Sitting of 29 June 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS. —1o Usury Laws Repeal; Letters Patent for Inventions.
2o Insurance on Lives (Abatement of Income Tax) Continuance; Linen, &c., Manufactures (Ireland); Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland).
3o Dublin Carriage.

SOUTH SEA COMPANY BILL.
MR. BOUVERIE, in moving that the House agree with the Lords' Amendments, said, he would take that opportunity of ex-

869
plaining their effect. Hon. Members would recollect that when this Bill was read a second time in that House a discussion took place upon its provisions, which were intended to effect two objects. The first of these objects was the winding-up of certain of the affairs of the South Sea Company, a course rendered necessary by the financial operations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The other object was to enable the South Sea Company to take the management of trust estates. This latter he believed to have been a most important provision, but he was sorry to say that in another place it had been determined to amend the Bill by striking out all the clauses relating to this object, and to this Amendment he had now to move the House to consent. The South Sea Company assented to the Amendment, but they only did so because they were obliged to wind up their affairs within a specified time.
MR. T. GREENEsaid, he should give his concurrence to the views expressed by the Member for Kilmarnock, because he always regretted to see unnecessary restrictions placed upon any of our great incorporated bodies.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he considered that the House of Lords had done quite right in making the amendments which they had, and he thought it would be very dangerous to intrust any such powers as those proposed by this Bill to public companies.
Lords' Amendments agreed to.

COMMON LAW PROCEDURE BILL.
Order for Committee read.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he believed this was the proper moment to move the addition to the Bill of the Instruction of which he had given notice. He regarded this as the most important measure on the subject of law reform ever submitted to the House of Commons, and as embodying all the principles of reform contended for by law reformers during the past twenty or thirty years. Its first and leading feature was the fusion of law and equity, Now this and other principles of the Bill were of general application, as properly bearing upon the Supreme Courts of Law at Calcutta as at Westminster; in fact, proper to be applied to all similar courts throughout every part of Her Majesty's dominions. True it was that the courts of law in India possessed powers of self-reform considerably greater than those held by the same tribunals in
870
England; but then the delays and difficulties in the way of introducing improvements, arising out of the necessity of constantly requiring time for the sanction and approval of the supreme authorities, were so great as to nullify, in great measure, the advantages to be derived from such powers being vested in the Judges. He thought, then, that if they could hit upon a practical mode of arriving at the same result much quicker, it would be wise legislation to require its adoption; and he believed that by the addition of this simple Instruction to the Bill they would have attained that object. The Supreme Courts of India differed in no way either as regarded the character of the proceedings or nature of their jurisprudence from the Courts at Westminster; he could see no reason, therefore, why the same rules should not be applied in both cases. If these rules were good for Westminster, surely they would be equally good for Calcutta. The Supreme Courts were introduced into India by the authority of Parliament, and in opposition to the wishes of the Court of Directors; but, nevertheless, they had progressed satisfactorily, and obtained the approbation and good wishes of all the inhabitants of India who had come under their control. They had adopted all the improvements which had been introduced into the courts of this country in later years, and carried them into effect with perfect success, and if an opportunity existed of making those courts still more useful, that opportunity ought not to be neglected. And he would have I the House to recollect that it was not alone the natives of India that were interested in the introduction of a system of cheap and quick justice into that country—a commercial community of some 2,000,000 of persons, representing what he might call the élite of India, and engaged in transactions to the extent of 40,000,000 l. annually, were, if possible, much more concerned in the attainment of that object. And the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) well knew that that great commercial emporium was as I much interested in the proper reform of the Supreme Courts of India as were the inhabitants of either Calcutta, Bombay, or Singapore. He hoped, then, that he should have the support of all anxious for the welfare of commerce, and, likewise, of those who wished well to the native population, whom it was scarcely in their reach to benefit in any other direc-

871
tion than that of giving them the cheap and efficient administration of justice. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control would not oppose the proposition, but that, for the sake of justice in India, he would consent to allow the matter to be considered in Committee.
MR. PHINNseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, that they have power to extend the provisions thereof to Her Majesty's Superior Courts in India."
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was happy to find that his hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Perry) approved of the principle of the Bill, for his opinion was one worthy of much weight and consideration. He (Sir C. Wood) was fully sensible of the value of that opinion in reference to the desirability of extending its provisions to India, and although he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion, he did so, not so much because he disapproved of the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman, as that he objected to the mode in which it was proposed to carry that object into effect. In the very first place, although Parliamentary history afforded precedents for inserting in an Act upon one subject clauses relating to a totally different matter, yet he believed that such a course had never yet been taken with regard to India. All the changes and improvements in the law of that country had been kept in separate and distinct Acts of Parliament, and thus a special code existed relating to a special subject. The present Motion proposed to break in upon that uniformity for the first time, and thus the simple addition of an Instruction in an English Bill would introduce uncertainty and confusion into what had hitherto been plain and straightforward. Again, in the last Session of Parliament it had been a principle laid down and agreed to on all hands, that the internal arrangements of India should be left to India to legislate upon. But here it was proposed, directly in contravention of that principle, to extend a most complicated and minute measure of internal regulation to that country. If, however, it were possible to extend the principles of this Bill to India, without taking the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member, he (Sir C. Wood) would perhaps not be disinclined to overlook those objections. But in truth the very contrary was the fact, and it was perfectly possible to intro-
872
duce into India all such of the principles of this Bill as were applicable to that empire, although the Motion of the hon. and learned Member might not be carried. It was with a view to such a fit amelioration of the law that the Commission, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, had been appointed. The hon. and learned Member found fault, it was true, with legal Commissions, but he should remember that this very measure, of which he approved, issued from such a body. He therefore objected to the proposed course of proceeding because he thought it wrong in principle to introduce, by a single clause, a new code of laws into India. India ought to be legislated for in India, and in his opinion they would stultify themselves by taking the matter out of the hands of the Commission.
MR. COLLIERsaid, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would withdraw his Amendment. Without entering into the question whether or not the laws of England should be applied to India, he thought that if that was to be done at all, it should be by means of a separate measure. He trusted the measure would not be endangered by the Amendment being persevered with, for he ventured to say it was one of the most important measures that had been introduced for centuries, and in his opinion it was the most important measure of the present Session.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he had intended to move the extension of this Bill to Ireland, but he had refrained from doing so from a fear of retarding its progress. He therefore pressed on the hon. and learned Gentleman to follow the same course and withdraw his Motion.
MR. V. SCULLYsaid, he would take the opportunity of stating, that he regarded it as very prejudicial to the public interests to have separate legislation for different portions of the empire in reference to such matters. Indeed, he must confess, paradoxical as it might appear, that on the whole, he infinitely preferred to see Ireland sharing bad legislation with England than that she should occasionally enjoy all the advantages of good measures, when the sister country was not so well dealt with; and for this reason—it was very certain that when anything was wrong in England a remedy was sure to be found, sooner or later; not so, however, with Ireland—there things might be very badly ordered indeed, without provoking the slightest attempt at amelioration. As an instance of the

873
strange working of the present system, he might point out the fact that while he found on the notice paper mention of no less than twenty-five measures, all more or less of a reformatory character, only nine of them were applicable to Ireland; while, in twenty out of the twenty-five cases, legislation might be most usefully extended to her.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he wished to state, in reply to what had just fallen from his hon. and learned Friend, that the Bill was only not made applicable to Ireland from an assurance which he received from several members of the Irish bar, that there were differences in the practice of the courts of the two countries which might interfere with such an object. Had it not been for this reason, he should have been anxious to extend the measure to Ireland.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he would consent to withdraw the Motion, though with regret.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House in Committee.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Two Judges may sit at the same time for causes pending in the same Court).
MR. PHINNsaid, he would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the First Commissioner of Works to the state of the law courts. Nothing could be more filthy or horrible than the Bail Court, or the little Exchequer Chamber. The stifling heat and scanty accommodation in most of the courts made it almost impossible to transact public business in them. The Judges had complained over and over again of this state of things, and he thought it was high time some better accommodation was provided.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 13 postponed.
Clause 14 (Raises the qualification of jurors to 30 l.).
MR. HENLEYsaid, he would suggest that it would be better to postpone this clause until some information was obtained as to the number of jurors who would be available. At present he was inclined to think that to raise the qualification of jurors, and, consequently, to limit their numbers, would, in many counties, lead to very great difficulties.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, this clause was the result of a very general feeling among all persons acquainted
874
with the course of things at assizes, that while in the large towns a class of jurors was easily obtained of considerable intelligence, in the agricultural counties there was considerable difficulty in getting jurors whose education and intelligence were of sufficiently high standard to fit them for the discharge of their very important functions.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he felt certain that the adoption of this clause, as the Bill at present stood, would lead to considerable difficulty and confusion. As the provisions of this clause were not to extend to the jurors summoned for Crown trials, the sheriff would henceforth have to make up three separate lists of jurors without having any means afforded to him from the document from which he at present made out the lists of knowing what was the particular qualification of each juror. He thought some machinery ought to be introduced into the Bill by which the sheriff would be able to obtain this information.
MR. PHINNsaid, it was admitted on all hands that it was desirable to raise the qualification of jurors. For his part, he thought that a mixture of jurors of different classes would be exceedingly valuable.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he would suggest that these provisions relating to jurors should be embodied in a separate Bill.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he was of opinion that it would be of great advantage if jurors of a higher class of intelligence were brought to bear upon criminal trials.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it would be exceedingly advantageous to employ, to a certain extent, a higher class of jurors in criminal cases. He would propose to omit these clauses relating to jurors, promising at the same time that a separate Bill should be introduced relating to this part of the law.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to suggest that in any Bill on this subject regard should be had to the feelings of the great mass of the people, who came within the scope of the criminal law. At present the theory was, that a man should be tried by his peers, and he should be very unwilling to consent to any alteration which would lead to the poorer classes being tried by persons removed from their own condition in life.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he

