Lords Sitting of 19 July 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Continuance; Charitable Trusts Acts Continuance; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements; Copyhold and Inclosure Commissions, &c; Indemnity; Army Service; Friendly Societies Act Amendment; Reformatory Schools (Ireland); Administration of Oaths by Committees.
2a Police (Scotland) Act Amendment; Lunatics (Scotland) Act Amendment; Local Government.
3a New General Post Office (Edinburgh); Navigation Advances (Ireland); Prescription (Ireland).

THE MASSACRE AT JEDDAH.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE: Before your Lordships proceed to the regular business of the day I wish to put a question or two to the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Department, whom I have the advantage of seeing in his place. The few sentences by which I propose to explain the object of my inquiries will occupy a very short time, and I feel confident that my noble Friend will reply not only with his usual conciseness, but with his characteristic courtesy. The matter to which I think it right to call attention is the late atrocious, and, to all appearance, unprovoked massacre of Christians at Jeddah. Judging from what has appeared on this subject in the public journals, the circumstances which accompanied the commission of the crime are better known than those from which it sprang, or those
  1656
  in which it terminated. There is no small reason to apprehend that the assault was premeditated, and no satisfactory reason for believing that the Turkish authorities were either active in protecting the victims or in punishing their assailants. At all events, whether we look to the relentless fury of the fanatics, or the number and character of those who fell under their blows, the massacre perpetrated in Arabia is no less important than afflicting. I cannot for a moment suppose that any remissness exhibited by the local Pasha, or his lieutenant, is attributable to the Turkish Government. No doubt, the Sultan and his Ministers were deeply and sincerely distressed when the horrible intelligence reached Constantinople, nor do I entertain the least apprehension of their hesitating to promise an immediate and complete satisfaction. But there is no denying that justice in Turkey is apt to move at a slow pace, and that, whether the object be punishment or compensation, the promise given to a foreign representative is but too often unnecessarily delayed and inadequately fulfilled. It may be presumed in the present instance that Her Majesty's Government have taken the necessary steps for obtaining reparation, and that they will be prepared to enforce, in concert, if necessary, with the French Government, that exemplary amount of retribution which may produce a wholesome and lasting effect throughout the Ottoman empire. Considering the great interests which call for a continual progress in friendly communications and mutual good-will between the nations of Christendom and the inhabitants of Turkey, we are bound to follow up the aid given in time of war to the Sultan by that encouragement to the repression of fanaticism in his dominions which our insistance on a full measure of atonement on the present occasion, whether to the public, or to individual sufferers, is calculated to afford. I trust, at the same time, that an idea, which has been whispered about, of taking security against future assaults on our Christian fellow subjects in Turkey by the occupation of Mecca, or the seizure of some precious object of veneration treasured within its walls, has no foundation in reality. It is possible that such an enterprise might succeed in a military point of view; but no degree of success in that respect could make up for the bitterness of hatred which it would engender against us throughout the Mussulman world, and which in its natural consequences could hardly fail of proving fatal

  1657
  to all our hopes respecting the progress of improvement in Turkey,—to those prospects of cordial reconciliation between the professors of conflicting creeds which the Sultan's wise benevolence and the triumph of his allies in the late war have so eminently promoted. I have to conclude these necessary words of explanation by thanking your Lordships for the indulgence with which you have received them, and addressing, in a distinct form, the questions I have in mind to my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I wish to know, in the first place, whether Her Majesty's Government have yet received any official advices of the massacre perpetrated at Jeddah, as stated in the public prints; secondly, whether instructions have been issued for demanding full reparation from the Porte by means of the British and French representatives at Constantinople; and, thirdly, whether adequate measures are to be employed for enforcing our just demands in the event of obstructions or delays amounting to a denial of justice?
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that those questions could not come with greater propriety than from my noble Friend who has just sat down, who has spent a life of eminent services chiefly in endeavouring to counteract those evil influences of which we now see the bitter fruits. On Sunday—yesterday week—I received, at an early hour, a telegram which your Lordships have doubtless all read respecting the late massacre of Christians at Jeddah. I did not lose an hour in sending back another telegram to Sir Henry Bulwer, giving him instructions to the effect that if the scenes so described had really taken place, he was to allow of no trifling whatever on the part of the Government of the Sultan, but to insist upon immediate redress, and upon such retribution as was necessary for the outrages that had been committed. In the course of the week, Mr. Greene, Her Majesty's Consul at Alexandria, wrote a full account of what had taken place at Jeddah; founded on a statement of the facts from Captain Pullen, commander of the Cyclops, one of Her Majesty's vessels which happened to be lying outside Jeddah at the time. It appears, my Lords, that a dispute had arisen between the Turkish authorities and the captain of the Cyclops, with respect to the real owners of a certain ship, which was an Indian vessel—that is, a ship belonging to some of Her Majesty's Indian sub-
  1658
  jects. Those Indian subjects, it appears, wished to change the nationality of the vessel, and to assume the Ottoman protection. That was a proceeding wholly contrary to law, because those parties could not claim Ottoman protection and the Ottoman law to the detriment of their allegiance to England, and of what they owed to the English Government. The matter being disputed, it was brought before a legal tribunal; where it was decided that the ship was English, and not Turkish. But, in the course of a few days, notwithstanding this decision, the English flag was lowered, and the Ottoman flag hoisted. Nothing further passed for two days; but at the end of that time, without any suspicion on the part of Captain Pullen of any serious disturbance having taken place, this gentleman perceived some Greeks swimming towards his ship, who, upon his interrogating them, gave him the first account of the massacre then going on. It appeared that the Governor had only a few soldiers at the time under his command; but, as far as Captain Pullen's statement goes, that functionary behaved as well as he possibly could under the circumstances; for four or five of his soldiers were killed in his exertions to afford protection to the outraged party, and he succeeded in saving the lives of the daughter of the French Consul, and of other Christian persons, who found security in his own house. After hearing this account, Captain Pullen sent some boats ashore to rescue those persons, and he succeeded in saving the lives of about twenty-five individuals, who were subsequently brought to Suez in safety. I believe that Captain Pullen conceived that he had not sufficient strength to take further measures, and I am of opinion that he acted with discretion. He, however, took steps before he left the shore to give the murdered Consul Christian burial; and he insisted upon the authorities of the place sending off to the Pasha immediately for Turkish troops. I understand, my Lords, that the Pasha has since proceeded with some troops to Jeddah. So much as to the facts of the case as far as we know them. My noble Friend has asked me what Her Majesty's Government have done in respect to their own action in this matter, and whether we have demanded immediate reparation from the Porte? I am glad to say, my Lords, that it scarcely requires any urgency on the part of Sir Henry Bulwer to induce the Porte to

  1659
  take up with a great spirit of indignation the cause of the sufferers. Without troubling your Lordships with the parleying that took place for a few days, it is sufficient for me to state that a Pasha has been actually sent to Jeddah with a large force of troops from Egypt to put down any fanatic insurrection, supposing such should arise. In accordance with the strong remonstrances of Her Majesty's Government, he has been armed with power of life and death, to execute capital punishment upon any offenders whom he should deem deserving of the same in Jeddah, without reference to Constantinople, which he would have been otherwise obliged to do by the laws of the country. My impression is, that it will not require any great exertions on our part to use any force, or to assist in any way the Turkish Government in obtaining justice and retribution for this horrible massacre. The Turkish Government are perfectly ready to do their duty. They are proceeding energetically at this moment; and Sir Henry Bulwer is convinced that the Pasha will carry out the orders he has received with the greatest promptitude and energy. In respect to the rumours my noble Friend has heard as to the intention of Her Majesty's Government to send an armed force to Mecca or other cities, they are entirely without foundation. I trust your Lordships are convinced, without any assurance from me, that our object is to secure the integrity of the Turkish empire, and at the same time to encourage and assist the Sultan in proceeding with those reforms which, I may say, have been originated by my noble Friend opposite (Lord Stratford de Redcliffe). Her Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that any extraordinary fanaticism has been shown in any other portion of the Turkish empire at this moment. The unfortunate affair at Jeddah originated principally from the dispute about the ship of which I have spoken. I trust I shall be able, in a few days, to state what steps have been taken in Jeddah by the Pasha to obtain justice.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.—WEDNESDAYS.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, looking at the state of public business, considering the number of Bills that had just come up from the other House of Parliament, and seeing that the House of Commons had arrived at the important stage when the last Votes had been passed by the Committee of Supply, he hoped it would not be felt he was asking too much in proposing that the
1660
House of Lords should meet on the Wednesdays in this and the next week, for about an hour, upon the understanding that they would not take any measure that was likely to raise a serious discussion, but would rather confine their attention to Bills to which there were no objections. If any Bill were brought forward upon which a discussion was likely to arise he would wish it to be understood by the House that such measure should only proceed pro forma, so that the discussion could be taken on its next stage. He hoped that no objection would be raised to this course at the present period of the Session.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had no objection to the proposed arrangement upon the understanding mentioned.

FORMS OF PRAYER.—THE STATE SERVICES.

