposition that compensation was only asked for the business derived from the Testamentary Courts. There was now before the House a Bill to which a second reading had been given, for the establishment of a new Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, and in that Bill there was a clause which gave the proctors a monopoly of practice in those courts. In one department of that business he anticipated a considerable addition to the present business of the proctors, and unless they withdrew from all monopoly—[Mr. MALINS: They do.]—If the proposal were made that all monopoly should be entirely withdrawn from the proctors, and that they should be reduced to the level of solicitors, then he should be reduced to the position in which he had been placed by the noble Lord the Member for London, and it would not lie in his mouth to refuse them compensation. The Committee would have the propositions of the Government and the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford before them, and would have to decide which was most worthy of credit. The amended proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford he understood to be this, that the proctors receiving compensation according to the proposition in the clause, should not be entitled to any monopoly of testamentary business, nor to any exclusive privilege in conducting business under the
  986
  Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, if that should pass into law. It was a difficult matter to say what might be the result of the altered system. Business generally continued to run in the channel in which it had been in the habit of flowing for a number of years, and he had seldom found that any gentlemen who were employed in any particular professional occupation had had the resort to them diminished by a change in the practice of the courts with which they were connected. What he had been about to propose was this, that at the expiration of three years from the passing of this Bill, an account should be taken in by each proctor to the Treasury, and examined into there, of his professional gains during those three years, and if it should turn out that those professional emoluments had fallen below the average of the three years antecedent to the passing of the Bill, then compensation should be given accordingly. It was for the Committee to decide between these two propositions, and to adopt whichever they thought would be the fairest to the proctors. At the same time, he was not at all disposed to turn his back on the proposition which he himself made in the Bill of last year, and to which the Government were pledged. By that proposition the proctors were to receive, in the shape of an annuity, half of the clear yearly gains which they could show they had derived during the period of three years before the passing of the Bill from that particular source of business. Unquestionably, this was a case in which the claim of the proctors was entitled to favourable consideration, because they would be compelled by statute to relinquish a benefit which they had hitherto enjoyed. Nothing was said when the Bill (which was framed upon the Report of Commissioners) was framed about compensation, because at that time it was intended that the proctors should have a monopoly of the common form business. Still it was impossible to say what would be the result of the present proposition. In some cases it might be that proctors would receive under it too much compensation by one half, while others might receive too little. He should be glad to bear the Committee express their opinions upon the proposition.
  MR. WESTHEADsaid, he thought that the proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney General might, on the whole, work very justly, but aged proctors might die before the expiration of three years, and,

  987
  therefore, if they should live, say two out of the three years, they would evidently be injured without receiving any compensation whatever.
  MR. ROLTsaid, the country registrars should be put on the same foundation as the London Court, and if that were done, all solicitors might be admitted to practise in all the courts. It would be inconvenient that general practitioners should practise with the proctors in the testamentary jurisdiction, but the latter have exclusive practice in the Divorce and Admiralty Courts. He thought the Judge of the London Court of Probate should have the power of deciding who should practise in the London and District Courts.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to a hardship which would be committed by the Bill, and which arose out of the distinction that existed between the surrogates in the south of England and those in the province of York; the duties of the former were only confined to granting marriage licences, whereas the latter transacted all the duties of a proctor. He had given notice of a clause to the following effect:—
  "It shall be lawful for the Commissioners of the Treasury to grant to every clerical surrogate who, at the time of the passing of this Act, shall be acting under appointment from the Prerogative and Exchequer Courts of York, such compensation for any loss the said surrogates may sustain by the passing of this Act as the said Commissioners deem just and proper to be awarded; the said Commissioners having regard in awarding such compensation to the circumstance of the said clerical surrogates not being able to follow any other professional employment in lieu of the said office of surrogate."
  The surrogates in York were usually incumbents in large manufacturing towns, and only received a scanty remuneration for their services, and the emoluments which they obtained as surrogates were necessary to the maintenance of these incumbencies. The case, therefore, of the surrogates in the Province of York was especially deserving the attention of the Committee. He would only add that if they cut off these fees from the surrogates, they would deprive them in many instances of more than twenty-seven per cent of their whole income, and, therefore, he would appeal to the hon. and learned Attorney General, and ask him whether they had not quite as well-founded a claim for compensation as the proctors whose demands he had just conceded. Indeed, he humbly ventured to think that the surrogates had a stronger claim for compensation
  988
  than the proctors, for it was impossible for many of the former to recover their incomes by any other means.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Attorney General could not be sincere in refusing the claims of the London proctors to compensation after what had been done in the case of the officers of other courts who had suffered by changes in the law. He should support the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins).