875
must beg to explain that his desire was not that criminal juries should be composed entirely of the higher classes of jurymen, but that there should be a certain mixture: for instance, that country gentlemen, eligible to serve on the grand jury, but not actually engaged in serving, should sit along with their poorer neighbours on common juries. He wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether there was any prospect of a measure being introduced this Session with regard to the grand juries of the City of London. At present, twelve times a year, there were forty-eight gentlemen summoned, to whom an exemption for three years from serving on common juries was then given, and the effect of this practice was, that the intelligence of the jury list was exhausted, and the juries in the City became little better than those in the agricultural districts.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was not prepared to introduce any Bill on the subject referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman during the present Session. The subject was under consideration in connection with the important question of a public prosecutor, with regard to which he might say—as he was not present when a question referring to it was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) the other day—that he had given to it his most serious and anxious consideration, but he had found it so surrounded with difficulties that he had not been able to draw up such a measure as he should feel justified in submitting to Parliament. If we were remodelling our whole judicial system, the matter would not be so difficult; but to adapt such a new institution to our existing institutions, with a due regard to existing interests, was one of the gravest problems which the Legislature could be called on to solve. So difficult, indeed, I was it, that the present Lord Chief Justice (Lord Campbell) had stated that, the matter being brought under his consideration when he was Attorney General, he had reflected upon it. but he had not been able to satisfy himself as to any scheme for carrying out the desired object. He (the Attorney General) was still seeking about for information on the subject, and he hoped by next Session to have some scheme matured which he might think worthy of being submitted to the attention of Parliament. Without some such insti-
876
tution as this it would be impossible to carry out the object referred to by the right hon. Gentleman—the abolition of the grand jury system.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, his anxiety was not for the abolition of the grand jury system so much as to see it modified, and the number of attendances retrenched. Four times a year, he thought, would be sufficiently frequent attendance.
MR. V. SCULLYhoped, that if a separate Bill were to be introduced, regulating the grand jury system of England, its provisions would be extended to Ireland also.
Clause withdrawn, as were also Clauses 15 and 16.
Clause 17. (Jury to be discharged after twelve hours, if they cannot agree.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he wished to explain that the clause now before the Committee proposed to get rid, in all civil causes, of the present anomalous practice of shutting up juries without refreshment, for in future all necessary refreshments and accommodation were to be provided by leave of the Judge. It also proposed that juries should be discharged after twelve hours if they did not agree; and, lastly, that if only ten of the jurors were unanimous, their verdict should be of equal force as if found unanimously by the whole jury.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he strongly suspected that if the refreshments were to be found by the public a great deal of the time of juries would be taken up in their discussion rather than in that of the issue which they had to try.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must explain that refreshments could only be had at the discretion of the Judge; and, as jurors were servants of the public, he thought it only just that the public should bear the expense of providing what was necessary for them.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he wished to know what was the opinion of the Common Law Commission with regard to extending this provision as to taking the verdict of ten jurymen out of the twelve to criminal cases. It must be remembered that criminal offences were not unfrequently brought into issue in civil causes—such, for instance, as perjury, fraud, conspiracy, and even arson in assurance cases; nay, he had known an assurance case in which the verdict of the jury involved the

877
crime of murder; and there would then be this anomalous state of things, that on the civil side of the court a man might be found guilty on the verdict of ten jurymen, while on the criminal side the unanimous verdict of twelve jurymen would be required.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would readily admit that the clause was not in accordance with the views of the last Commission, who were unanimously agreed in favour of retaining the present system of unanimity in the jury. The provision was adopted by the House of Lords in conformity with the views of the Commission of 1831, who were of opinion that if nine of a jury were unanimous their verdict ought to be taken. The late Commissioners, however, held that such a practice must necessarily lead to general litigation, inasmuch as persons would be much more induced to sue for a new trial in case of any number of the jury having pronounced in their favour. He confessed his own views were most strongly in favour of the latter conclusion; and, therefore, were against the clause as it stood. Still, as the question had been much considered in the other House, he should be loth to disturb the settlement come to.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he had intended to have divided the Committee on the clause. He had no hesitation in affirming that to dispense with unanimity on the part of juries would be altogether to overturn the institution of trial by jury. He thought that a provision so important as that ought, at all events, to be made the subject of a separate enactment; and that in so thin a House as that was, sitting to discuss a Common Law Procedure Bill, its discussion ought not to be proceeded with. He objected to so great a change in trial by jury, which was interwoven with all the institutions of the country. However, he agreed in the wisdom of removing all coercion upon juries.
MR. MASSEYsaid, he approved of the clause, holding it to be against human nature to secure in all cases the unanimity of twelve persons.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he entertained a strong opinion in favour of the necessity of unanimity in the jury. He believed, if the proposed change were extended to criminal cases, it would be found impossible to carry out capital sentences where the verdict of "Guilty" had only been given by ten jurymen.
MR. COLLIERsaid, that under the
878
present system the unanimity of juries was only apparent, but if the former part of this clause, which abolished coercion, Were adopted without the latter, there would no longer be any unanimity, either real or apparent. The consequence would be, that juries would be continually separating without coming to a verdict, and parties would be put to the expense of new trials.
MR. H. S. KEATINGsaid, he objected to the clause as it stood, on account of the anomalous state of things which would result from it. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of London had pointed out, a man might be found guilty of an offence by ten jurymen on one side of the court, while, on the other side, the verdict of the twelve would be required. He hoped that noble Lords in another place would not be so unreasonable as to insist upon this clause.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not for a single moment suppose that the Bill would be rejected in another place, if this clause were struck out. His own opinion being in favour of requiring unanimity, he should certainly support the omission of the latter part of the clause.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, he was strongly of opinion that the clause ought not to stand in its present shape. It was impossible, if it were introduced into civil practice, that it should not be extended to criminal cases, and he did not think that in these cases the system of taking the verdict of ten jurymen out of twelve would give satisfaction.
MR. ELLIOTsaid, he wished to point out to the Committee, that the system proposed to be introduced into the English law had long been in practice in Scotland, and had been found to give universal satisfaction there.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: But we have not here the intermediate verdict of "Not proven."
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he was decidedly for maintaining the clause as it stood. The plea as to the desirableness of securing unanimity on the part of a jury he regarded as an absurdity.
MR. WORTLEYsaid, that the objection entertained by the people of Scotland was to trying civil cases by juries at all. They were formerly tried by judges alone, and the new system had never become popular, though he believed that one of the chief elements of its unpopularity was the anomaly which it created between the civil

879
and criminal practice with regard to this very point of taking the verdicts of juries.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, he regarded the clause as the most beneficial feature in the whole Bill. Let them adopt it, and they would no longer have to witness the spectacle of jurors being starved into unanimity by the dogged obstinacy of stout men in top-boots, whose mastication was as tough as the leather from which their boots were made.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he could not come to the conclusion that the ends of justice would be furthered by the adoption of the clause.
SIR CHARLES BURRELLsaid, it was his decided opinion, if the clause were adopted, that the verdict of a jury would no longer be worthy of the same respect in the public mind.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: — Ayes 80; Noes 75: Majority 5.
Clause agreed to, as were also the 18th, 19th, and 20th clauses.
Clause 21.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he objected to the Judge who presided being the party to decide as to whether a person should be sworn or not; he thought that this decision ought to be left to a man's own conscience. He should move also, as to this clause, that the word "religious" be omitted, and the word "conscientious" inserted.
MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, he was inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, for he considered that no man ought to be allowed to sit in judgment on another man's conscience.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the clause would act well as it stood; if, however, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark were pressed, the best form of raising the question would be to move to omit the word "conscientious" and insert the word "religious."
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, hon. Members appeared to be splitting straws about expressions, and he could not understand what conscientious scruples could exist except such as were founded on religious feeling.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that this clause of the Bill had been most carefully considered, and by intermeddling with the wording of it, which had been adopted with every desire not to wound the
880
feelings of any parties, the Committee would destroy the effect of the whole measure.
Amendments withdrawn; Clause agreed to, as were also the clauses up to Clause 28.
Clause 29.
MR. PHINNsaid, he wished to call attention to the sytem of stamps upon bills of exchange and promissory notes, which he considered required considerable amendment, particularly as to their being refused as evidence under certain circumstances in courts of law, such as, for instance, a bill being drawn for a larger amount than the stamp would carry. This might be altered, he suggested, by imposing a fine in such cases, and, upon payment of the fine, allowing the bill to be received as evidence.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that that subject was rather a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer than himself, and he feared the hon. Member would find that there were a good many fiscal difficulties in the way. He would, however, consider the subject.
Clause agreed to, as were also the clauses up to 34 inclusive.
Clause 35 (relating to appeals).
MR. ATHERTONsaid, he should move the omission of the clause. In this clause the appeal was given to the party decided against as a matter of right, while by Clause 36 it was given on certain conditions. Owing to these circumstances he believed the 35th clause would be inoperative.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALhoped his hon. and learned Friend would not persevere with his Motion. He was sure that the omission of this clause would not meet with the approbation of the judicial authorities in another place, and would imperil the measure.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, he was so anxious for the adoption of this valuable measure that he would not press his Motion.
Clause agreed to, as was also the following clause.
The House resumed. Committee report progress.

THE WAR WITH RUSSIA—OCCUPATION OF THE PRINCIPALITIES BY AUSTRIA—QUESTION.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he was desirous of putting a question to the noble Lord the President of the Council of which he had not given notice. If, however, notice were required, he would defer the question till another day. He wished to know whether any treaty or convention

881
had been signed between Austria and the Porte with regard to the occupation of the Principalities by Austrian troops? Whether, in case such a convention had been entered into, the treaty had been communicated to Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether there would be any objection to lay it upon the table? He also wished to ask whether the intelligence, which had been very freely circulated, that the Emperor of Russia had accepted the ultimatum of Austria, had been confirmed, and whether the retirement of the Russian troops from the Danube, with a view to the evacuation of the Principalities, was, according to information received by the Government, in consequence of an understanding come to between Austria and Russia?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: In answer, Sir, to the first question of my noble Friend, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government have received information that a convention has been signed between Austria and the Sublime Porte for the occupation of the Danubian Principalities by Austrian troops in any case, either whether the Russian troops shall have quitted the Principalities, or whether they shall seek to remain there—that is to say, if the Russians have voluntarily left the Principalities, the Austrian troops will occupy them; and if the Russians should refuse to quit the Principalities, the Austrian troops will enter those Principalities for the purpose of driving them out. That is the effect of the treaty; but we have not at present an official copy of the convention which has been signed, and therefore I cannot promise yet to lay it upon the table of this House. With regard to my noble Friend's second question, which relates to any intelligence that has been received by Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Emperor of Russia having consented to the ultimatum of Austria, I have to state that no official information of that nature has been received by the Government. The last time that I saw the Austrian Minister he informed me that no answer had yet been received at Vienna; and I suppose, unless subsequent information has arrived, that no answer has yet been received.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY: Sir, I wish to ask the noble Lord if this country is any party to the convention, which he states has been concluded between Austria and the Porte?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: It is a con-
882
vention between Austria and the Porte, and this country is not a party to it.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord if he would lay on the table of that House a despatch on the subject of the Treaty of Adrianople, which had been laid on the table of the House of Lords?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member will move for the production of the despatch, there will be no objection to produce it.
MR. LAYARDsaid, in that case he gave notice that he would move that it be laid on the table.
Subject dropped.