  ADDRESS MOVED.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH moved "That Her Majesty's most gracious answer to the Address of this House of the 28th day of June last be now read:" and the same was read as follows:
  "I have received your Address, praying that I will take into My Consideration the Proclamation of the First Year of My Reign, commanding the Use of the Forms of Prayer and Service made for the Fifth of November, the Thirtieth of January, and the Twenty-ninth of May; and should I see fit, that I will give such Orders as to Me shall seem meet to cause that the said Services shall no longer be annexed to the Book of Common Prayer and Liturgy of the United Church of England and Ireland, to be used yearly on the said Days:
  "And you may rely on My giving the Subject of your Address the careful Consideration which its importance demands."
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHthen rose to move the Address to Her Majesty of which he had given notice with respect to the special Church services of the 5th of November, the 30th of January, and the 29th of May. The noble Duke said that he must in the first place explain that it was not possible for him to have moved that Address as an Amendment upon that which had been proposed by the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) a few nights ago; because that was a Motion which, in his

  1661
  opinion, ought not to have been met otherwise than by a direct negative. As that Address, however, had been agreed to both by their Lordships and by the other House of Parliament, he thought it his duty now to propose an Address to Her Majesty, requesting that she would command that there should be substituted for the services in question, if they should be removed from the Prayer-book, some memorial of those great deliverances for which this nation ought to be so constantly grateful. The noble Earl who moved the Address on a former evening (Earl Stanhope) stated that these services rested solely on the authority of a Royal Proclamation, and with singular inconsistency he asked their Lordships to pray Her Majesty to invalidate her own authority. Another argument urged against them was that they had not been sanctioned by Convocation. This was very delicate ground to touch upon. No one could be more disposed to pay all due respect to Convocation than he was; but he could not admit that a service which had the authority of a Royal Proclamation, ought to be disregarded, simply because it had not the sanction of Convocation. A further argument urged was, that expressions were used in these services entirely unsuited to the present time; and in the justice of that argument be was inclined to some extent to agree. But the great difference between the times in which these services were instituted and our own ought to be borne in mind. The most objectionable parts of these services depended on the florid, high-flown personal references contained in them. Though the feeling of loyalty and attachment to the Throne was no less warm now than in those times, yet it was not our habit to use such high-flown expressions of adulation in respect to the person of the Sovereign as were common then, and it would be found on examination that it was in that particular that these services were most objectionable to the public taste of the day. He did not desire that these objectionable parts should be retained, but simply that the recollection of the great events in our national history and the great deliverances which God had vouchsafed to this country should be kept alive. Even if the services themselves were expunged, some memorial ought to be retained in the liturgy of the Church of the events therein commemorated. The Acts of Parliament on which these services rested had not yet been re-
  1662
  pealed, and so long as that was the case there was an inconsistency in sending up Addresses to the Crown, requesting it to do an act which would be in direct contradiction of those Acts. The events of those days were intimately associated with the national prosperity, and he could not conceive that, in asking their Lordships to agree to an Address to have them commemorated, he was asking their assent to anything which was not acceptable to them. It was perfectly true that a long period had elapsed since that great wickedness of the 5th of November was about to be perpetrated, but he was sure there were thousands of hearts which, when the memory of those events returned, swelled with thankfulness at the deliverance of the country from ruin and desolation. It might be true that some of the phrases in the services which now appeared in the Book of Common Prayer were not in accordance with the feelings of the present day. Let those phrases be expunged, bat let them not be ashamed of confessing the national dependence on the Providence of God. He proposed that in the only service which his noble Friend (Earl Stanhope) had spared—relating to the Accession of Her Majesty—some allusion should be made to those events which, by a wonderful co-operation had led to the present occupancy of a Protestant and constitutional Throne. The noble Duke concluded by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty, if it should be Her pleasure that the Services of the 5th November, the 30th January, and the 29th May should no longer be annexed to the Book of Common Prayer, in accordance with the Address of the House of Lords, to direct that there be hereafter inserted in the Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving appointed for the 20th day of June, being the day on which Her Majesty began Her happy Reign, such Form of Thanksgiving, as Her Majesty may see fit, for the great Deliverances which by the mercy of God have been vouchsafed to this Nation—namely:
  "The Rescue of the Estates of Parliament from the Conspiracy of the 5th November, 1605; and,
  "The Restoration of the Church and Monarchy in 1660; and
  "The Deliverance from Papal Subjection and arbitrary Power through the Landing of King William III. in 1688:
  "Of which several events the Nation is still enjoying the blessings in the security of Her Majesty's Throne."
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he had hoped that this question had been disposed of three weeks ago, and he questioned whether, in making this Motion the noble Duke was recommending a course consonant with

  1663
  that sincere desire for the welfare of the Church by which he was known to be animated. He was charged with inconsistency, because he had not upon a recent occasion proposed to repeal the Acts of Parliament upon which the Royal Proclamation issued for these special services. But the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Oxford thought the notion of an Address to the Crown preferable, and if the Royal Proclamation were withdrawn the object would be accomplished, because the Act would then be a dead letter. It was true that the noble Earl representing the Government (the Earl of Malmesbury) said he should have preferred a repeal of the Act, but he assigned as the reason because the other House would then have concurred; and since that time the other House had concurred by unanimously adopting an Address to the Crown identical with that which, at his instance, had been adopted by their Lordships. He entirely dissented from the Motion of the noble Duke, which he looked upon as a retrograde movement, and he should feel it his duty to divide the House against it if it was not withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he felt deeply indebted to the noble Duke for proposing his Motion. No lapse of time ought to prevent this nation from cherishing gratitude to God for the signal blessings which He had conferred upon this country at various periods of its history, and the gracious interpositions by which he had saved it from impending ruin; and no time could be more appropriate for their commemoration than the time when we were commemorating the Accession of our most gracious Sovereign to the throne. A total oblivion of the signal mercies of Divine Providence would fill his mind with alarm. Such things ought to be kept fresh in the recollection of the people, and nothing would tend more to the overthrow of this nation than forgetfulness of the mercies which it had received at the hands of Providence. Let them once forget such events as were referred to in the noble Duke's Motion, and from that moment their sun would set.
  LORD EBURYsaid, he hoped that if this Motion were carried the Government would do something more than advise Her Majesty to recall the Proclamation in virtue of which these services were read—namely, bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of Parliament on which that Proclamation was based. So long as these Acts remained unrepealed a court of law might enforce
  1664
  their performance. He had no objection to a short collect being added to the service for the Accession of the Queen, with a view to commemorate the events now celebrated in these services.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that although his noble Friend (Viscount Dungannon) had stated that these services were enjoined by Act of Parliament, it would have been more correct to say that the observance of the days was ordered by Act of Parliament, and that during several reigns the use of these forms was enjoined by Royal proclamation; for the Acts said nothing about these services, which were prepared afterwards. The more advisable course in regard to these forms of prayer would have been, not to address the Crown to direct that they should be omitted from the Liturgy, but to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of Parliament enjoining the observance of these days. Parliament, however, had adopted a different view; and the opinion of both Houses of Parliament having been made known to Her Majesty, She would, no doubt, see fit to direct that a course should be taken in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. The Motion of the noble Duke appeared to him to rescind the previous Resolution for an Address to the Crown; and for the same reason that he had voted for the Resolution, he should vote against the present Motion, if it were pressed to a division. The events commemorated in these services were undoubtedly very important occurrences in the history of this country, and afforded great cause for thankfulness; yet it was not pretended that every great blessing and every signal deliverance in our history either was or ought to be commemorated by a special service. He did not remember a greater peril or a more signal deliverance than that from the Spanish Armada; and if special services were to be kept up, he did not see why we should not return thanks for the discomfiture of the Spanish Armada. Then, again, the Reformation exercised a most important influence upon the character and constitution of this country, yet it was not thought necessary to celebrate it by a special thanksgiving. He thought the time had come for the discontinuance of these services, and he did not think it would be advisable to incorporate a portion of them into another service to which no objection was taken.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that it was, no doubt, a mistake to suppose that

  1665
  these particular services were enjoined by Act of Parliament. The days were commanded to be observed by Act of Parliament, but the services themselves rested upon a Royal Proclamation; and that being withdrawn, the services would be also withdrawn. With regard to the service of the Fifth of November, he entertained a strong conviction that thanksgivings for Her Majesty's accession ought not to be mixed up with anything calculated to embitter our feelings towards our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. His great objection to the service for the Fifth of November was, that it involved the whole Roman Catholic body in an act which was not theirs, but the act of certain conspirators. He need not remind their Lordships that the battle of Inkerman was fought on the 5th of November; and it would be most undesirable, while thanking God for Her Majesty's auspicious reign, to revive feelings of bitterness towards Her Roman Catholic subjects.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that he regretted the opposition of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) to his Motion, but he would not divide the House.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