  MR. WIGRAMmerely wished to express a hope that whatever rule, as to compensation was applied to the surrogates of York, should likewise be extended to the Province of Canterbury. He hoped, in fact, that the rule would be made general.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that there were no persons with whom he should be more disposed to sympathize than those clergymen who had with great advantage to their neighbourhoods discharged the duties of surrogates. He, therefore, could have no objection to the proposition of the noble Lord, which had been embodied and placed upon the table in the form of a clause, and owing to which these clerical surrogates were to be compensated according to the discretion of the Commissioners of the Treasury. He was also willing to extend the same rule to the surrogate of the Province of Canterbury. He did not think that the case of archdeaconries who had no chancellors and had discharged their duties, to which his attention had been called by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) would be included in the clause which dealt with Judges and Registrars; and he therefore would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should upon the Report insert in the interpretation clause a provision that in this particular section the word "Judge" should include archdeacons. The only question which remained for the Committee to decide was whether it would adopt the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), or would prefer the more elastic plan that he had suggested. The mode in which he had last year proposed to create a compensation fund differed from the form contained in the hon. and learned Gentleman's clause C, and therefore if the proposal of last year were adopted, clause C would require to be recast. He therefore now asked the Committee to determine the principle of compensation, in order that the necessary alterations should be

  989
  made in the Bill, with the view to throwing open the business to all practitioners, instead of limiting the common form of business to the proctors.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he was much gratified by the candid manner in which his proposition had been met by the Government. The Committee had now the option of either adopting the clauses which he had put before them, or of accepting the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General, which settled nothing definite at present, but which would defer the matter for a period of three years, until they saw what loss the proctors would sustain. In all human affairs certainty was a most important element, and therefore he begged to inform his hon. and learned Friend on behalf of the proctors that he finally elected to take the clauses now before the Committee as he had himself proposed them, and in return for this concession the proctors would cede all exclusive rights of practice whether as regarded probate, letters of administration, divorce, or any other branch of their business. He would cheerfully accede to any alteration in the wording of his clauses, provided their principle was steadily adhered to. He wished to add a proviso enabling the annual sum awarded to proctors who had not practised for more than seven years to be computed over a period of two years in lieu of five. There was another class of persons—limited in number to twelve or thirteen—who would suffer great hardship under this Bill. He alluded to the clerks who had been articled to the proctors, and who had paid an average premium of 1,000 guineas. He trusted that Parliament would extend some consideration to these persons.
  COLONEL SMYTHwas understood to say that the country proctors would much prefer the plan of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford to that of the Attorney General.
  MR. ATHERTONsaid, he hoped the proposition of the Government was to abolish the proctors, because nothing was more pernicious to the administration of justice than the existence of monopoly. It appeared to him that this monopoly was to be perpetuated, or a new monopoly created. Under such circumstances he would prefer the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that as the feeling of the House seemed to be in favour of compensation, he would undertake that the compensation clauses
  990
  of the Bill of last year should be adopted and made part of the present Bill, the monopoly of the proctors being taken away, and the proctors being entitled to practise with and as other members of the profession. He would not give the House the trouble of dividing, but would add the clauses on the Report.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he was quite satisfied and would consent to withdraw his clause.
  Motion and Clause by leave withdrawn.
  LORD HOTHAMthen proposed the following Clause, viz.—
  "It shall be lawful for the Commissioners of the Treasury to grant to every Clerical Surrogate, who at the time of the passing of this Act shall be acting under appointment from the Prerogative and Exchequer Courts of York, such compensation for any loss the said Surrogates may sustain by the passing of this Act, as the said Commissioners having deemed just and proper to be awarded; the said Commissioners having regard in awarding such compensation to the circumstance of the said Clerical Surrogates not being able to follow any other professional employment in lieu of the said office of surrogate."
  MR. WIGRAM MR. WIGRAM moved, as an Amendment, that the clause should apply to the surrogates of the dioceses of Canterbury and Durham also.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he proposed to insert a clause to the effect that —
  "Every person who at the time of the passing of this Act, and of its coming into operation, shall have been for seven years consecutively chief or managing clerk to a Proctor and Notary in the Courts in Doctors' Commons, or in succession to several Proctors and Notaries in the Courts in Doctors' Commons, upon production of evidence of that fact satisfactory to the Judge of Her Majesty's Court of Probate for the time being, may at any time within one year after the passing of this Act, be admitted as a Proctor and Notary of the said Court of Probate upon his paying to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the amount of stamp duties legally payable upon articles of clerkship to and admission as Proctors and Notaries.
  Clause brought up and read 1°.
  Motion made and Question that the Clause be read a second time, put and negatived.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. WIGRAMsaid, he proposed to insert the following Clause:—
  "All Persons and corporations making any payment bonâfide upon any probate or letters of administration granted in respect of the estate of any deceased person under the authority of this Act, shall be indemnified and protected in, so doing, notwithstanding any defect or circumstance whatsoever affecting the validity of such probate or letters of administration."