THE NEWSPAPER STAMP—QUESTION.
MR, LUCASsaid, he begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government had arrived at any decision in reference to the newspaper stamp question with the view of carrying out the declared opinion of that House?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, as he understood the question put by the hon. Gentleman, it was, whether the Government at the present time intended to bring in any Bill to give effect to the Resolution which was come to by that House upon the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Milner Gibson). The Government were not prepared to bring in such a Bill; and it would perhaps save the hon. Gentleman some trouble if he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) now stated that, when they were prepared to do so, the Government would take care to give due notice of their intentions.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just given an answer to a question from an hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lucas) which he could not understand, and which did not correspond with the reply given to a similar question on a former day. If he correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman, he stated that the question of the newspaper stamp was not under the consideration of the Government with a view to legislation, and that the Government had decided to set at nought the Resolution of that House. ["No, no!"] He certainly understood the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to be, that the question was not tinder consideration, and that when it was he would give notice to the House. Now, what the right hon. Gentleman stated upon a former occasion was, not only that the question

883
was under consideration, but that it was under special consideration. It was only because he had been led to believe that the Government would undertake the matter that he had been induced not to proceed with it. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the House were to understand from the answer just given that Government had no intention of legislating upon the subject.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was quite sure from what the right hon. Gentleman had just stated, that he had not heard the answer given to the question of the hon. Member for Meath, or he could not by any possibility have placed the construction upon it which he had done. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had not retracted or qualified one syllable of what he said on a former occasion. What he then stated was, that the Government had requested the Attorney General to take the matter into consideration, with a view to ascertain the state of the law. He was asked to-day if the Government had come to any decision upon the subject, and, in answer, he stated that they had not, and that when they did due notice would be given to the House.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
Further Proceeding on Third Reading resumed.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, in rising to move the introduction of the clause of which he had given notice, he thought that it was very well adapted to the Bill they had before them, which appointed a certain number of Commissioners, who were to act for four years; and the time which it took to obtain a degree at Oxford, as he proposed by his Resolution to enable Dissenters to do, would be nearly coincident with the term of the Commissioners' powers. After the expiration of the four years, if Parliament thought proper, the question could be again dealt with if necessary. The object of the clause was to render the University a national institution, and he thought such a proceeding would have a tendency to create a kindly feeling between the different religious denominations of the country. However necessary it was for parties entering the Church to subscribe to religious tests, he could not see that it was either just or requisite to compel the laity to subscribe to them.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he begged to second the Motion of the hon.
884
Gentleman, with whom he felt it an honour to be associated in prosecuting the object he had in view. He hoped the House would consider the position in which the question was now placed by what had already occurred. The House had granted to the Dissenters the same advantage as they enjoyed at Cambridge, namely, admission without the oath; and by this Bill they had also sanctioned private halls. The clause of the hon. Member was, therefore, only the natural and necessary corollary which would give completeness to the measure. Civil disabilities on account of religious distinctions were inconsistent with the spirit of the nineteenth century; and he rejoiced that the house had decided upon placing the stamp of that spirit upon this Bill by a majority of ninety-one on a former night. The singular moderation of his hon. Friend's proposition was its best claim to the favour of the House. If, however, it should be opposed, he hoped that it would be supported by such a majority as would not only secure its passage through that House, but would see it safely to its journey's end.
Clause (From and after the first day of Michaelmas Term, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four, it shall not be necessary for any person, upon taking the degree of Bachelor in Arts, Law, Medicine, or Music, in the University of Oxford, to make or subscribe any declaration, or take any oath, save the oath of allegiance, or an equivalent declaration of allegiance, any law or Statute to the contrary notwithstanding)—brought, up, and read the first time.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he could not agree to the proposition of the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood). The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said, that this was a very moderate proposal; but he had forgotten that the hon. Member who brought forward the clause had indicated now for the first time, that the period for taking bachelors' degrees being for four years, the Commission would come to an end at that period; and that the question could then be reconsidered. ["Hear, hear!"] It was quite plain by the cheers that there was no mistake upon this point. Therefore, when his hon. Friend (Mr. E. Denison) called this a moderate proposal, he would remind him that the candid and manly statement of the hon. Member for North Lancashire placed the question in anything but a moderate light; for it was evident that it was the ultimate intention of the

885
supporters of this clause to go the whole length of the original proposition. The University of Oxford had been lulled to sleep on this question of the admission of Dissenters by the assurances of the Government at the commencement of the discussion that no proposition of the kind would be included in this Bill. No member of the University had the least reason to suppose that any matter of this sort would be considered in relation to this Bill. The University was now taken entirely by surprise. It was true every Member of the Government spoke strongly last week in favour of this measure, but they voted against it. The whole power they brought to bear against it was about forty Members. He did not think that that showed a very great stir upon the part of the Government to oppose the measure on that occasion. They were told that, all religious disabilities having been removed, the University should be as open as any other place. But what did that involve? The University being a place of national education, must therefore cease altogether, as a University, to be a place of religious education. He should like to know how the examination upon the truths of Christianity, and the distinctive teaching of the Church, was to be continued under such circumstances. In the separate colleges they might teach what they pleased, but, so far as the University was concerned, unless she set herself against the State, and by her Statutes and regulations made the present measure of no effect; if she acted in accordance with the proposed law and framed her examination so as to enable all persons to be included within them, she would cease to be a religious institution altogether. The principle involved was by no means a trifling one, but, if he saw the way clear to the University of Oxford remaining a teacher of religion consistently with such a clause as this, he should not oppose it. As yet, however, no one had attempted to point out how that was to be effected. For his own part he believed it to be an impossibility, and, believing it to be an impossibility, though he got but a single person to follow him into the lobby, he would divide the House upon it. The question was one of the greatest consequence. The majority of persons who now sent their children to Oxford, did so because they knew they would be trained up in the principles of religion, and he did not think that, for the sake of a minority who might go there, they had any right to knock up
886
the existing system, and that they would knock it up by the clause under consideration to him was quite apparent. It had been stated in the course of the discussion on this Bill, that one-half of the population consisted of Dissenters from the Established Church. He (Mr. Henley) doubted the accuracy of that assertion. Hon. Members, no doubt, founded their statement upon the fact that half the people who attended divine service on a given day were not members of the Church of England. But the hon. Member for North Lancashire must know as well as he (Mr. Henley) that a very large portion of the population went nowhere, and it was the duty of an Established Church to look after those who did not look after themselves. An established Church was always, in a certain sense, a missionary Church among that large portion of the people who, unfortunately, paid no attention to their religious duties at all. It was a violent assumption to say, therefore, that half the community did not belong to the Established Church. His objection to the clause, then, was that it would occasion the University, as contradistinguished from the colleges and halls, to cease to be a place for religious instruction; and believing that it would produce great mischief, and destroy that which was the most useful part of the University system, he begged to move that the clause be read a second time that day six months.
MR. NEWDEGATE, in seconding the Amendment, said, the hon. Member for North Lancashire had truly stated that his object was to get rid of the religious education of the laity of the Church of England, and he proposed to do this by abolishing the requirement that they should sign the Articles of the Church or be examined upon them. The intention of the clause was not merely that the Dissenters should not be required to subscribe the Articles of the Church of England, but that the laity of the Church of England should not be required to understand, subscribe, or agree to them. The hon. Member had observed, historically and correctly, that subscription to these Articles had become a regulation of the University during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. That was one of the fruits of the Reformation, and it marked the period when the University was by this regulation brought into accordance with the church of England, as then reformed, and became truly Protestant. He begged the House, there-

887
fore, to remember that it was a Protestant test which had hitherto been required from the members of the University of Oxford that they were now called upon to abolish. The recent history of the University did not prove that it ought to be the object of sincere members of the Church, or indeed of sincere Protestants of any denomination, to remove Protestant tests or teaching front that institution. And this he thought was a good reason why the House should not permit subscription to and examination in the Thirty-nine Articles to be abolished. It had been objected, in the first place, that members of the University at matriculation should be required to sign those Articles. It was now proposed that they should no longer be examined in the substance of the Articles on taking their degrees, or be called upon to sign them at that or any subsequent period. Now, as a sincerely attached member of the University of Oxford, and having viewed with much pain the dangers to which she had been exposed by the Tractarian movement, he deprecated this object most heartily and with serious apprehension, because he saw that the House, in its anxiety to provide for the admission of Protestant Dissenters to the University, without considering both sides of the question, was about to remove the Protestant safeguards of the University, and that at the very period when it was known such safeguards were doubly requisite. He was glad the proposition had been stripped of the pretence that examination in the Articles was any longer to be required of members of the Church of England, from which their competitors in other branches of learning were to be exempt, and that the proposer of the clause clearly indicated that he expected the Commissioners would compel the University to abandon the examination of any of her members for bachelors' degrees in the doctrines of the Church of England if this clause were adopted. He was glad it had been declared that it was the intention of the clause that the lay members of the Church of England should no longer be educated or examined, so far as the University regulations had force, in the doctrines of religion—the doctrines of the Church of England. It at once, he repeated, stripped the proposition of the pretence of being consistent with the continuance of the University as a great educational institution in connection with the Church. The measure was, in fact, the commence-
888
ment—and only the commencement—of a plan which was designed to sever the connection at present subsisting between the University and the Church; for the hon. Member (Mr. Heywood) had clearly indicated that this was but an instalment of his whole object, which whole object was to place Dissenters and Roman Catholics, equally with members of the Church of England, in the government of the University, by admitting them to the degree of masters of arts, and, as far as it could be accomplished, to reduce the system of the University of Oxford to the system which prevailed in the University of London, wherein there was no religion taught, no religion acknowledged, and no distinctive connection maintained with any Church.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, one observation had dropped from the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and also from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), which required a moment's notice. Now, it was the intention of his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) and the Government to support the clause of the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood), and he, for his own part, should deliberately join in giving that vote, in the full conviction that, as matters now stood, and after the unmistakable expression of the will of the House, he was doing that which was best for the interest of the University of Oxford itself. The wishes and intentions of the hon. Member for North Lancashire were no doubt entitled to be heard with all respect, but he would venture to observe to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) that this clause could not in any authoritative way fix the House of Commons to those views. The right hon. Gentleman said that after the House had passed this clause, it would be impossible for the education of the University to continue a religious education. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was bound to say that, if that were true, nothing would induce him to vote for the clause. But he found nothing in the clause to prevent the University from doing that which the right hon. Gentleman said it would not be able to do—namely, to administer, as she had heretofore done, a religious education to the children of the Church of England. No doubt it would be necessary for the University, in order to give full effect to the decision of Parliament—if Parliament