SCHOOL TRUSTEES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved the second reading of this Bill, which was, he said, required by the present unsatisfactory state of the law. Some measure was necessary in order to terminate the discussions to which recent conflicting decisions of the Courts had given rise. He added that such a measure had become absolutely necessary, in order to place the trusts of many scholastic foundations in the country in conformity with the decisions of the Courts of law at the present time, as to the admissibility of Dissenters to such trusts where they had not been expressly excluded by the terms of the deed of foundation; and he trusted their Lordships would give it a second reading, as otherwise an element of discord would be introduced into a great number of the public schools in the kingdom.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, this Bill, though very unpretending in appearance, for it consisted of only one clause, seemed to him likely to be fraught with
  1666
  important consequences. The noble Lord said it would prevent an element of discord being introduced into the different towns where foundations of this kind existed. The measure was founded on the decision in the case of the Ilminster School, where the Master of the Rolls and the Lords Justices came to different conclusions as to the admissibility of Dissenters to be trustees of the school. The noble Lord had proposed a general measure, applicable to all schools and foundations, and providing that no person should be prevented from being nominated or acting as a trustee on account of his religious opinions unless there was an express provision for such exclusion in the deed of foundation. Of course, where there was an express provision excluding Dissenters, they must be excluded; but there were many instruments of foundation by which Dissenters were excluded by necessary implication as strong as any expressed provision, from acting as trustees, though they were not so excluded by express terms; and yet the noble Lord would include all such schools in his Bill. The effect of the measure would be to interfere with Church schools and Church foundations, and in all such cases Dissenters would be admitted as trustees where they had not been expressly excluded by the deed of foundation. He thought such a Bill would be fraught with mischievous consequences, and he therefore moved that it be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") for the purpose of inserting ("this day three months").
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he was persuaded that the Bill in its principle was a most useful measure, and that with one modification it ought to receive the assent of their Lordships. The only Amendment required in the Bill was one which would meet the objection put forward by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, and which would provide that Dissenters should not serve as trustees of schools in any case in which, by necessary implication, they were excluded from the office under the will of the founders. It was only because the school at Ilminster had been founded in the time of Henry VIII., when it was presumed there were no Dissenters, that members of that body had been declared by the Lords Justices disqualified from serving as trustees. The law upon that subject was at present in a

  1667
  very unsatisfactory condition, and it was very desirable that it should be amended.
  THE EARL OF DERBYaltogether dissented from the principle embodied in the Bill, which was, that whatever might have been the presumed or the real intentions of the founder, and though it might be manifest from the object of the school that none but Churchmen should hold the office of trustees, yet, if there were no express terms in the deed prohibiting Dissenters from becoming trustees, the courts of law should be bound to declare that Dissenters were eligible for such functions.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that Dissenters had filled the office of trustee for such an institution for 150 years past; but by a recent decision the usage of a century and a half had been reversed. This fact showed that the law was in an unsatisfactory state, and ought to be reconsidered. Although he admitted that this measure went too far, it might easily be modified in Committee.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsuggested the postponement of the Bill for a few days, with a view to secure the presence at its discussion of several noble and learned Lords now absent, and also to afford an opportunity of consulting the Charity Commissioners as to its provisions. In consequence of the recent decisions, he feared that by the suspension of all action in this matter till next Session there was a danger that parties would be involved in costly litigation. A short Bill might be introduced to prevent this; and next Session the whole subject might be dealt with.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas afraid that if the discussion were deferred for a few days they would lose the assistance of some noble and learned Lords now present.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in reply, said, that he would not call on their Lordships to divide.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this Day Three Months.

UNIVERSITY (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order). Clause 1.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE, in pursuance of notice, rose to move the omission of words in the 14th line of the clause, which would have the effect of preventing the union of Marischal and King's Colleges, Aberdeen.
  1668
  The noble Earl said, that when asked to undertake to move the Amendment he very naturally referred to the noble Earl the Lord Rector (Earl Stanhope); but he was told that the noble Earl felt some delicacy on account of his being named one of the Commissioners to carry out the provisions of the Bill when it became law. He need hardly say that the thanks of all who had the welfare of Scotland at heart were due to Her Majesty's Government for having introduced and carried forward this Bill, and that he was not actuated by any considerations of a party character in seeking to remedy what was thought very generally to be a deficiency in the measure. Their Lordships were aware that the clause as it now stood would effect the consolidation of the two Universities and the two Colleges of Aberdeen into one University and one College. If the Amendment which he was about to propose were adopted, there would be only one University, but the Colleges would remain separate. In Scotland the Universities were conducted upon the Professorial system—that was to say, there were large classes presided over by Professors; and in the Universities of Edinburgh, St. Andrews, and Glasgow, it was impossible that the Professors could exercise any very close superintendence over the studies of such large numbers. But in Aberdeen, in consequence of there, being two Colleges with separate staffs of Professors, the Professors could exercise that most desirable supervision. The Lord Rector had, on a former occasion, described how the poorer classes, and even labourers, underwent great privations in order to obtain the advantage of a University education. In the Report which was laid on their Lordships' table some years ago of an inquiry into the University of Oxford, it was stated that one of the great causes of expense in that University was the necessity under which every one was placed, who wished to compete for honours, of employing at considerable expense the services of a private tutor, and it was suggested as a remedy that the staff of the Colleges should be increased. But it was proposed by this clause to take a step in a direction entirely contrary to that suggestion. It was proposed to fuse two Colleges into one, and to reduce the number of Professors at Aberdeen to something more than half—so that there would be a much smaller number of teachers, and consequently either a more superficial or a more expensive edu-

  1669
  cation. It was well known that the standard of education in Aberdeen was higher than in any other of the Universities of Scotland; and to keep up the standard with this alteration it would be necessary to engage the services of private tutors. The inhabitants of Aberdeen considered that they derived great benefits from the competition of the two Colleges. They were quite ready to confess that the competition between the Universities was of a very improper character—as tending injuriously to lower the fees—but they contended that, if the two Universities only were united, the improper competition would be extinguished, and the proper competition between the two Colleges retained. It was stated the other night in the course of the discussion, that the reports of all the Commissions which had reported on the state of Scotch Universities were unanimously in favour of the union of the Colleges. He ventured to say that it was a most unjustifiable assertion, and that there never had been more diversity of opinion upon any question than upon this very question of the Colleges of Aberdeen. The first Commission, which reported in 1830, was in favour of the union of the Colleges. The next, which reported in 183S, and again in 1839, recommended the union of the Universities, and said nothing about the Colleges. The last Commission, consisting of three gentlemen, did report in favour of a union of the Colleges; but one of the Commissioners—Mr. Stirling—had since changed his opinion. Mr. Stirling stated, in his place in the House of Commons, that certain circumstances had come to his knowledge which caused him to alter his opinion with respect to the union of the Colleges of Aberdeen; and he also stated that he had no doubt the same circumstances which influenced him would have influenced the opinion of another member of the Commission. But supposing that the union of the Colleges had not the disadvantage of enhancing the cost of education, or doing away with a competition which those who opposed their union believed to be wholesome, he thought the feeling expressed in the northern counties should lead their Lordships to pause and hesitate before they adopted this clause of the Bill. It was a great mistake to suppose that the feeling was confined to the town of Aberdeen. It prevailed throughout the counties of Aberdeen, Kincardine, Forfar, and Banff, including a population of nearly half
  1670
  a million, or one-fourth of the whole population of Scotland. They had heard something the other night about a petition from the Professors of one of the Colleges in favour of the union; but it should be remembered that it was a petition adopted by a majority of one in a body of thirteen, and that the Professors had a direct pecuniary interest in the union. But petitions against the union had been signed by 7,317 persons, as against less than 100 who signed in its favour. The other night, the noble Lord at the head of the Government spoke some what slightingly of the feelings expressed by the people of Aberdeen. The noble Earl was not the only person who had adopted that tone. It had been taken up by those who called themselves University reformers in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and St, Andrews. But he did not believe that the people of Aberdeen deserved those taunts; for, twenty-five years ago, when the Universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Edinburgh were cold and still, Aberdeen took up the cause of University reform. It was rather hard now to turn upon them, and sweep away one of their Colleges and its endowment. The feeling of a people ought not to be entirely overlooked, unless it could be demonstrated beyond dispute that the course proposed was of great practical advantage. He would like to have heard the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) defend Oxford against a proposition to amalgamate two of the great Colleges of that University, and sure he was that he might have thence borrowed abundant arguments for the sister University of Aberdeen. There was this argument, that the proposed consolidation was in direct contravention of the will of the founder and the charter of the College. He was not one of those who advocated a strict adherence to the letter of the wills of founders; he thought they would show more respect to those great men if they endeavoured to carry out their clear intentions, and in that spirit he supported the Bill for the reform of the University of Oxford. He was quite at a loss to know on what principles of justice, expediency, or public policy it was proposed to sweep away one of these Colleges. According to the doctrine so often laid down by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, when a great change was made it was not enough that the promoters of it should show that it was beneficial, but that it was so beneficial as to counterbalance all the injuries which it might inflict on cer-