  After a few words from the ATTORNEY GENERAL, the clause was added to the Bill.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to move a clause providing for the annual returns of the accounts of the Court.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  SIR FITZROY KELLY SIR FITZROY KELLY moved the insertion of a clause before Clause 10:—
  "The Judge of the Court if a Privy Councillor, shall be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. MALINSthen proposed the insertion of a clause granting compensation to those articled clerks who, having paid large premiums as well as stamp duty as preliminaries to admission to their profession, found as they were about to enter upon that profession that their prospects in it would be destroyed under the operation of the Bill under discussion.
  Clause (Compensation to, and admission of, Articled Clerks to Proctors) brought up and read 1°
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he objected to the clause as he thought that the class of cases for which it proposed to provide compensation could not be brought within any definite principle.
  MR. AYRTONsuggested that the articled clerks might have relief given to them by altering the 38th Clause, which restrained them from practising Otherwise than proctors; so as to enable them to practise as solictors in the same manner as their masters were allowed to do.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that there were only twelve or thirteen of those articled clerks, and that as their all was embarked in the profession they had adopted, it would be gross injustice to deprive them of the premiums and fees that they had paid.
  Motion made and Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 113: Majority 56.
  Preamble agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he proposed that the Bill should be recommitted pro formâ at the morning sitting to-morrow, in order to insert some new clauses, and then that the Bill should be reprinted and the third reading taken on Friday.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended to be considered To-morrow, at Twelve o'clock.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved the adjournment of the debate.
  LORD NAASsubmitted that no rational object could be attained by dividing the House on the third reading of the Bill, seeing that its principle had already been amply discussed on the Motion for the second reading. He therefore hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) would see the propriety of not putting the House to the trouble of dividing.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would urge as a reason for postponement, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) wished to address the House, and was not then in his place.
  LORD NAASsaid, he had seen the right hon. Gentleman leaving the House an hour and a half ago. The right hon. Gentleman asked him whether he intended to bring on the Bill to-night, and he told the right hon. Gentleman that he did.
  Motion made and Question "That the Debate be now adjourned" put and negatived.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he objected to the third reading of the Bill, on the ground that it would not settle the question. He would ask the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas) how he intended to deal with those parties who had already paid the sum of £760,000. In this summary mode of dealing with the question the House placed the Executive in a false position with the Civil Service. Whether he considered the Civil Service, the taxpayer, or the position of the Government, he objected to the third reading of the Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not prepared to bring in a Bill before he received the report of the actuaries who had been appointed; but he must protest against its being said that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to introduce, in due season, a measure which would have procured the best solution of this difficult question; but such was the impatience of the noble Lord, instigated by the clients whom he represented, that he could not allow a single week to elapse before giving them the

  993
  benefits to which in a spirit of goodnatured credulity he considerd them to be entitled.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, the reason he had opposed the Bill was, because he wished to protect the notional exchequer. The better plan would have been to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole of the Civil Service.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he was surprised to hear the noble Lord accused of goodnatured credulity. The Government might more justly be accused of illnatured obstinacy. Nine out of every ten men in cities were in favour of the noble Lord's Bill.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he must complain of the undue haste with which the Bill had been pressed forward, and the extraordinary zeal which the civil servants had exhibited in soliciting hon. Members to support it. The measure, in short, was the result of an organized conspiracy on the part of the public servants, was unjust in its provisions, and based on erroneous statements.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 23: Majority 68.
  The Bill read 3°and passed.

  GREAT YARMOUTH WRIT.
  MR. HAYTER MR. HAYTER moved that a new writ be issued for the election of two Burgesses for the borough of Great Yarmouth, in the room of William Torrens M'Cullagh, Esq., and Edward William Watkin, Esq., whose election had been declared to be void.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new writ for the electing of two Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Great Yarmouth, in the room of William Torrens M'Cullngh, esquire, and Edward William Watkin, esquire, whose elections have been determined to be void."
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, the hon. Member for Hereford had moved that the evidence before the Committee be printed. He thought that afforded him sufficient ground for moving that the Writ be suspended till the evidence be in the hands of hon. Members.
  Amendment proposed,—
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "the issue of the new writ for the borough of Great Yarmouth be suspended until after the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee be printed," instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HAYTERsaid, it did not follow that because a Member of the Committee had moved that the Report of the Committee be printed that the Writ should be suspended. What the House had to look to was the Report of the Committee. That Report was that there were three instances of bribery and two instances where promises of money had been made. It was not proved to the Committee that the bribery was with the knowledge of the Members.
  COLONEL CLIFFORDsaid, he was authorised by the Committee to say that they would not support a Motion that the Writ be suspended.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered,—
  That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new writ for the electing of two Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Great Yarmouth, in the room of William Torrens M'Cullagh, esquire, and Edward William Watkin, esquire, whose Elections have been determined to be void.
  Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members not being present,
  House was adjourned at half after Two o'clock.