889
adopted the decision—to adapt her own rules and regulations to the purposes of Parliament with regard to the admission and training of persons of other religious persuasions. It would be the duty of the University to address herself cheerfully and carefully to the performance of that task, and he had no doubt that to the duty she would so address herself. But as to religious education, he ventured the confident opinion that it would continue to be given there as heretofore, and that the construction which the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had put on the clause —with respect to its effects, and the character of the education given at Oxford, and generally of the undergraduates—was a construction which was not justified by the clause itself. He might add that it was a construction which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) would be glad to find would not be justified by the results.
MR. SERGEANT SHEEsaid, he was of founder's kin to one of the Oxford colleges, and yet he was to be excluded from any governing power in the University. So far so good, and he had no objection to that. The Universities had become great national institutions in connection with the Church of England, and he for one did not demur to being excluded from all governing power in those of Oxford and Cambridge. He differed, however, from What had fallen from an hon. Friend of his the other day, as to its being a matter of indifference to those who professed the ancient faith of the land whether they were excluded by religious tests or not. He might agree with him in thinking that there was no advantage to be obtained at either University which might not be too clearly purchased by the sacrifice of the faith they professed, but he did not concur in the opinion that there was danger of young men who went to the Universities losing their faith by contact with the members of the Established Church, or of having their religious principles in any way weakened by availing themselves of a University education. He should vote with great satisfaction for the proposition of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heywood), but, while he did not complain of the restriction in question, he must say he wished that the principle should be extended to the Irish Universities, and that, as they had excluded from the governing power of the national Universities in England persons who did not profess the religion of the Church of England, so they would also exclude from the government of
890
the Irish Universities those who did not profess the national faith of that country—taking care that the governing body should alter their rules and Statutes in such a manner that persons of a different religion might have the opportunity of obtaining an University education in their colleges. He also wished seriously to submit to hon. Gentlemen, members of the Church of England, whether it was right that an oath should be imposed at all on anybody in the University? He understood that at present, on taking a degree at Oxford, young men were required to call God to witness that—
"No foreign prince, prelate, or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority, either ecclesiastical or spiritual, in Her Majesty's realms, dominions, or country."
He would ask whether hon. Members thought that was an oath which ought to be taken either at Oxford or elsewhere. Ought not the existence of the fact that such authority was notoriously obeyed in this country to be sufficient to prevent it from being taken? From the time of the Reformation down to the reign of George III., such an oath might properly have been taken; but if he could show that by an Act of Parliament spiritual obedience to a foreign potentate had been made legal, and that successive Acts of Parliaments had recognised that legality, and the status of individuals created by such authority, he submitted that no conscientious man, aware of such facts, could or ought to take such an oath. It was fitting, when they were dealing with the oaths which certain parties should be required to take, that their attention should be called to their own Acts passed within the last fifty years, and which were wholly inconsistent with the plain meaning of the oath in question. Since the passing of the Acts of the 13 & 14 Geo. III. c. 35, and the 21 & 22 Geo. III. c. 24 (Irish), by which "Popish bishops" and all the rites and ceremonies of the Catholic religion, including, of course, the conferring of holy orders by "Popish bishops," were legalised, and of the 18 & 31 Geo. III. (English), to the same effect, priests in holy orders of the Church of Rome had been so far recognised by the laws that, though British subjects, they could not sit in that House or serve on a jury; and how could persons swear that the foreign prelate under whose authority such priests were inducted had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this realm? It could not be

891
denied that the Romish priests were inducted by bishops who derived authority from the See of Rome, and which bishops had stated to the House the manner of their appointment and the nature of the Bulls under which they were appointed. Only a few years ago a Commission, authorised by the Act of 7 & Vict., had issued relative to pastoral superintendence in Ireland, to which archbishops and bishops of the Romish Church were nominated, and Protestant archbishops and bishops of the United Kingdom had the liberality to become members of that Commission, and actually trustees of charitable donations and bequests in favour of archbishops and bishops, and their successors, appointed by Papal Bulls to pastoral superintendence in the realm. He hoped, after the statement he had now made, somebody would quiet his conscience on this point, by stating something which would justify this Protestant Legislature in imposing oaths on the youth of the country that were inconsistent with the obedience recognised by their Acts of Parliament of a certain class to foreign spiritual jurisdiction; and that the governing bodies in the University—that of All Souls, for instance, from which he was excluded because the Statutes of the founder had been violated—would have the goodness to take the matter into their consideration, and ascertain whether such an oath could consistently be taken.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."
The House divided:—Ayes 233; Noes 79: Majority 154.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Butt, I.

Adair, H. E.

Byng, hon. G. H. C.

Aglionby, H. A.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Anderson, Sir J.

Castlerosse, Visct.

Annesley, Earl of

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Cayley, E. S.

Ball, J.

Cheetham, J.

Bell, J.

Clay, Sir W.

Berkeley, Adm.

Cobden, R.

Berkeley, hon. C. F.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Coffin, W.

Bethell, Sir R.

Conolly, T.

Biggs, W.

Corbally, M. E.

Blackett, J. F. B.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Blair, Col.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Bland, L. H.

Crook, J.

Bonham-Carter, J.

Crossley, F.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Bramston, T. W.

Davies, D. A. S.

Bright, J.

Dent, J. D.

Brocklehurst, J.

Doring, Sir E.

Butler, C. S.

Drumlannig, Visct.

892

Drummond, H.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Duncan, G.

Langston, J. H.

Duncombe, T.

Langton, H. G.

Dundas, F.

Laslett, W.

Dunlop, A. M.

Lemon, Sir C.

Dunne, Col.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Du Pre, C. G.

Liddell, H. G.

Elcho, Lord

Lindsay, W. S.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Ellice, E.

Lowe, R.

Esmonde, J.

Lucas, F.

Ewart, W.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Fagan, W.

Mackie, J.

Feilden, M. J.

M'Cann, J.

Ferguson, Col.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Mangles, R. D.

Fitzgerald, W. R. S.

Marjoribanks, D. C.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Massey, W. N.

Forster, C.

Miall, E,

Forster, J.

Milligan, R.

Fortescue, C. S.

Mills, T.

Fox, R. M.

Milnes, R. M.

Fox, W. J.

Michell, W.

Freestun, Col.

Mitchell, T. A.

Gardner, R.

Moffatt, G.

Gaskell, J. M.

Molesworth, rt. hn. Sir W.

Geach, C.

Monck, Visct.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Monsell, W.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Montgomery, Sir G.

Gladstone, Capt.

Morris, D.

Glyn, G. C.

Mostyn, hn. T. E. M. L.

Goderich, Visct.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Goold, W.

Murrough, J. P.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Norreys, Lord

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

O'Connell, D.

Greaves, E.

Oliveira, B.

Greene, J.

Osborne, R.

Greene, T.

Otway, A. J.

Greville, Col. F.

Paget, Lord A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Paget, Lord G.

Grey, R. W.

Palk, L.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Patten, J. W.

Hadfield, G.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Hall, Sir B.

Peel, F.

Hankey, T.

Pellatt, A.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Hastie, Alex.

Perry, Sir T. E.

Hastie, Arch.

Peto, S. M.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Phillimore, J. G.

Headlam, T. E.

Phillimore, R. J.

Heathcoat, J.

Pigott, F.

Heathcote, Sir G. J.

Pilkington, J.

Heathcote, G. H.

Pinney, W.

Herbert, rt hon. S.

Portman, hon. W. H. B.

Hervey, Lord A.

Price, Sir R.

Heyworth, L.

Price, W. P.

Hindley, C.

Ricardo, J. L.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Ricardo, O.

Horsman, E.

Rich, H.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Hudson, G.

Robertson, P. F.

Hutt, W.

Roebuck, J. A.

Ingham, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Jackson, W.

Russell, F. C. H.

Johnstone, J.

Russell, F. W.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Sawle, C. B. G.

Keating, H. S.

Scholefield, W.

Keogh, W.

Scobell, Capt.

Kershaw, J.

Scott, hon. F.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Scully, V.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Seymour, Lord

Kirk, W.

Seymour, H. D.

Knightley, R.

Seymour, W. D.

893

Shee, W.

Vivian, J. H.

Shelley, Sir J. V.

Vivian, H. H.

Smith, J. B.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Walter, J.

Smyth, J. G.

Warner, E.

Stanley, Lord

Whitbread, S.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Wickham, H. W.

Stirling, W.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Strickland, Sir G.

Willcox, B. M.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Williams, W.

Stuart, Lord D.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Wilson, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Wise, A.

Thompson, G.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Thornely, T.

Woodd, B. T.

Tollemache, J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Traill, G.

Wyvill, M.

Tynte, Col. C. J. K.

Young, rt. hon. Sir J.

Vane, Lord H.

Vane, Lord A.

TELLERS.

Vernon, G. E. H.

Heywood, J.

Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

Denison, J. E.

List of the NOES.

Adderley, C. B.

Knox, hon. W. S.

Alexander, J.

Leslie, C. P.

Arbuthnott, hon. Gen.

Lockhart, W.

Baldock, E. H.

Lowther, Capt.

Bankes, rt. hon. G.

Macartney, G.

Barrow, W. H.

Malins, R.

Beach, Sir M. H. H.

March, Earl of

Bentinck, G. W. P.

Masterman, J.

Beresford, rt. hon. W.

Mowbray, J. R.

Booker, T. W.

Mullings, J. R.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Napier, rt. hon. J.

Carnae, Sir J. R.

Neeld, John

Cecil, Lord R.

Neeld, Jos.

Child, S.

Newark, Visct.

Christy, S.

North, Col.

Clive, R.

Ossulston, Lord

Colvile, C. R.

Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Palmer, Rob.

Deedes, W.

Palmer, Round.

Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

Parker, R. T.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Portal, M.

Duncombe, hon. W. E.

Repton, G. W. J.

East, Sir J. B.

Shirley, E. P.

Egerton, W. T.

Smith, W. M.

Fellowes, E.

Smith, A.

Filmer, Sir E.

Spooner, R.

Floyer, J.

Stafford, A.

Forbes, W.

Taylor, Col.

Freshfield, J. W.

Tyler, Sir G.

Frewen, C. H.

Tyrell. Sir J. T.

Galway, Visct.

Vance, J.

George, J.

Vyse, Col.

Graham, Lord M. W.

Waddington, H. S.

Granby, Marq. of

Walcott, Adm.

Grogan, E.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Hamilton, G. A.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Hawkins, W. W.

Wigram, L. T.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Williams, T. P.

Heneage, G. H. W.

TELLERS.

Irton, S.

Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

Jones, Capt.

Newdegate, C. N.