  1671
  tain interests. The advocates, therefore, of this union were bound to show that it was likely to confer such great advantages on Scotland and the empire at large as to compensate the people of Aberdeen for the great violence which it would do to their feelings and opinions. But the feeling against the union of these Colleges was not confined to Aberdeen nor to the people of the north of Scotland. There was a great difference of opinion among the most eminent public men who took an interest in this question. In the division in the other House, Mr. Gladstone, Sir Francis Baring, Mr. Ellice, Mr. Stirling, and others, voted against the provision. It might be possible that the persons who took this view of the question might be in the right, and should that turn out to be the case, the damage done by the Bill passing in its present condition would be irreparable. But no harm could be done by the Government simply leaving it to the Commissioners to inquire whether it was advisable that this union should take place. They would lay their Reports on the subject before the Government, and it would then be for them to decide what course they would pursue; and Parliament, after having their Reports before them, would have infinitely less trouble in deciding on the case. The worst that could happen by this course was postponement, which would allow public opinion time to consolidate itself upon the question. It was said that the Commissioners had power to maintain separate Professors in the Faculties of Arts if they should be so minded. That might be so, but he should be unwilling to leave the matter entirely in their hands. The effect of the Bill as it stood would be to do away with a great number of those small foundations or bursaries which were of so much use to the lower class of students, and would render it more difficult for such men to obtain a good education. He was sorry to have addressed their Lordships at such length, but he had no motive of hostility to the Bill; he simply desired to see those parts removed which would render it objectionable to the people of Scotland.
  Amendment moved, in line 14, to leave out ("and College.")
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, that as he was to be one of the Commissioners named in the Bill, he should not vote upon this question; but he did not think that he was precluded from expressing his present opinions, premising that he would hold him-
  1672
  self disengaged as to any course which he might take hereafter when he had heard the matter further argued. He doubted very much, however, in any case whether he could have supported, to its full extent, the Amendment of the noble Earl, which he took to go to the complete separation of the Colleges. But he had always understood that the great feeling of the people of the north of Scotland was not against a union of the Colleges. There was a complete unanimity as to the union of the Colleges, and of the faculties of Law, Medicine, and Theology, but it was wished to keep up the two faculties of Arts separate. But this Amendment went to keep the two Colleges quite separate. To this extent he certainly could not go. It was said that the Commissioners would have full powers to consider this question, and no doubt that was the case; but he was not so sure that in deciding it they would be able to take into their consideration the popular feeling on the subject in the same manner that Parliament could. There was no doubt as to the unanimity of public feeling on this question. Noble Lords well acquainted with that part of the kingdom had borne testimony to it. A noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) said he had never known the feeling so unanimous—and he would suggest therefore, without agreeing to the present Amendment, that words should be inserted in the 18th clause to keep the two faculties of Arts separate. He should be very sorry to see the Bill pass with any provision in it which would mar the popularity, of the measure, and the adoption of his suggestion would prevent such a result.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he had only voted against the noble Earl at the head of the Government twice or three times in his life, but he should be obliged to do so on the present occasion if the noble Earl did not amend this clause in the direction proposed. There was an agitation raised for an interested, but it was a genuine deep-rooted feeling in the heart of the great mass of the population. It was thought by the middle classes, who sent their children to these Universities, that if this Bill passed in its present shape, they would never again get so good an education at Aberdeen as before. In military language, the "squads" of students would be made too large for the Professors to manage. If the two Colleges were left separate, a feeling of emulation would be excited between them which should send

  1673
  out most University prizemen. If the question were left to the Commissioners, the moment the Bill passed they would be overwhelmed with applications from each of the two Colleges, and a source of discord would be created which would materially affect the success of their labours. With great respect to the Commissioners, he would rather have a clause in the Act than depend on their opinion afterwards; and if such a clause were introduced, the measure which had been for many years before the public would be carried to a successful issue. He did not think that he was asking too much when he said "For Heaven's sake leave well alone. Nobody says these two Professors have done any mischief. They can't do any mischief. Let them alone for a short time, and if in five or six years hence we and the people of Scotland find we are wrong, you can bring in a Bill of one clause in another Session of Parliament and put the thing right." He assured his noble Friend that the opinion of the whole of the north of Scotland was against the union; and although he was himself the last person in the world to bow to popular opinion, he had always felt that it was the bounden duty of every man in Parliament, and more particularly in the House of Lords, to give due weight and credit to public opinion, when it had been ascertained in the manner in which it had been ascertained upon this occasion.
  EARL POWISthought the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) had exaggerated the effect of the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Airlie.) The Bill gave the Commissioners power to establish another faculty of Arts, and that would involve a very trifling expense. The noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) spoke of the degrees which would be taken in the superior faculties of Law, Medicine, and Divinity. But the noble Earl (the Earl of Airlie) did not raise the question of having separate classes for those studies. All parties were agreed that the superior faculties should be merged in one united University. It was much to be regretted that the jealousy of the two Colleges and of the inhabitants of Aberdeen had caused them to miss opportunities which had several times occurred of settling the matter upon advantageous terms. But if it were supposed the Commissioners would exercise their discretion and establish another faculty of Arts with four or five Professors, was it not reasonable to ask that the Professor
  1674
  should be upon a separate foundation, and should have a resident head among themselves? What would their Lordships think, in the case of an English University, if it were proposed that two Colleges at opposite ends of the town should be under one head, and consequently that one of them should be without a principal? Would it not be said that that proposal was sure to produce anarchy in both? All that would be necessary would be to give a small allowance to one Professor, and place him at the head of the College. In case of any dispute among the Professors, or of discord among the students, was it not desirable that there should be on the spot a resident head who would have authority to compose differences, and make each establishment complete in itself? In the affiliating institutions of the University of Durham, and in the private halls authorized to be established at Oxford, each was under a responsible head, and under individual control; and surely it was unreasonable not to adopt the same plan in this case. It was not a question whether they should continue the two Universities—it was not a question whether they should continue separate classes in the superior faculties; it was whether, having decided practically that there should be a faculty of Arts in King's College, the Professors and pupils of that College should have an independent head. Surely their Lordships must confess that such an arrangement was for the advantage of the colleges and the benefit of education.
  EARL STANHOPErepeated that he thought there ought to be a union of the colleges, but he doubted whether, as regarded the faculty of Arts, that ought to be left to the Commissioners under the Bill.
  EARL POWISsaid, the 15th section gave the Commissioners full control over the revenues of the colleges, and powers to re-establish or re-organize the Professors as they pleased.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsuggested that they should leave the Colleges as they now stood, and give the Commissioners power, if they came to that conclusion, to recommend their union. The adverse feeling of the parties now petitioning would be very different when the union was grounded upon the report of a Commission, and after inquiry had been made. It would show that their Lordships did not decide against the general opinion which from all quarters had reached them.
  The EARL OF DERBYsaid, he thought that hardly one of their Lordships seemed disposed to support the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Airlie); for both his noble Friend who had just sat down and the noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Stanhope), while they complained of the enactments of the Bill, repudiated altogether the idea of preventing the union of the colleges, and confined themselves simply to the point that there should be two faculties of Arts. Therefore, so far as the Amendment was concerned, the opinion of their Lordships was altogether unanimous. His noble Friend on the cross benches wished to provide for the exception of this single case, and to provide that there should be a continuance of the faculty of Arts. His answer to that proposal was this—if they declared that there should be a second faculty of Arts, they decided beforehand in opposition to the opinion of the Commissioners of Inquiry who had examined into the subject, and reported upon it in favour of complete union. He had always great respect for the opinion of the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Richmond), and it was very true that the occasions were very few when they had voted on different sides. But on the present occasion he apprehended the logical course to pursue was to follow up in their integrity, if they acted at all upon the recommendations of the Commissioners, and to leave the Commissioners under the Bill to make such amendments and modifications as they thought fit. His noble Friend said that if they passed the Bill they did not deal fairly by the parties petitioning, because they declared a foregone opinion on the part of Parliament, and allowed the Commissioners to modify it. But supposing they took the opposite course, and only gave the Commissioners power of restoring that recommendation. His noble Friend on the cross benches had not said a word as to the qualifications of the Commissioners, and with all deference to the opinion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), he preferred the opinion of Commissioners who were perfectly conversant with the question, to the opinion of those who were but imperfectly acquainted with it. The noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Stanhope) doubted whether the Commissioners under the Bill could consider the question of public opinion upon the subject. All he could say to that was, that the words were couched in the strongest possible terms. The Commissioners were authorized, in
  1676
  their discretion, if they thought it either necessary or expedient so to do, to make provision for the maintenance of two separate faculties of Arts. The Bill gave the fullest powers to the Commissioners to exercise the utmost latitude, and provided all that good reason and good sense could demand. If public opinion were very strong, the Commissioners had the fullest power to meet it and make provision accordingly. He thought the Bill, as it stood, preferable to any of the Amendments suggested, and that the Amendment went further than even the opponents of the Bill desired.
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Clause 2 agreed to, with an Amendment.
  Clause 3.
  LORD BELHAVEN LORD BELHAVEN moved the omission of the clause, which provides that the Principals of Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, are not to be deemed Professors of Theology.
  The DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, there was no doubt that the clause was a mistake, as it asserted that which was contrary to the fact, and he should have no objection to omit it.
  Clause disagreed to.
  Clauses 4 to 11 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 12, relating to the powers of University Courts.
  EARL GRANVILLEadverted to the proposed transfer of the patronage of the University of Edinburgh from the Town Council to the University Court. The noble Earl said that, though he did not intend to move an Amendment on this matter, it certainly did seem very hard that this patronage should be taken away from the Town Council when they had possessed it so long, and when it was not pretended that they had exercised it unsatisfactorily. He hoped, too, that the noble Duke who had charge of the Bill (the Duke of Montrose) would consent to insert words in the Bill to make these Courts open to the public.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, this matter had been very much discussed in the other House. There were there, of course, many persons who were anxious to leave the patronage in the hands of the Town Council, and others who urged very strongly the necessity of transferring it to

  1677
  some other body. The compromise which had been agreed on was, he believed, accepted by all parties as a fair settlement of the question, and he could not, therefore, consent to any proposition to disturb it. With regard to the noble Earl's second proposition, to make the University courts open courts, he really could not see any advantage in such a provision, and he hoped, therefore, that the noble Earl would not attempt to press it.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTONsaid, that though it was rather a strong measure to take away the patronage so long exercised by the Town Council of Edinburgh, he could not say but that it might turn out of great practical advantage. The Town Council had founded the University, and a charter was given to it by the King soon after. When a charter was forfeited, it was usual to show malfaisance of some sort or other; but none had been shown in this case. No doubt there might have been considerable inconvenience in the patronage being exercised by the Town Council—indeed, it was said that their appointments had generally been made with a view to sectarian considerations; but however strange it might be originally to repose patronage in such hands, certainly no malfaisance, sufficient absolutely to justify the transfer, had been proved. The Commission of 1826, of which he had been a member, did not propose to make any change in this respect. No doubt considerable alteration had taken place in the Town Council of Edinburgh since that time. The Municipal Reform Act had changed it from a self-elected to a popularly elected body. No doubt self-election was a bad principle; but the corporation of Edinburgh in those days was a very different kind of body from the present corporation. As a compromise had been arranged, and as he knew a great portion of the community in Edinburgh were exceedingly glad of the transfer, he did not think that it was for their Lordships to interfere with it. In respect to the four Curators who were to sit in the Court, he would suggest that it should be so arranged that certain members of the Town Council—such as the Lord Provost and the two senior members should be ex officio Curators.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that a large portion of the community also disapproved of the alteration. The noble Earl then moved to insert the following clause:—
  "The Meetings of the Sonatas Academicus,
  1678
  the General Council, and the University Court of each University, and of the Court of Curators in the University of Edinburgh, shall be open to the public."
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH, in reference to a remark made by the noble Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of Haddington) in reference to ex officio members of the Court, said that he had lately presented a petition from Glasgow praying that the Lord Provost might be nominated an ex officio member of the Court of that University.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 15, giving power to the Commissioners to inquire into the expediency of founding a National University, and to make arrangements for its establishment.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONthought this scheme of founding a national University for Scotland was an exceedingly vain one. It was scarcely constitutional to give a Commission of this sort the power of suppressing ancient corporations—the only links almost which connected Scotland of bygone times with Scotland of the present. One of the greatest evils under which Scotland suffered was that she was so little connected with the historical past. It was not at all clear that the scheme would lead to benefit the cause of education in Scotland. Such a college as St. Andrews, without the power of conferring degrees, would in a very short time run the risk of becoming something very like a private school. Again, some of the Colleges might be taken into the University and some left out, so that there would be part of the old system working alongside of the new one. He did not suppose that it would ever be carried into effect, but it seemed a pity to unsettle the whole educational arrangements of the kingdom by proposing a scheme which would probably never come to anything.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, he was very much inclined to agree with the right rev. Prelate. It was very improbable that the scheme would ever take effect, for the different Universities were not very likely to agree to it. But as the provision had been introduced in the other House, where there seemed a disposition to expect beneficial results, it would be better, on the whole, for their Lordships to allow it to remain in the Bill.
  LORD BELHAVENthought the best

  1679
  course would be to leave out all this part of the duties of the Commission, and, if any such inquiry were necessary, to introduce a separate Bill for the purpose.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHdid not anticipate any great results from the provision, which, he remarked, had been introduced at a late stage of the progress of the Bill in the other House.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, agreed to.
  Clause 21.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert the following Proviso:—
  "6. For providing full compensation for the present holders of Professorships or other officers, for the loss of emoluments consequent on the abolition or conjunction of such Professorships or other offices in the present Universities and Colleges of Aberdeen."
  Agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 21 to 25 agreed to. Clause 26 disagreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the day for the House to be again put into Committee read.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 34 (Competitive Examinations for the Indian Army).
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he must for a few minutes draw their Lordships' attention to this clause. It for the first time introduced what was called open competitive examination for admission to the Engineers and the Artillery of the Indian army. This provision was not contained in the first Bill brought in by Her Majesty's Government, nor was it contained in the Bill of the late Government, but was introduced for the first time now. He had at all times regarded the introduction of competitive examination as the most dangerous and democratic of all modern innovations. Its practical tendency was to substitute persons of inferior education and position for the men who had hitherto led our armies to victory and conducted the affairs of the State. It had always been the practice when great experiments were about to be made in Government to inquire whether there were any defects to be remedied and whether there was a reasonable hope of improvement. But in this case there was no defect to be remedied. On
  1680
  the contrary, the perfection of the existing system was admitted; and no attempt could be made to alter it without incurring the most serious dangers. Nothing could be more injurious than to tamper with the scientific corps of the Indian army, perfect as they now were. If a failure should occur in this arm it would affect the success of a siege through the incapacity of an Engineer, or the success of a battle through the inferior character of an Officer of Artillery. Such a failure would go to the fate of a campaign, perhaps to the fate of an empire. This change was proposed at a moment when both of these services had attained their highest pitch of reputation. The boldness of the operations of our Engineers in front of Delhi,—the extraordinary resource, the audacity, which had marked all their operations at Lucknow,—the courage, the resolution, and the novelty which had distinguished the operations of the Artillery in all those actions in which they were supported by the Rifles—had actually introduced a new era in the art of war, and established on the part of these scientific corps a claim to consideration which one really would have thought Her Majesty's Government would have been only too happy to recognize. As their Lordships were aware that at the present moment there was, in point of fact, a competitive examination for commissions in these services in the College of Addiscombe, through which institution alone the Officers of Artillery and Engineers were now recruited. The cadets there studied under men of the most honourable and conscientious character, thoroughly acquainted with all that they had to teach, and deeply impressed with the great moral responsibility attached to the duty which they undertook. They there had not only to pass an examination for which they might be crammed on a particular day, but their whole conduct while at school was watched, and their moral character ascertained, as well as their intellectual attainments; and there could be no doubt that the gentlemen thus selected at Addiscombe for these services were men on whom the country could entirely depend. On the other hand, there was no possibility of introducing into the plan of open competitive examination any security of that description. All they could find was that on a particular day the person chosen had obtained a certain degree of apparent superiority over a gentleman who in reality had probably a much higher claim to the appointment. There were

  1681
  other advantages in the present system which it was impossible to attain by means of open competition. From the manner in which these officers were now chosen they had a guarantee that they were gentlemen; and it was impossible for him to speak too strongly of the advantage of having, especially in India, gentlemen—men of all the gentlemanlike feelings which prevailed in English society—for the conduct of military as well as of civil affairs. We maintained our position in that country by our moral superiority. An Englishman holding an official situation there was practically a representative of his Government, and whatever he did ill, or so as to impair his own position, impaired at the same time the position of the Government with which he was connected. Whatever he did well, or in a manner to distinguish him from others, increased the influence of his Government, while it added materially to his own. He recollected many years ago having gone to the Duke of Wellington on the subject of a court-martial, which had suggested that an officer who had been guilty of drunkenness should be dismissed the service. When urged to restore the accused to his position on account of some extenuating circumstances which existed in his favour, the Duke said, "Never palliate drunkenness in an officer. Depend upon it the Natives of India are extremely clever in discovering the character of an Englishman living among them; and no offence which an Englishman can commit is in their eyes so revolting as drunkenness." But that was not all. The moral superiority of Englishmen enabled us to keep that country; and if in any case we overlooked an offence that was calculated to lower us in the opinion of the Natives, the consequences to our power might be most disastrous. He had always been most desirous that we should retain the highest gentlemen we could procure at the head of affairs in India, and therefore he was particularly anxious that in this case the son of a grocer or a tailor, of the John Gilpin class, should not, through being highly crammed for an open competitive examination, be preferred before the son of a country gentleman or retired officer, who might not be able to pay enough for an education of that kind, but who might, nevertheless, be the fittest candidate for the situation. The higher a man's natural position the greater, ordinarily speaking, was his consideration for all those under him. This was always a true characteristic
  1682
  of the gentleman; and there never had been an occasion on which it was more important than at this juncture, that the general demeanour of all Englishmen and English officers in India towards the Native population should be conciliatory, and calculated to restore us in their opinion to the position we formerly held. The alteration was proposed also at a time when none of the apprehensions as to our officers could be entertained, which might perhaps have been entertained formerly. The Directors were no longer elected by a constituent body who had claims upon their patronage which might in former times have led to the selection of persons not of the most proper kind; and the Members of the Council, by not having seats in Parliament, would be saved from similar claims. He could not but regard this proposition as an act of homage to democracy. It was totally uncalled for. No one in the House of Commons had asked for it. No one anywhere had expressed the smallest wish to have this change introduced into the Indian army. It was proposed when that army was covered with glory, and when there was every reason to suppose that it would maintain its high character for the future. It was a measure which would affect injuriously the future efficiency of the Artillery and Engineers, and it was impossible that the present officers of both those noble services could do otherwise than offer to it the greatest opposition. For these reasons he should certainly object to the proposition.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that with the very greatest deference for the opinions of his noble Friend, and more especially on a subject on which he spoke with great weight and authority, he could not coincide with the arguments by which he had opposed the clause—some portions of which arguments were indeed inconsistent with other portions. His noble Friend said that the clause introduced for the first time into the scientific corps, the Artillery and Engineers of the Indian service, the principle of competition [The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH: Open competition]—of open competition; but with all respect to his noble Friend, it did not introduce the principle of competition, open or not open. As the clause at present stood it undoubtedly did introduce the principle of competition; but, as he (the Earl of Derby) proposed to amend it (of which Amendment he gave notice on the second reading)—namely, by omitting the last three lines, it