Clause read 2o.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he understood that those who voted for the clause intended that the persons with whom the government of the colleges and Universities
894
should rest should still be members of the Church of England. It appeared to him, however, now that the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles was abolished, that the protection remaining would be of an imperfect character. That protection consisted only in that passage of the Act of Uniformity which required a declaration of conformation to the liturgy of the Church of England. This guarantee, in practice, amounted to nothing, for Dissenters, and even Roman Catholics, might conform to the liturgy of tile Church of England, though they would not subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. In fact, there was nothing in it which might not be conscientiously conformed to by either; and, therefore, there was nothing which precluded either from holding fellowships, and thereby from participating in the government of the University, as well as sharing its patronage, and taking part in the instruction of its youth. There was nothing, likewise, to prevent Roman Catholics from becoming professors under the circumstances, and so of exercising an enlarged influence over instruction in the University. He thought that this was not what the House intended, and he would therefore move a proviso which would have the effect of giving the same protection that existed at present against any one not a member of the Church of England holding office in any college. At the same time, he was quite willing to leave the whole matter in the hands of the University, and if they thought it right to qualify the present oaths in any way, he thought they should have power to do so.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the clause, to add the words,
"Provided always, that no person taking such degree shall be capable of holding any office, station, or emolument involving any duties or powers of government, administration, patronage, or instruction within the University or Colleges respectively, without having previously subscribed such oath and declarations as by the present law and usage of the University would have been required to he taken and made by him at any time or times previously to or at his taking the said degree; so that this present Proviso may be altered by any Statutes duly made by the University,"
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he must decidedly object to this proviso. He had been censured for not giving more notice of his clause, and now here was a proviso, which was in fact an entirely new regulation, brought forward without any notice at all,

895
The degree of B.A. conferred upon a graduate no station, power, or office whatever in the University. The only emolument that he could obtain was by acting as a private tutor if he was clever, and that it was now proposed to deprive him of unless he signed an acknowledgment of the Royal Supremacy in the most extreme form in which it was received in the days of the Stuarts, and an affirmation of belief in the entire Prayer-book and the Thirty-nine Articles. He thought that was perfectly monstrous. He thought the admission to fellowships was even now too much restricted by the provision that those who held them should sign a declaration of conformity to the liturgy of the Church of England. He understood, indeed, that the practice of making such a declaration was very much disused at Oxford. He was glad of it, and hoped that they would not again revive it.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Wigram) by this proviso proposed to add to the stringency of the Act of Uniformity, seeming thereby to imply that that Act was not sufficiently restrictive, and that further tests were requisite. He should certainly oppose any such proviso.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would recommend his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Wigram) not to press his Motion. He (Mr. Walpole) had voted in the minority on the last division, because he was anxious that the University should regulate its own proceedings; but, if he had been asked to give his vote simply upon the clause, he would have regarded it merely as a consequence of the clauses which had been previously agreed to by the House, and as completing the education to be given to Dissenters, believing that under its operation they would not be admitted to any share in the government of the University. As it had been said that this clause was only regarded as an instalment of something to be hereafter demanded, he wished it to be distinctly understood that his reason for not opposing the clause was that he considered it as a settlement of the question. He would venture to say that, whenever the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) brought forward a proposal for giving Dissenters either a right to trusts and endowments which were intended for others, or powers with regard to the government of the University, he would meet with an opposition which would effectually prevent such a proposal from being carried into effect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause read 3o, and added.
MR. J. G. PIIILLIMOREmoved the following clause—
"That no Member of the University who shall have matriculated after the 1st of December next shall be allowed, on account of his rank, to pass his examination or take his degree sooner than another Undergraduate."
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that, looking to the merits of the clause, there could be no doubt that persons should not be allowed, on account of their rank, to take degrees sooner than other undergraduates, and as the clause would not affect persons now at the University, who had gone through a part of their studies, he did not think there could be any objection to it. The clause had formerly been objected to on the part of the Government as proposing to do by Act of Parliament what the University might itself accomplish. He considered that the clause in its present form was quite reasonable in itself, and he would therefore give it his support.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, he must admit that he was not friendly to the clause. He had no desire to curtail the period of education for persons of rank at the University. It was now open to every nobleman, who thought fit to do so, to go through the ordinary course for a degree, and there had been many instances in which noblemen who were distinguished Members of the other House had gone through the ordinary course for degrees, and had been successful in carrying off prizes at the Universities. He thought, however, that the clause would deprive the University of a power which he considered that it ought to possess; namely, that of granting degrees to persons of distinction who had deserved well of their country. That was a power which had always been exercised by the University, and he would be sorry to see it abolished by a Resolution of that House.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, that a very experienced member of the University of Oxford, the Rev. W. Hayward Cox, in the course of his evidence, recommended that commoners should have the privilege of taking degrees within the same time in which degrees might be taken by noble-men. Mr. Cox said—
"It is my impression, founded on the experience of a quarter of a century, that a great portion of the extravagance, indolence, and ignorance, which prevail among students at Oxford, is

897
traceable to the insufficient occupation absolutely imposed on candidates for degrees during the three years and a half of necessary residence. That such a protracted period is not, in point of fact, essential, is recognised by the privilege conceded to the nobility and the eldest sons of baronets, &c., of proceeding to their degrees at the commencement of the twelfth terns from their matriculation; and I have no hesitation in recommending the abolition of this privilege, by rendering it common to all candidates for ordinary degrees. I believe that at University College, and other colleges which are under an improved administration, it has even been found practicable to send successful aspirants to the highest academical honours into the schools, at the same period."
MR. WARNERsaid, he did not think the clause would in any degree interfere with the power of the University to shorten the term of residence, if the governing body thought fit to do so. The clause might, however, interfere with the right of the University to confer honorary degrees, and he would suggest that words should be inserted reserving that power to the University.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, that the clause contained nothing which could have that effect.
Clause greed to, and added to the Bill.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he wished to move to add the following words at the end of Clause 18—"Heads of colleges and halls, being professors, shall vote only for heads of colleges or halls." The House had on a former evening decided that heads of colleges should elect the heads of colleges who were to form part of Congregation; that professors should elect the professors; and that heads of houses should not interfere in the election of the deputies from Convocation. It seemed, therefore, requisite to the logical completeness of the clause, that die House should agree to the addition he now proposed to make.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that neither he nor his Colleagues entertained less objection than formerly to a sectional, as compared to a general constituency. As, however, the House had adopted a sectional constituency, he thought they ought to be consistent, and adopt the proposal of his hon. Friend.
Motion agreed to.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he would now move to add to Clause 29, the additional words of which he had given notice.
898
Amendment proposed, at the end of Clause 29 to add the words—
"Residents shall be taken to mean persons whose residence within the University for twenty-four weeks during the twelve months next before the first day of the current or next preceding Michaelmas Term, shall have been verified by the declaration in writing of all persons claiming to vote or act as such residents, or in such other manner as the University shall from time to time by Statute appoint."
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he objected to the provision. He thought it would be much better to leave it to the University itself to make regulations upon this point.
MR. HENLEYsaid, it would be far better to leave the definition to the University.
MR. EVELYN DENISONhoped the proposal would not be adopted, as it had, by common consent, been left to the University to define the meaning of residence.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he was under a contrary impression. He would, of course, much rather the question was left to the decision of the University, and he should withdraw his Amendment.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the definition was necessarily left to the Vice Chancellor pro hâc vice, as the elections had to take place before the Congregation could be constituted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he wished to make an addition to the clause with reference to interests specially saved or protected by the Bill.
Amendment proposed, at the end of Clause 29 to add the words—
"And the words 'existing' and 'enjoyed,' when used with reference to interests specially saved or protected by this Act, shall not extend to or include any right or claim which at the time of passing this Act may be in practical disuse."
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. H. S. KEATINGsaid, he thought the definition suggested by his hon. and learned Friend would give rise to more doubt than it would remove. The words "in practical disuse" were very vague, and he would suggest that in their stead should be employed the words "actually enjoyed within such a period."
MR. HENLEYsaid, he also objected to the vagueness of the words "in practical disuse."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved to add to the end of Clause 34 a proviso. The object of this proviso was to mitigate what he still believed would be the injurious working of this clause, which was added to the Bill on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer). With regard to scholarships and exhibitions, the words would leave the clause as it stood, and would touch only the fellowships. The fellowships stood upon a different footing to the studentships. When the colleges were originally founded, they were not intended to be the great teaching offices of the Universities, from which the Universities were to draw their scholars, but offices of residence and study in the colleges. Now, however, the country expected from the colleges the University education; and though they had private halls, it was to the fellows of the colleges they had to look for the conduct of that education. The question was, whether the Bill, as it originally stood, did not sufficiently provide for the protection of the interest of the schools. Power was given to the colleges to propose reforms, and if they did not, then the Commissioners had the power, and an appeal was given to the Privy Council. That would have been a sufficient protection to a school like Winchester, which was supposed to have a right of succession to New College; but, under the clause introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman the decision as to whether there should be any reform or not was left not only to the governing body of New College, but also to the governing body of Winchester, who would have to decide whether New College should still be a close college for the boys of Winchester or not? But was this governing body of Winchester School, a body so practically acquainted with New College or with the wants of Winchester School, to be intrusted with this duty? It was composed of ten clergymen, one of whom only took any active part in the affairs of the school, two others permanently resided in Winchester, and the other seven were never heard of there, and these were the persons who, under the hon. and learned Gentleman's clause, might nullify the purposes of this Bill and nullify the judgment of the Commissioners. As an illustration of the working of the present system, he might refer to the case of Winchester and New College; of the close fellowships there were no less than four vacant at this
900
moment, because no persons tolerably fit had been sent up by the school to fill them. He called upon them not to deliver the governing and teaching body in the University into the hands of bodies which would be totally incompetent to perform the functions intrusted to them.
Amendment proposed in Clause 34, after the words "any emolument," to insert "other than a Fellowship or Studentship."
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he considered it very unfortunate that the proposed Amendment had not been inserted in the Votes earlier, as many hon. Gentlemen had formed the opinion that this Amendment was not intended to be persevered in. The Amendment was entirely opposed to the principle of the clause to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. The principle of his clause was, that schools were as much entitled to the emoluments and endowments connected with those schools as the colleges to the endowments and emoluments of the colleges. Now, the parties appointed to carry out the new Act were persons in no way interested in the schools—their purposes were entirely academical, and had reference only to academical objects. It could hardly be expected that persons would pay any due regard to the rights and interests of schools whose powers were so exclusively limited to academical objects. The whole rights and interests of the schools, except for the clause which the House had adopted, were to be dealt with by a side-wind, and were to be regarded as haying merged into academical interests. It was not correct to describe fellowships and studentships as teaching offices, though he admitted the heads of colleges were generally selected from those bodies. If the effect of the clause was that it would force upon colleges such a number of fellows and students as could not furnish a proper body of tutors, that would be a serious objection. But such would not be the effect of the clause, and care had been taken by several Amendments to guard against possible objections of this character. To show how groundless was alarm on account of this clause, he would refer to the cases of Pembroke College and Balliol College, and scholars from Abingdon School. He begged to say that in no case would the college be left without a sufficiently well-qualified tutorial body. With respect to the scholars from Abingdon School, the college had the power of placing the qualification to emoluments as high as they pleased. This