  1683
  would not introduce the principle of strict competition. What the clause did was this—it provided that persons should be admitted into the Artillery and Engineers upon an examination, the regulations for which examination should with all convenient speed be prepared and prescribed by the Secretary of State acting under the authority of his Council. He was not a very warm and ardent supporter of the principle of competition—at least he thought that competitive examination was a great experiment, of which he took took the liberty of saying, that in his opinion, they were not yet able to pronounce a decided opinion. But he must say this, that if there were one portion of the public service, civil or military, to which the principle of strict examination and of competition could be fairly and legitimately applied, it was the scientific branches of the military service. What was the case with regard to the British army? Why, with regard to the Royal Engineers and the Royal Artillery, they were subjected to the strictest possible examination, and not only that, but to the strictest competition. There was a competition for admission into Woolwich, there was a competition also for passing out of Woolwich, and, after that competition for passing out of Woolwich there was still a probation of the candidates, and they were liable to be rejected if their qualifications and their conduct did not prove to be equal to the promises they had held out upon their examination. Well, was there anything unreasonable, improper, or impracticable in such a course? Did not such a course give an answer to the objection which his noble Friend used—namely, that a person who might be very well up in his examination might prove to be no gentleman in his habits, dissipated in his conduct, and unqualified in other respects for the profession? But, provided proper regulations were laid down, first with regard to the character of the examination itself, and, next, with regard to the probation of the candidates after they had passed their examination, he could not see that such a risk would be incurred as his noble Friend appeared to anticipate. But was his noble Friend really an opponent of the system of competitive examination? Not at all, for he had told their Lordships that there was the strictest competitive examination at Addiscombe. But, said his noble Friend, "I wish the competition to be limited to the persons
  1684
  who have got into Addiscombe." And why? "Because," said he, "it gives you a security that the parties are gentlemen and the sons of gentlemen, and you will have no such security in any other public examination." Now, he (the Earl of Derby) hoped he was not insensible to the advantages of birth and station, but he confessed he could not join with his noble Friend in saying that because a person happened to be the son of a tailor, a grocer, or a choosemonger, provided his mental qualifications were equal to those of his competitors, he was to be excluded from honourable competition for an appointment in the public service. He did not think that was a legitimate argument for his noble Friend or for any one to use. A man's origin was nothing; the question to be asked was, "What are his qualifications for a scientific appointment, and what is his moral character?" If they showed him (the Earl of Derby) a man who was superor in both of these respects to his competitors, he cared not what might be his birth—that man was the best entitled to the appointment to which he aspired. He did not deny that Addiscombe had those merits which his noble Friend had ascribed to it. Those who were trained at Addiscombe had an immense advantage in the direction of their studies, and more especially in the knowledge on the part of their Professors of the peculiar qualifications and attainments which were required in the services which they had afterwards to enter. But he could not understand upon what principle it was that his noble Friend contended that that which had been introduced into every part of the civil service at home, into every department of the army, and more especially and more rigidly with regard to the scientific departments of the Royal army was not fit to be introduced into the scientific departments of the Indian army, which was now about to be incorporated and associated with the Queen's army, and to act under the authority of the Crown. If the clause laid down the strict and rigid principle that a man who succeeded in his examination should of necessity take the place of all others, he thought it would be open to serious objection. But if it simply provided that regulations should be prepared with regard to the due examination of persons wishing to enter the scientific corps, he could not understand upon what principle, without in the slightest degree derogating from the present examination to which his

  1685
  noble Friend referred, the advocates of competition in the civil and military services of the Crown could object to a clause which was simply so worded as to give a security that candidates for the scientific corps possessed that fair amount of scientific knowledge which was requisite for the efficient discharge of the duties they might be called upon to perform.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that the subject was a most important one. He fully agreed that the artillery of the Indian army had been, up to the present time, most efficient: indeed Sir Charles Napier said it was second to no artillery in the world. The question as to the admission of persons into the Artillery had been before him when a member of the Commission for investigating the effects of the system of purchase in the army, and Sir James Melvill had stated before that Commission the system which was pursued at Addiscombe. By that system there was a preliminary examination for entrance into the college; and, after passing through the college, on a subsequent examination, the best were appointed to the Engineers, the next best to the Artillery, and the third to the Infantry. That, he thought, was a good system of competition; and it was the same system which prevailed in France and in Austria. What he feared in the system of the Government was that there would be competition without any system of military discipline. He thought that it was most desirable to let men pass through a college, and so to pass through a system of military discipline. When they came out of that they came ready to take their part in the army. So far from doing away with the present system, he thought that Addiscombe ought to be enlarged; and he would remove Addiscombe to Haileybury, which was a much larger building. In his opinion there ought to be a competition for getting into the college, but no one ought to obtain admission into the service without passing through the college.
  THE EARL OF DERBYexplained that what he had said was, that he did not see any reason why persons superior to those who had been educated at a military college should be excluded from admission into the service. But this clause did not say anything as to this; and it was quite consistent with it that education at a military college should be made a condition.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought that it was
  1686
  the duty of the Government to consider whether there should be unlimited competition, and to state distinctly what they recommended. He did not see any advantage of retaining the clause if they were to amend it as his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) had said. His noble Friend did not say what the effect of the clause would be, or what were the intentions of the Government.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that in the case of the Royal army it had been determined by general consent that the Royal Academy of Woolwich and the College of Sandhurst should be preserved, and, that being so, he saw no reason why the same course should not be adopted with respect to the Indian military services now that they were about to be handed over to the Crown.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEagreed with his noble Friend (the Duke of Somerset) that the clause as it was now proposed to amend it would be perfectly useless, and that it would be much better to omit it than to pass it in the amended form. The introduction of a similar principle on a former occasion had resulted in the destruction of Haileybury College, and he was afraid that the natural consequence of adopting the clause as amended would be to destroy the College of Addiscombe. He should be very much opposed to anything which could have so unfortunate a result, and he felt convinced that one of the best things that the new Secretary of State for India could do would be to re-establish the College of Haileybury with the utmost despatch. It was impossible for any one who had studied the question not to see that a special education, both for the military and civil service of India was essentially requisite; and he should deeply regret if they took any course which should lead to the same result with regard to Addiscombe as had already taken place with regard to Haileybury. He hoped that Haileybury would be re-established as a college for the civil service, and that the resources of Addiscombe would be developed and increased. He did not see what object the Government could have in view which could not be as well attained without the clause as with it, and therefore he thought it desirable that the clause should not be persisted in.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that the noble Earl at the head of the Government had met one great objection to the clause as it stood by removing its concluding pro-

  1687
  vision; but the noble Earl had not told them what he would insert instead of the portion so omitted.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the constitutional objection which he felt to the last words of the clause which he proposed now to omit was, not that they introduced the competitive principle, but that they introduced it by Act of Parliament; whereas, the proper course was that it should be done by the authority and under the sanction of the Crown. The question ought properly to be left to the prerogative of the Crown, and it was for that reason that he had moved the omission of these words.
  LORD MONTEAGLEstrongly opposed any course which might lead to the abolition of Addiscombe. The clause, whether amended or not, did not give sufficient security for its preservation. Certainly, Parliament ought not to delegate its power over the framing of these regulations to any Executive Department, however able it might be.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that before the question was put he wished to state what was passing in his own mind. He proposed to establish an additional military college at Haileybury, with the same competitive examination, both for the new college and for Addiscombe. One great advantage which would arise from such a competition would be that there would be virtually a competition between the professors of the two colleges, as well as among the pupils. But when his noble Friend spoke of the lower classes of the community, competing with the higher upon the same terms, it must be remembered that officers and clergymen generally were not wealthy men, and that they could not afford that cramming examination which was necessary for competition. The sum paid at Haileybury when he first remembered it was only £20 a year. Then the idea was started of making the college self-supporting, and the amount to be paid was raised to some £100—a change which he thought was very injurious. There ought to be provided for the children, in some cases the orphans, of military men and clergymen, a cheaper and better education than they could get elsewhere. Then his noble Friend had made use of the word "assimilation" as to the English and Indian armies. He cautioned his noble Friend against the idea of "assimilation." It was the most dangerous word that could be used. They had seen the advantages arising from differences in the Bengal,
  1688
  Madras, and Bombay armies. Those differences had prevented the spread of the mutiny. Their Lordships might depend upon it their security rested upon difference and not upon assimilation.
  LORD BROUGHTONconsidered it very undesirable that Addiscombe should be done away with.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the clause did not hint at Addiscombe.
  LORD BROUGHTON: No; but it gives the Government power with respect to Addiscombe.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: It gives the Government no power with regard to Addiscombe which it has not possessed already. It does not interfere with Addiscombe.
  LORD BROUGHTON: But it gives the Government power to substitute another education for that of Addiscombe.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: It does not give any power, and it does not take away the power which the Government possesses at this moment.
  LORD BROUGHTON: If it gives the Government no new powers, at least it offers to them a recommendation to employ the powers they already possessed. It was not anticipation of the future, but recollection of the past, that induced him to entreat the noble Earl to amend this as well as other infirmities of the Bill. There was hardly a considerable man in India who had arisen of late years who had not owed his education to Addiscombe. The result had been that officers had been elected to the conduct of high political offices; they were obliged to take away those superior persons from the army in order to put them in Residencies, and in great political posts for which they alone were fit. He pointed this out, and said to the authorities, "You are denuding the army of its best men;" but their answer was a good one, "What would you recommend us to do? Is there any one half so good?" The answer was, "No." The number of officers, sometimes merely lieutenants, who had risen to the highest posts, was such as to show that to Addiscombe the Indian army was indebted for its highest distinctions.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that if the words were taken out the young gentlemen who acquitted themselves at the examination with credit must either have what the words promised or nothing at all. He did not like the clause.

  1689
  Words from "examinations" to end of clause, struck out.
  Then Question was put, "Whether the said clause, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?"
  The Committee divided:—Contents 41; Not-Contents 34: Majority 7.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.

  CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)[Teller.]

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Melville, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Strathallan, V.

  Bathurst, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Boston, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Derby, E.

  Calchester, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Crofton, L.

  Denman, L.

  Hardwick, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Farnham, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Sondes, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Templemore, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Dungannon, V.

  Wynford, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Broughton, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Churchill, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Congleton, L.

  Cranworth, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  De Tabley, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Clarendon, E.

  Kingston, L. (E. Kingston.)

  Cowper, E.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Granville, E.

  Pomfret, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L. [Teller.]

  Powis, E.

  Romney, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Stafford, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Wodehouse, L.

  Sydney, V.

  Wycombe, L. (E. Shelburne.)

  Ashburton, L.

  Clause 35
  ("Not less than one-tenth of the whole number of persons to be recommended in any year for Military Cadetships (other than Cadetships in the Engineers and Artillery) shall be selected, according to such regulations as the Secretary of State in Council may from time to time make in this behalf, from the sons of persons who have served in India in the military or civil services of Her Majesty, or of the East India Company.")
  Agreed to.
  Clause 36
  ("Except as aforesaid, all persons to be recommended for Military Cadetships shall be nominated by the Secretary of State and members of
  1690
  Council, so that out of seventeen nominations the Secretary of State shall have two, and each member of Council shall have one; but no person so nominated shall be recommended unless the nomination be approved of by the Secretary of State in Council.")
  THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEsaid, he did not think the public would be prepared to hand over the whole of the patronage of India to the Minister for India and the Council. He should therefore, if no other course was open to him, propose to deprive the governing body of the patronage, and to place it in the hands of a Board, where it would not be used to the disadvantage of the public service. Under the Bill the great bulk of the patronage of India would be given to the Council of India; for out of 500 cadetships, 450 were bestowed upon them. The fact was, there had been a secret alliance between the old Court of Directors and Her Majesty's Ministers, the Directors having taken advantage of their power to act upon a Government with no very fixed principles of action. When the Government proposed to buy off the old Directors and to give £1,200 a year to the same men who had been content with £500, he thought they had done wisely in building a golden bridge, and he should have thought the bargain a good one if at double the sum, provided the patronage had not been included. The whole maladministration in the army of India might be traced to the system of patronage. The cavalry had especially been reserved for the patronage of the Directors. It had been proved before Committees of that House that the Irregular Cavalry were more trustworthy, economical, and efficient than the regulars, and that while the pay of an Irregular Cavalry soldier was only £35, the pay of the regular was £73. This difference had been mainly kept up for the sake of the patronage of the East India Company. On these grounds he should suggest a clause carrying out the proposition he had stated to the House, or he should be ready to support any other mode by which the patronage might be distributed with greater advantage to the army.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the noble Earl spoke of proposing a particular clause, or some other mode of carrying out his object; but he need hardly say that that was not the usual way of proceeding. As the clause stood the Secretary of State was to have two nominations, and each member of the Council one. The noble Earl objected to the power given to the Council;

  1691
  but his Amendment was one of so singular a character that he could not help calling the special attention of the Committee to it. He proposed that the patronage should be given to a Board not consisting of less than three members of the Council, and these three members were to be selected by the Secretary of State. One-eighth of the patronage was to be exercised by the Secretary of State, and seven-eighths by the Board, which the Secretary of State was to select. Then these three Councillors were to receive their £1,200 a year; but while they were to have seven-eighths of the patronage they were strictly prohibited and forbidden from taking the slightest part in any of the business relating to India.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought the clause of the Bill itself was not free from objection. There was, in his opinion, great objection to the mode in which the nominations were vested in the Council.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 37 to 40, agreed to.
  Clause 41.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETmade an objection to the wording of the clause, which appeared to him to give neither the Governor General nor the Secretary of State power over the expenditure of the money.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the clause provided that the expenditure of the revenues of India, both in India and elsewhere, should be subject to the control of the Secretary of State in Council. The clause did not in the slightest degree interfere with the powers to be exercised by the Governor General of India, subject to the control of the Secretary of State in Council.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHthought that, by the clause, the Governor General might do very nearly just as he pleased; but the expenditure of the Governor General was to be subject to the approval or otherwise of the Secretary of State in Council.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 42 to 51 agreed to.
  Clause 52 Audit of Accounts.
  THE EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he wished to introduce an Amendment in this clause. It provided that the Auditor should, in the ordinary way, audit the accounts. That, so far, was very proper; but he thought it should go somewhat further. The expenditure of India should be chaged upon the revenues of India
  1692
  alone. It seemed to him to be but fair to India that there should be a reciprocal provision in order to guard the revenues of India from being applied to any purposes which were not strictly connected with the interests of India. He was not certain that the Council would guard the revenues of India with the same jealousy which had been always faithfully exercised by the Court of Directors. They had never sanctioned any charge on those revenues which was not directly connected with the purposes of India; and he wanted the Auditor to be appointed under this clause to have the power of stating where any expenditure had in his opinion been incurred out of the revenues of India for purposes that were not Indian. After the words:—
  "And such Auditor shall report from time to time to the Secretary of State in Council his approval or disapproval of such accounts, with such remarks and observations in relation thereto as may think fit."
  He would therefore propose the insertion of the following words:—
  "Specially noting any case, if such there shall be, in which it shall appear that any moneys advanced from the revenues of India have been appropriated to purposes other than those of the government of India, to which alone they shall be applicable."
  He thought it but common justice to India to insert words to that effect.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsuggested that the Amendment should be printed, in order that he might have an opportunity of considering it before the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, he thought the words requiring the Auditor to specify
  "In detail in his reports alt sums of money, stores and property which ought to be accounted for, and are not brought into account, or have not been appropriated in conformity with the provisions of this Act, or have been expended or disposed of without due authority,"
  might be sufficient to carry out the object which his noble Friend had in view.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, possibly they might, but he thought distinct words to the effect suggested by him ought to be embodied in the clause. Their Lordships said that no Indian charge should be paid out of English revenue, and it was but common honesty to say that no English charge should lie paid out of Indian revenue. With the understanding that the proposed Amendment should be considered on bringing up the Report,
  Clause agreed to.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsupported the Amendment. The present system of public audit in this country was, not satisfac-