901
would be a sufficient safeguard for the college. If they could not get boys from Abingdon School who came up to their own standard, they then could throw open the fellowships to all the world. Some thought, in giving the powers he had permitted to the college and the Commissioners, that he had gone too far; but he had been anxious to meet all objections, and to do away with all grounds for complaint or fear. It had been said that appeal could be made to the Privy Council for the preservation of the rights of schools. But the Commissioners would be guided only by the Bill, and the Bill totally ignored schools. It was purely and exclusively a University Bill. His point was, that colleges should not have the only voice in respect of continuing or otherwise fellowships attached to schools. The effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment- on Christ Church and St. John's Colleges would be more extensive than the right hon. Gentleman appeared to conceive. The effect of the Amendment would be to take the three great schools—Winchester, Merchant Taylors', and Westminster, out of the operation of the clause. This he objected to. He thought the House ought not to trust to the way in which a particular body of persons would discharge a particular duty. The House ought to legislate upon general principles when legislating on such an important subject. If the Amendment was carried, it would possibly tend to impair the value of these great schools as educational institutions. It was not right to leave these three great schools dependent on the caprice or prejudices of particular persons or colleges for endowments and emoluments winch had been enjoyed by those schools since their foundation. There was no sound principle for submitting the interests of these great schools to the judgment of colleges. Again, if the Amendment was now conceded, they could not refuse next year to legislate in the same way for Eton. The right hon. Gentleman had gone on the supposition that it would not be right to intrust the governing body of these great schools with the power of deciding whether it would be for the advantage of the schools, or otherwise, that endowments and emoluments which they enjoyed ought to be abolished. Now, in reply to this, he would refer to the character and composition of the governing bodies, and to the way in which they had throughout discharged their duties. A reference to the scholars elected to the en-
902
dowments would establish the accuracy of that assertion. He trusted that Members interested in the different schools throughout the country, and more especially the Members for Scotland, with reference to the Snell Exhibitions attached to the University of Glasgow, would not forget that the principle for which he was contending was a principle of which they had had the benefit, but of which they would not have the benefit if they followed the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had declared that he considered the principle of the clause altogether mischievous.
MR. LOWEsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer) had, on a previous occasion, carried a Resolution, the effect of which was, that two-thirds of the governing body of any school might put a veto upon any regulation of the Commissioners for the abolition of preferences in the nomination to any exhibitions, scholarships, fellowships, or studentships, and now it was proposed to modify that Resolution. But, in his opinion, the hon. and learned Gentleman would have saved himself much circumlocution if he had proposed to enact that, in cases of preferences to scholarships, fellowships, studentships, or exhibitions, no alteration should be made in the present system. It would have been much shorter to do so, and the effect would have been precisely the same as that of the present proposal; and he should deal with the subject as if such had been in reality the proposition. It was the inclination, and, no doubt, it might be the duty, of the governing powers of schools to refuse, upon any consideration, to allow the emoluments to which they considered the schools to be entitled to be taken away. They were not bound to adopt cosmopolitan or national views upon the subject; but, on the contrary, as their duties were narrow, so their views would be narrow, and they would be influenced by local interest. He objected to the principle of the hon. and learned Gentleman that these fellowships and emoluments belonged to the schools alone. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to regard the school as everything, while in his mind the college was a mere appanage; he treated the school as the mother-country, the college as the colony, but such was not, he thought, a correct view of the case. The colleges of Oxford constituted the University, and it was from fellows of colleges that the governing body of the

903
University was supplied, and also the tutors. If, therefore, those fellowships were bestowed upon those schools, or awarded upon any consideration other than that of merit, no surer method could be adopted of keeping down rising talent, and the case might happen, as he had known it to happen, of a young man being compelled to listen to lectures from a person inferior to himself in knowledge. He looked upon colleges as great corporations, and surely they ought to be allowed to choose their own members. The hon. and learned Gentleman had likewise said that he would allow the Commissioners to raise the standard of merit in the case of persons coming from close schools, and, if the regulations they made were not complied with, that then these fellowships and studentships might be considered open; but he could not imagine anything worse than that it should go forth that any such arrangement was contemplated by that House. It appeared to him that the creed of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, "Let us have ignorance if we can, but if we cannot have that, then let us have merit;" but that was surely not a principle upon which the education of the country could be carried on. The case of Balliol had been referred to, but how had that college, during his own recollection, risen to the high rank in the University it now held? It was simply because the fellowships had been given to the best men in the University. With regard to Winchester, he could tell the House what Winchester was when he was acquainted with it. It was said now that boys of the ages of eight, nine, or ten years were to be admitted according to merit, and so the merit of a boy of that age would be sufficient to decide his position for life. In his time there was no question of merit at all, it was entirely a matter of interest; and relationship to persons dead for hundreds of years, or the possession of influential friends, was of infinitely more importance than merit. There were two effects generally attendant upon fellowships—a good and a bad effect. The good effect was, that they made a man work, and the bad effect, that when a person had obtained a fellowship it prevented him working. In the case of a boy who chance of a fellowship was decided at fourteen or fifteen years of age all stimulus to future exertion was withdrawn; and that was not the only evil. It might happen that, in order of merit, four or five commoners were superior to boys on the foun-
904
dation, but the boys on the foundation were appointed to fellowships, while the commoners were left to get on in the world as they best could, so that, in point of fact, the principle inculcated was, that industry and merit were very good things, but that interest was a great deal better. That was the practical lesson which he had learnt at Winchester, and was what had fallen to his share. The effect of that system was, that boys from the school, when they be- became undergraduates, had more facility for cultivating society, and they made the University very agreeable; but he found that, in many cases, the habits of economy which they acquired were not suitable to the station they were afterwards called upon to fill. Another bad effect of the system was, that a boy was thrown among a certain number of associates, both at school and college; if these associates were good ones, so much the better; but, if not, from the circumstance of the boys from one school going to the same college, he could not change his set when he arrived regard the University. With regard to the alteration proposed to be made in the admission of boys to Winchester, he could only say that he was glad for his own sake and for that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and of his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Cardwell), that no such change was made in his time; for, if it had, they would have been elected to the foundation, and then have gone to New College, and been all three ruined. He hoped that the House would bear in mind that the question really was, whether they would do those boys on the foundation of these schools the irreparable injury of making their fortunes for them before their minds were developed. It was also to be remembered that thirty-five writerships in the East India Company's service had been thrown open to public competition, and that they were of greater advantage to a young man than a fellowship of Oxford, and every means ought to be employed to preserve at Oxford as much talent as possible. That was not to be done by the principle of close fellowships, but the system which had in other cases worked so well ought to be introduced at the University, he meant the system of free and open competition.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, that the greater number of the arguments used by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had been anticipated and answered by the hon. and learned Member for Ply-

905
mouth. The hon. Member had argued on the supposition that it was desired to keep up the emoluments as they at present existed, but all that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. Palmer) wished to maintain was existing rights. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth would leave it open to the colleges to form the most stringent regulations with respect to University distinctions. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) said, that the governing body of schools had not large cosmopolitan views. He hoped the hon. Gentleman did not mean that Oxford was to be actuated by cosmopolitan views at the expense of others. With respect to Winchester, it was known that the authorities of the school had a plan under consideration for giving greater competition among themselves for admission to New College, and there was nothing in the clause to prevent the authorities of New College making any stronger regulations they might think fit to ensure application and industry on the part of the youths of the college. What he contended for was, that Winchester should not be deprived of the powers of sending its scholars to New College, and that the advantages it enjoyed should not he diminished.
MR. GRANVILLE VERNONsaid, he had not intended to speak on the present question, but he felt bound to state that his views had changed since he entered the House. He had entertained a strong feeling as to the schools being quite as important as the rights of the University itself. He had voted in favour of the Resolution of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. R. Palmer), but the debate that evening had convinced hint that he would not be justified in perpetuating abuses which were proved to exist. The character of those endowments had entirely changed. They had been intended to advance men in life, but now persons went to the University so much younger, that they had already started in life before they got the benefit of them. He thought that the claims of Christ Church had not been fully attended to in the Bill; it was left in a very anomalous state as regarded its connection with the schools, but he felt bound to give a vote contrary to his former one.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the hon. Member for Kidderminster had assumed that the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth was equivalent to one which should propose to retain, without any modification, the preferences and
906
privileges of schools in their entirety, as they at present existed. But it was quite as open for those on that side to assume—in spite of the modifications and checks proposed—that the object of the Bill was to sweep away all the endowments of the University, or to remodel them according to their own wish. He thought that the argument of the hon. Member for Kidderminster was more in favour of the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer) than of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member said, that they must look to the colleges for the governing body of the University, but the hon. Gentleman had not alluded to the new halls, and did not say whether they were to have anything to do with the governing body. With regard to Balliol, it had been stated that an actual bargain existed, and there was much force in what the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth said with respect to that college. With regard to Jesus College, he would observe that the authorities hoped to confine it to all the schools in Wales, and therefore those Gentlemen who were so fond of competition would not let in a Scotchman or Englishman, but they stuck to Welshmen altogether. Then as to Pembroke College, it was originally founded for the school at Abingdon, and it would not be quite honest to throw overboard the trust created, and leave the school out of consideration. After all, the clause must rest upon the ground, that where there were two parties concerned, they could not leave the regulation of the whole affairs in the hands of one, and not give the body equally interested a part of the control. The preamble of the Bill had been altered without notice. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had struck out the most important words—words which had reference to the intentions of founders; and, in its present shape, the Privy Council would not take much notice of the founder's intentions. Altering the preamble without notice ought not to have been done. He should vote against the Amendment.
SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, that from the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, he should be inclined to say that it was directed against the Blundell School, at Tiverton, of which he was a trustee, and its connection with Balliol College. The scholarships belonging to that foundation were always filled up, and they finally issued in two fellow-

907
ships at Balliol, which fellowships were precisely aimed at by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. This certainly affected the interests of Balliol as a place of education. There were ten or twelve open fellowships in that college; and the two remaining ones were filled up by the men sent front Tiverton. And, on this subject, he could assure the House that the trustees always endeavoured to have the competitors at the examination classed according to their merits before they passed for selection. The provisions of the trust required that the trustees should have regard to merit, and to the condition of those whose parents were least able to afford the expenses of education. This was done; and the boys were divided into three classes, so that the trustees were enabled to fulfil their duties according to the intentions of the trust. If the right hon. Gentleman would leave the school alone, he did not deny that some improvement might be made in the arrangements with Balliol College; but he protested against the funds of the school being applied to the endowment of open fellowships. He objected, also, to the sacrifice of one of the fellowships. He believed the adoption of the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be detrimental to the interests of the school which he had referred to, and to the opportunities which a local school afforded for stimulating young men to exertion.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, it appeared to him that the state of the question was this—the House having decided distinctly, and by a not inconsiderable majority, in spite of the opposition of the Government, in favour of the clause moved by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, they were now undoubtedly taken by surprise by a Motion which would substantially destroy the effect of their previous decision, with one very unimportant exception. That exception was the Snell exhibitions; but he hoped that hon. Members from the North would not, in consequence of that exception, be induced to depart from a principle which they had upon a former occasion supported. It might be a successful artifice, and be an ingenious device worthy of a great statesman, to take such means of securing a majority; but he would sooner be in the smallest minority that ever divided that House, than attempt to obtain the end by such means. He had listened with considerable surprise to the very flippant tone
908
in which the hon. Member for Kidderminster had treated the question; but he observed with regret that from the beginning to the end he did not make a single allusion to the principle of justice which was involved in the question. All that his speech amounted to was, that it was convenient to take the money of these schools. Every consideration of justice and feeling, every consideration to which a court of justice would listen, was entirely put aside by the hon. Member. He begged to remind the hon. Member that no nation and no community gained by a direct disregard of the principles of justice, and if they set an example of this sort it might not possibly stop with these confiscations which were now proposed for their convenience. The time might come when such a precedent, employed in worse days, and with a more mischievous spirit, might be productive of the most fatal consequences. There was not a single argument, however, which had been used by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. Palmer) in which he had not been anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman in 1850, when he opposed the Commission. At that time he particularly dwelt upon the fact that examination was often a fallacious test; yet now he put forward a successful examination as a reason for sweeping away these school foundations and every obligation connected with them. He said, too, at that time, that greater injury could hardly he inflicted upon the poor than by the noble Lord's measure; yet here he was himself inflicting that injury. He (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) trusted that in spite of artifice and sophistry these institutions would be maintained intact and inviolate. He trusted that the House of Commons would not consent to maim and mutilate those noble institutions which Cromwell himself had spared. He trusted that institutions which had survived the civil wars would survive tricks and artifice in the House of Commons. He trusted they would survive the machinations of which they had to-night had an example. He would entreat the right hon. Gentleman, in words that he well knew were familiar to him, to return to his former opinions and preserve the connection between these ancient foundations and the University—
"Lift not thy spear against the Muses' bower;
The Great Emathian conqueror bade spare
The house of Pindarus, when temple and tower
Went to the ground; and the repeated air
Of sad Electra's poet had the power
To save the Athenian Walls from ruin bare."
MR. HEYWOODsaid, it was his intention to support the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposition.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, he should repeat the vote which he had given the other night in favour of the clause, as proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. R. Palmer)—although, if anything could have induced him to alter that vote it would have been the kind of appeal made by the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore), who seemed to imagine that the Scotch Members required to be shamed out of taking a course which he (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) had held up to reprobation. They needed no such inducement; and although he entirely acquitted the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any attempt to lure the Scotch Members into giving their votes in support of the present proposition, he felt that the principle involved now was the same as had been moved when the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth had first brought this subject under the consideration of the House; and although Scotland was now safe, he still considered it his duty to take the course which he had.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 139: Majority 10.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Atherton, W.

Elcho, Lord

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Fagan, W.

Ball, J.

Feilden, M. J.

Bell, J.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Berkeley, Adm.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Bethell, Sir R.

Forster, J.

Blackett, J. F. B.

Fortescue, C. S.

Bland, L. H.

Fox, R. M.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Fox, W. J.

Brady, J.

Gardner, R.

Brotherton, J.

Geach, C.

Bruce, Lord E.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Buckley, Gen.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Glyn, G. C.

Cheetham, J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Clay, Sir W.

Greene, J.

Clinton, Lord R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Grosvenor, Earl

Cogan, W. H. F.

Hadfield, G.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Hankey, T.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Headlam, T. E.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Heneage, G. F.

Crook, J.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Crossley, F.

Hervey, Lord A.

Dashwood, Sir G. H.

Heywood, J.

Denison, J. E.

Heyworth, L.

Dent, J. D.

Hindley, C.

910

Hutt, W.

Portman, hon. W. H. B.

Ingham, R.

Price, W. P.

Jackson, W.

Richardson, J. J.

Keating, R.

Rumbold, C. E.

Keogh, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Kershaw, J.

Russell, F. C. H.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Russell, F. W.

Kirk, W.

Sadleir, Jas.

Langston, J. H.

Sawle, C. B. G.

Langton, H. G.

Scobell, Capt.

Lee, W.

Scully, F.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Scully, V.

Locke, J.

Seymour, W. D.

Lowe, R.

Shafto, R. D.

M'Cann, J.

Smith, J. B.

MacGregor, John

Strickland, Sir G.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Miall, E.

Tancred, H. W.

Milligan, R.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Milner, W. M. E.

Thornely, T.

Molesworth, rt. hn. Sir W.

Vernon, G. E. H.

Monck, Visct.

Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

Monsell, W.

Vivian, H. H.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Walmsley, Sir J.

Norreys, Lord

Watkins, Col. L.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Whitbread, S.

North, F.

Wickham, H. W.

O'Connell, J.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Osborne, R.

Willcox, B. M.

Palmerston, Visct.

Williams, W.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Wilson, J.

Peel, F.

Wilmington, Sir T. E.

Pellatt, A.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Perry, Sir T. E.

Wyvill, M.

Peto, S. M.

Young, rt. hon. Sir J.

Pilkington, J.

TELLERS.

Pinney, W.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Pollard-Urquhart, W.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Duncombe, hon. W. E.

Alexander, J.

Dundas, G.

Anderson, Sir J.

Dunlop, A. M.

Arbuthnott, hon. Gen.

Dunne, Col.

Ball, E.

East, Sir J. B.

Barrow, W. H.

Egerton, E. C.

Bateson, T.

Ewart, W.

Beach, Sir M. H. H.

Fellowes, E.

Bentinck, G. W. P.

Fergus, J.

Beresford, rt. hon. W.

Filmer, Sir E.

Booker, T. W.

Floyer, J.

Bramston, T. W.

Follett, B. S.

Brocklehurst, J.

Forbes, W.

Brockman, E. D.

Freshfield, J. W.

Burghley, Lord

Frewen, C. H.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Galway, Visct.

Burroughes, H. N.

George, J.

Cayley, E. S.

Gilpin, Col.

Child, S.

Goderich, Visct.

Clinton, Lord C. P.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Clive, R.

Greaves, E.

Cobden, rt.

Greene, T.

Cocks, T. S.

Grogan, E.

Codrington, Sir W.

Hamilton, G. A.

Carry, rt. hon. H. L.

Hanbury, hon. C. S. B.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Hastie, Alex.

Davies, D. A. S.

Hawkins, W. W.

Davison, R.

Hayes, Sir E.

Denison, E.

Heathcoat, J.

Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

Dod, J. W.

Higgins, G. G. O.

Duncan, G.

Hildyard, R. C.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Horsfall, T. B.

911

Hotham, Lord

Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

Hume, W. F.

Palmer, Rob.

Irton, S.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Johnstone, J.

Percy, hon. J. W.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Phillimore, J. G.

Jones, Capt.

Phillimore, R. J.

Keating, H. S.

Pritchard, J.

Ker, D. S.

Robertson, P. F.

King, J. K.

Sandars, G.

Knightley, R.

Scholefield, W.

Laslett, W.

Scott, hon. F.

Lennox, Lord A. F.

Shirley, E. P.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Smith, W. M.

Liddell, H. G.

Somerset, Capt.

Lockhart, W.

Spooner, R.

Lucas, F.

Stanley, Lord

Macartney, G.

Stuart, Lord D.

Mackie, J.

Taylor, Col.

Maguire, J. F.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Malins, B.

Thompson, G.

March, Earl of

Tomline, G.

Masterman, J.

Tyler, Sir G.

Michell, W.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Montgomery, Sir G.

Vance, J.

Moody, C. A.

Vansittart, G. H.

Mowbray, J. R.

Vivian, J. E.

Mullings, J. R.

Waddington, H. S.

Mundy, W.

Walcott, Adm.

Muntz, G. F.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Murrough J. P.

West, F. R.

Naas, Lord

Wigram, L. T.

Napier, rt. hon. J.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Neeld, John

Wise, A.

Neeld, Jos.

Woodd, B. T.

Newark, Visct.

Wrightson, W. B.

Newdegate, C. N.

TELLERS.

North, Col.

Palmer, Round.

Otway, A. J.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Bill passed.

THE WAR WITH RUSSIA—DESTRUCTION OF STORES AT ULEABORG—QUESTION.
On the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair for the purpose of going into Committee of Supply,
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he was desirous of calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to some late proceedings of the Baltic Fleet, and as he could ask for explanations now with as little interruption to public business as at any future time, he would take that opportunity of doing so. Communications had been made to him by persons in whom he had the fullest confidence, and statements had also been made in the public papers, relative to the proceedings of a portion of the British squadron in the Baltic, and if the information which he had received, and the statements to which he had alluded were not correct, he should be very glad to have them contradicted; but if they were correct, he thought the circumstances which had taken place were inconsistent with the professions of the Government, as they were certainly
912
considered by persons who were anxious that this war should be carried on with vigour against the Russians to be highly impolitic. It was on these grounds that he thought the House was entitled to ask for an explanation from the Government; and he begged to state that he did not rise with the slightest desire to cast any reproach upon Admiral Plumridge, or the officers of Her Majesty's squadron, who, no doubt, in anything which they had done had been guided solely by a desire to perform strictly their duty, and had deviated neither to the right hand nor to the left, but had been actuated solely by that which always characterised the officers of Her Majesty's Navy—a steady adherence to the path which duty pointed out to them to take. He put this question, therefore, to the First Lord of the Admiralty, with the view of obtaining an explanation of the policy, for which he presumed the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues were responsible, and not with a desire to throw odium or reproach on those who, he had no doubt, might have, in the course of this war, very painful duties to perform. Now the facts, as he was informed, were these: —There was a small town in the Gulf of Bothnia, called Uleaborg, which was a purely commercial place, and which, when visited in the course of the present month, by three of Her Majesty's vessels, was found to be in a perfectly defenceless state, not having a single fortified place, nor any munitions of war. Deputations from the inhabitants went out in a boat to communicate with the Admiral, and to ask him his intentions, and they informed him, at the same time, that they were entirely defenceless, and threw themselves upon his mercy. In order, however, to be accurate, he would read the exact statement which had been submitted to him:—
"In consequence of the events at Brahestad, a deputation was sent out to the enemy to ask what was his object, and to inform him that we were quite defenceless, and threw ourselves entirely on his mercy. In answer, we received five copies of a proclamation in the English and Swedish languages to the following purport:—
"'The English Admiral will not molest or injure private persons or their property. He only intends to destroy the castles and defences, shipping and property of the Emperor of Russia. So long as the inhabitants continue peaceably within their houses they will be protected, but should they offer assistance to the Russian troops they will be treated as enemies. The English Admiral desires that the women and children be sent out of the town.
"'HANWAY PLUMRIDGE, Rear-Admiral.
"'H.B.M.S. Leopard, at Uleaborg, June 1.'