  1693
  tory, and the last Report had recommended a return to the old system of the auditor reporting direct to Parliament. He would recommend the same system with regard to India.
  On Clause 53, which directs an account to be annually laid before Parliament for the last financial year of the produce of the revenues of India at each of the several Presidencies, and of all the receipts and disbursements at home and abroad in respect of the government of India.
  THE EARL OF DERBYproposed to insert at the end of clause—
  "And such account shall be accompanied by a statement prepared from detailed Reports from each Presidency and district in India in such form as shall best exhibit the moral and material progress and condition of India in each such Presidency."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, pursuant to notice, moved the addition at the end of the clause of the following Amendment, which he said would insure the production in this country of a complete picture of the moral and material condition of India from time to time:—
  "And such account shall be accompanied by a statement in an abstract form, prepared from detailed Reports from each Presidency and district in India, showing the following particulars—namely, the additions made during the same year to means of communication by railways, roads, canals, and improved river navigation; the number of European settlers or commercial agents in each district in the several Presidencies, exclusive of the capital towns of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay; the aggregate strength of European troops, with the aggregate mortality during the year, and the average rate of mortality, and the number of recruits born in India of European parentage enlisted in each military division; the number of all colleges, schools, and other places of instruction supported or assisted by the Government, with the average number of pupils, male and female, under instruction, and the number of teachers, and whether European or Native, in each school, specifying the nature of each school, and if Hindoo whether Hindoo class books, or if Mahomedan whether Mahomedan class books, or if Parsee whether Parsee class books, or if Christian whether Christian class books, or if Government whether selected class books, are employed in each school; the number and description of all hospitals, dispensaries, poor houses, and other charitable institutions, with the number of applicants for relief, and of all religious institutions supported or assisted by Government; the extent and value of land held in free tenures, and all money payments and other grants and privileges made to each class of the above institutions, and all pensions and endowments granted by Native Princes and other individuals of which the Government or its officers are trustees; and such statements shall be prepared in such form as shall best exhibit the moral and material progress of India in each Presidency."
  1694
  After a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE,
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, the general words proposed by the noble Earl at the head of the Government were preferable to the minute particularity aimed at by the Amendment of the noble Earl near him. What they wanted was information in a concise and manageable form, and not those huge blue-books, through which nobody could ever wade, and which were an admirable device resorted to by Departments which wished to conceal everything.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH, as an illustration of the voluminous papers appended to the correspondence sent home from India, mentioned that attached to certain Reports on the subject of education, which he received while in office, was a mass of details extending over 5,000 pages.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 54 (Providing that when an order to commence actual hostilities was sent to India, the fact should be communicated to Parliament, if then sitting, within one month, or if Parliament was then prorogued, within one month from its re-assembling).
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, it was impossible that this provision could be acted upon. Before intelligence of any event in India reached this country five weeks must elapse, and it occupied five weeks more before any order thereupon could arrive there, and no Minister in his senses would give an order for the actual commencement of war when he knew that, before that order reached India, circumstances in that country might have entirely changed. Therefore, all that he would do would be to give a contingent order, and to such an order this clause did not apply. If a contingent order were given in August, it would probably not be made known to Parliament till February; but if it were given in January, and Parliament met in February, it must be made known in a month. In the latter case, the Government against which the hostilities were to be directed would receive notice of our intentions. If this clause had been brought into existence during the late war in Persia, the capture of Bushire and Mohammerah, which came upon the enemy as a surprise, could not have been conducted with success.
  THE EARL OF DERBYthought there was nothing unreasonable or ill-advised in the provision, that on the commencement

  1695
  of actual hostilities Parliament, if sitting, should be apprized of the order within a month from its issue. How such a course could give notice of their plans to the enemy, when the event referred to was the commencement of "actual hostilities," he was at a loss to conceive. The instance cited by his noble Friend was not a very happy one; because, if ever there was an unconstitutional proceeding, it was the last war with Persia, which was begun, carried on, and ended without Parliament having the slightest intimation of the fact that the hostilities were going on, or of the motives and grounds on which they had been entered into, or what they were fighting about. And if this clause should only prevent the repetition of such a state of things at the commencement of another war, he thought it legitimate and necessary.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHdid not mean to defend the conduct of the late Government in the matter referred to, but at all events the operations which they had ordered had been successful. If the intentions of the Government as to a war in the East were communicated to Parliament, the enemy would become apprized of them long before we were prepared to act.
  LORD WODEHOUSEreminded the noble Earl that it was not that the order for the commencement of war should be communicated and discussed by Parliament, but that, after it was in progress a month, Parliament should be informed of the fact.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that although the object was a very good one, he did not think this was a very satisfactory clause. Considering the rapid means of communication, there were great doubts whether it would not be injurious to the interests of the country, in case of the outbreak of war in India with a Native State.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, he thought it was most desirable that on a great question of this sort a communication should be made to Parliament; but he was sure that neither their Lordships nor the other House of Parliament could wish for information which might prejudice the interests of the country. Provided the clause were so worded that the interests of the country should not be injured, he thought it ought to stand part of the Bill. He thought that the period within which communication was to be made to Parliament ought to be extended.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid that, having
  1696
  regard to the great distance of India, the enactment in its present form might be dangerous. It might happen that circumstances were so altered between the time of an order being sent out and the time when the Governor General was called upon to act upon it, that he would decline to do so.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it was difficult to understand who supported and who objected to the clause. [A noble LORD: All support it.] Well, then, what was that state of mind which, after mature deliberation in the Cabinet, assented to a clause, but when the same clause was introduced verbatim by another Government into their Bill, and laid upon the table, objected to it? He had no objection to extend the period from one month to two, and to add the words "unless such order shall have been in the meantime revoked or suspended."
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Earl need not be so much surprised at the noble and learned Lord having changed his opinion, for of all the changes of opinion of the present Government—and they had changed their opinion on almost every subject—the most extraordinary were their changes of opinion on the subject of Indian government. He thought that it would be better to make it three months instead of two, because by that time an answer might be received from the Governor General to the communications sent out to him.
  THE EARL OF DERBYwas understood to say that he would agree to three months.
  Words "one month" omitted, "three months" inserted: also inserted "unless such order shall have been in the meantime revoked or suspended."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 55 disagreed to.
  THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY moved to insert a new clause in the following words:—
  "Except for preventing or repelling actual invasion of Her Majesty's Indian possessions, or under other sudden and urgent necessity, the revenues of India shall not, without the consent of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of such possession by Her Majesty's forces charged upon such revenues."
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the object of the clause was a good one. Mr. Fox suggested something of the kind formerly, and so did Mr. Pitt, but they failed, and was there the slightest chance, if the clause became law, of its being more suc-

  1697
  cessful? The Indian army was not to be employed outside the Indian frontiers except to repel an invasion or on some urgent and sudden necessity without the consent of Parliament. As he said before, no war was justifiable except the case was urgent, and some suddenness was always connected with a military operation. What was the meaning of the consent of Parliament? Was an Act of Parliament to be got? Was there any other mode of expressing its consent? If so, it ought to be embodied in the clause. By this clause the Governor General might be deterred from doing things which it would be his duty to do.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the object of the clause was to impose a certain restriction upon the perogative of the Crown through the intervention of Parliament. It was erroneously thought that it would prevent the Crown from employing Indian forces upon any foreign expedition. The clause had no such object or effect, for after it passed, the Crown would be at full liberty to employ those forces in any quarter of the globe for which by the terms of their enlistment they were eligible. It being the undoubted perogative of the Crown to make war and peace, the constitutional check upon the exercise of that prerogative was the sanction of Parliament by the granting of the pecuniary resources. The Crown could not send out forces unless Parliament provided the funds to pay them, but it was necessary to introduce this clause for the protection of the revenues of India. The effect of the clause would be that Indian troops, except for the purpose of preventing anticipated invasion, or of repelling actual invasion, should not quit their own territory; or if they did, the expense should be defrayed out of the revenues of this country, and not out of the revenues of India. If the troops were employed out of India, it would be for Parliament to decide whether they were employed upon Indian or Imperial objects. The clause did not prevent the Crown from making use of the Indian troops, subject only to this—that as a general rule the expense of those troops must be defrayed by Parliament; and the same constitutional check, therefore, was imposed on the Crown with regard to troops serving in India which was imposed with respect to troops serving in every other part of the globe. If the clause were not agreed to it would be perfectly competent for any unconstitutional Sovereign to employ the
  1698
  whole of the revenues and troops of India for any purpose which the Crown might direct, without the necessity of going to Parliament for the advance of a single shilling.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHthought the Bill had taken the best security against that, for it gave the Council a power of vetoing any measure of that kind. The Directors refused to pay for the China expedition; and if they had not agreed to pay half the expenses of the Persian expedition, they could not be called upon for one shilling towards the expenses of that war. It was for that reason he considered the clause would be inoperative. He believed the only effect of the clause would be to tie up the sword of the Governor General, to paralyze his diplomacy, and to lead to the very wars which it was intended to prevent.
  Question put, whether the said clause shall be there inserted?
  The Committee divided:—Contents 52; Not-Contents 36; Majority 16.

  CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  De Vesci, V.

  Dungannon, V.

  Beaufort, D.

  Hardinge, V.

  Cleveland, D.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) [Teller]

  Bath, M.

  Melville, V.

  Exeter, M.

  Strathallan, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Bagot, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Bateman, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Boston, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Derby, E.

  Graham, E. (D. of Montrose.)

  Colchester, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Denman, L.

  Harrington, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Pomfret, E.

  Powis, E.

  Farnham, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian,)

  Shrewsbury and Talbot, E.

  Melros, L. (E. Haddington.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Strathmore, E.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Sondes, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Templemore, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Marlborough, D.

  Cowper, E.

  Newcastle, D.

  Doncaster, E. (D. of Buccleuch & Queensberry.)

  Somerset, D

  Ailesbury, M.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Granville, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Portarlington, E.

  1699

  Romney, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Hamilton, L. (L. Belhaven and Stenton.)

  Vane, E.

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Kingston, L. (E. Kingston.)

  Sydney, V. [Teller.]

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Ashburton, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Aveland, L.

  Broughton, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Stafford, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Cranworth, L.

  Wodehouse, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DERBYstated, in answer to a question from Earl Granville, that on the Bill coming into operation in India a Proclamation would be issued by the Crown stating the principles on which the Government of the country would be carried on.
  Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Twelve o'Clock till To-morrow half-past Ten o'clock.