913
Hereon the deputation remarked, "That they had in this case nothing to fear, since they had neither soldiers, fortresses, nor contraband of war.' But the Admiral answered, You have a large store of tar, deals, timber, ships building, and materials for constructing them. These shall be burnt.' The deputation answered, "That all this was private property, and in no respect intended for warlike purposes; that a great part of the deals were English property, and that several young merchants who were building ships had received advances from England to assist them in their undertakings and in their shipments of tar.' The Admiral answered, 'If Englishmen have property here, that is not my concern, and I can't help it. I am sorry for it, but I must fulfil my duty. In ten minutes I shall begin operations.'"
With the proclamation nobody could find fault, for it was entirely in accordance with its principles that property should be respected, and that, unless the exigencies of the war required it, it should not be interfered with; that, in fact, there should be no wanton interference with private property. But, in respect to this private property, he was informed that information was given and evidence taken — for he understood that officers had landed and had seen and judged for themselves—that it was entirely commercial in its character, and was intended to be shipped for this country. He was told that not a particle of that property belonged to the Russian Government. There were no gunboats building; there were no gunboats built. A great part of it was unquestionably English, and had probably been bought and paid for before the declaration of war, for it could not have been removed earlier in consequence of the ice. That being the case, and it being the property of an enemy, of an Emperor of Russia, according to the practice of war the Emperor of Russia was much more likely to have seized it than themselves. He was told that, in point of fact, there was a considerable quantity of tar there which was the property of parties in London who had contracted with the Admiralty to supply tar for the use of Her Majesty's dockyards; and was intended to have been delivered from part of that supply. He was informed that the parties who had undertaken this contract apprised the Government of this country that they had bought and paid for the tar, but that it was at Uleaborg, in Finland, and unless some licence or permission were granted, to allow it to be brought through the blockade squadron, the contract could not be fulfilled. He understood the answer was, that though no licence could be given, yet if neutral vessels were sent to Ulea-
914
borg to fetch the tar they would be allowed to pass unharmed through the squadron, and to bring the tar home for the use of Her Majesty's vessels. So that instead of burning the property of the Emperor of Russia, they burnt what was wanted by, and what would have come into the use of Her Majesty's Government. If he was wrong in this, he should be happy to hear it contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman. But if this tar was under contract to be delivered to our Government, its destruction by Admiral Plumridge's squadron would give rise, without doubt, to a case of compensation; and the British public would have claims made upon it similar to the Danish claims for the loss of the property destroyed. Now, he questioned the policy of making these attacks upon private property in small defenceless villages on the coast of Finland. England could have no object to gain in exasperating the population of Finland, the trade of these ports being almost exclusively carried on with this country. No doubt the laws of war would justify such a proceeding, if it could be shown that the exigencies of war required it; but such a case of necessity had yet to be made out. He had received a letter from a gentleman in the City, engaged in the Baltic trade, an extract from Which he would read to the House—
"According to the accounts I have received from Finland, the English landed at Uleaborg, a defenceless place, without meeting any resistance. They immediately set fire to six new merchant vessels on the stocks and one just launched, then to all the ship-building materials, and afterwards to the entire stock of goods lying at the wharves for exportation, consisting of a large quantity of timber and deals, and from 17,000 to 20,000 barrels of tar, as well as to eight ships afloat in the harbour. At Brahestad the English, equally unresisted, burnt five merchantmen on the stocks and six afloat, also 1,000 dozen of deals, 8,000 barrels of tar and pitch, and various other things, including a quantity of corn and salt, the whole estimated at 400,000 silver roubles. To the best of my belief, nearly all, if not the whole, of the property destroyed was private property—some of it British. This destruction of property can only affect the Russian Government and its power of carrying on the war in a very indirect and remote way. It will act much more directly on ourselves, for, of the 30,000 barrels of tar destroyed, the greater part would have found its way to our own dockyards and shipowners, who will not easily get supplied with this article elsewhere; whereas, under present circumstances, Russia wants none, or only such small quantities as she can readily and speedily obtain at home. To talk of this store of tar and deals as being contraband of war is therefore the acme of absurdity, and it is clear that, contrary to the professions of our Government and of Admiral Plum-

915
ridge himself, that private property should be spared when the exigencies of war did not demand its destruction, it has in these cases been wantonly and unnecessarily destroyed."
Our men and officers exposed their lives in the performance of acts of war, from which, if successful, there was no gain, and which would not hasten in the smallest degree the ultimate conclusion of hostilities. Finland could hardly be said to be a part of Russia, for it had been annexed to Russia after a strong resistance from the Fins. Such proceedings, therefore, could only give offence to the Finlanders, and also to the Swedes, who were our best friends. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) wished to guard himself against being supposed to reflect, in any way, upon the naval officers concerned in these transactions, because he believed that they had only acted upon their instructions. All he asked from the Government was, that they should vindicate the policy they had pursued in the circumstances which he had brought under the notice of the House.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Sir, I was not exactly aware that the right hon. Gentleman intended this evening to go into so much detail on the subject which he has brought under the notice of the House; and I therefore did not bring down all the despatches with reference to this subject. They only arrived this morning, and tomorrow they will be published in the Gazette, and then the House and the public will be better enabled to form their opinion upon the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded. But he has relieved me from any difficulty upon one head, which indeed would have been a difficulty of a most oppressive character, namely, if he had impugned the conduct of the British officers and gallant men who were employed on the service now in question. The right hon. Gentleman says, and says very truly, that those officers and men have executed their duty honourably, and have faithfully obeyed their instructions, and are not open to any censure whatever, so far as the authority presiding over naval affairs is concerned, in the conduct which they have pursued. Any blame attached to them attaches to the Government and to those who employed them, and not to the officers and men themselves. Now, Sir, I know not that it is expedient, as the matter now stands, that I should offer any elaborate defence with reference to the instructions given for the destruction of Russian property. We all knew that it is
916
among the other objects of war to burn and destroy the property of the enemy; and although the right hon. Gentleman says that Finland can hardly be called a part of Russia, yet for the last twenty years at least that has been a sad reality, and Finland has been treated by Russia the same as Riga, or any other part of her territories on the opposite shore of the Baltic. And then, with respect to the articles to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, namely, cordage, timber, tar, and the other articles destroyed on this occasion, the House must be aware that with regard to Sweden and Denmark we have treaties of neutrality in which certain articles are specified, which even with reference to neutrality are held to be contraband of war; and the very articles which were in this instance destroyed are so enumerated in these treaties, and in our treaties both with Sweden and Denmark. While these countries preserve their neutrality, they are prohibited from conveying to the enemy timber, cordage, pitch, and tar, which were the very articles We have destroyed in the enemy's ports; and had they been found by British cruisers proceeding from Denmark or Sweden to any Russian port, even by the law of nations, apart from these treaties, they could have been dealt with as contraband of war. Now, I think I cannot do better than quote from the despatches of Sir Charles Napier, which we received only this morning, giving a summary of what had been done in the Gulf of Bothnia.
"I beg leave to inclose Admiral Plumridge's report of his proceedings in the Gull of Bothnia from the 5th of May to the 10th of June, by which
Lordships will observe that he has destroyed forty-six vessels afloat, and on the stocks, amounting to 11,000 tons; from 40,000 to 50,000 barrels of pitch and tar, 6,000 square yards of rough pitch, a great number of stacks of timber, spars, plank and deal, sails, rope, and various kinds of naval stores to the amount of from 300,000 l. to 400,000 l., without the loss of a man.
Now, that is the first operation of our squadron. It has been said that we have been unsuccessful in destroying the Russian fleets. Well, but Russia has not afforded us any opportunity of doing it. We have to deal with an enemy who has boasted that the Baltic and the Black Seas are to be regarded as his own lakes. We have entered those seas with our allies, the French, and given the fleets of the enemy opportunities of meeting us on many occasions with a superior force; but they have skulked and remained in their harbours. We

917
have offered battle upon fair terms, but that they have declined. Whilst we have occupied the enemy's seas his fleets have not ventured to appear either with his ships of war or merchantmen; and we have been driven to the alternative of visiting their ports and destroying their merchantmen upon their own shores. This we have done to the extent described by Sir Charles Napier. The despatch proceeds to state that—
"Admiral Plumridge has had to contend with innumerable rocks and shoals incorrectly laid down in the charts, and met the ice up to the 30th of May; nevertheless, though several of his squadron have touched the ground, I am happy to say they have received no damage that he is not able to repair with his own means. The Rear Admiral, their Lordships will observe, speaks in the highest terms of the captains, officers, seamen, and marines, and particularly of Lieutenant B. P. Priest, the first lieutenant of the Leopard, an old and deserving officer; and Lieutenant Hammet, his flag-lieutenant."
As relates then to the success of the operation, we have it that 11,000 tons of the enemy's ships have been destroyed, and from 300,000 l. to 400,000 l. worth of his property. Now it is said that a portion of this is British property. No doubt. It is impossible to make war with a foreign Power with which for a very long period we have entertained the most amicable relations and carried on a most extensive commerce, without inflicting very considerable injury on our own merchants. But this is among the great evils attendant on war itself, and if you are really to inflict injury upon your enemy, it is impossible, at the commencement of a war, with a sudden rupture of commercial relations occurring, to avoid entailing some incidental evil of the same kind upon your own countrymen. But the right hon. Gentleman said there was a blockade; he has been misinformed—there was no blockade at Uleaborg. [Mr. M. GIBSON: I did not say that there was.] The right hon. Gentleman said he understood that an application had been made to the Board of Admiralty with respect to the export from Uleaborg of certain pitch and tar which was intended to be delivered under contract to the English Admiralty, and that a request was made that a licence should be granted by which the blockade might be avoided.
MR. MILNER GIBSON: Allow me to explain. What I said was, that I understood that the parties, fearing there might be a blockade, and being under contract to deliver tar for the use of the British dockyards, asked that, in the event of there
918
being a blockade, they might have a licence to pass the blockading squadron; and that intimation was given them that licences could not be granted, but that if neutral vessels were sent to Uleaborg for the goods, care would be taken that they should be allowed to pass without let or hindrance.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM: At all events that confirms my statement that there was no blockade, and by agreement between France and England, even if there had been one, no licences could have been granted. But according to the law of nations, for a certain time before a blockade is instituted, ships that have taken in cargo and been laden before its institution, would be entitled to pass without molestation and without damage. Now this is a case in which the squadron visits the enemy's ports for the purpose of destroying his property and inflicting on him what is, under the circumstances I have stated, a very material and serious injury to him. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, said that there were no preparations of a warlike character at the ports he had named, and no property belonging to the Government of Russia there. Now the House must remember that the fleets of Russia declining the conflict in the manner I have described, we have been threatened with a swarm of gunboats, which were in course of preparation, in order to inflict injury upon our larger ships in shallow water, and in those narrow seas. As a measure of precaution Sir Charles Napier most wisely determined upon visiting all the ports where he thought these gunboats might be taking shelter, or in the course of fitting out. I hope the House will allow me to read extracts front despatches received to-day from Captain Giffard, detailing the operations of his crew at various places. The first is from a letter from Captain Giffard, of Her Majesty's ship Leopard, dated of Uleaborg, the 4th of June, 1854—
"From the enemy having sunk all their shipping, it was found that no vessels could be rendered serviceable to embark any of the valuable property without great loss of time, and it was burnt without a murmur or thought of prize-money."
The next is a letter from Lieutenant B. P. Priest, of Her Majesty's ship Leopard, to Captain Giffard, of that ship, dated May 30, 1854, off Brahestad—
"Burnt on shore and totally destroyed—namely, four large vessels building and nearly complete on the stocks, the largest being about 500 tons burden, and pierced for six guns; three detached stores

919
of timber, fit for building ships of large scantling; two detached storehouses, containing some thousand barrels of pitch, tar, and oil, a large number of them marked with the Imperial crown. I was very careful not to damage the private houses; at the same time I satisfied myself, by personal inspection, that there was no contraband of war within those storehouses, which were situated within the immediate vicinity of and inside the town, which I did not destroy. Two large stores on the outskirts of the town were found to contain flour; these were not destroyed, as I had reason for supposing it to be private property. All the officers placed under my orders vied with me in preventing unnecessary alarm to the inhabitants; and feel it to be my duty to report the alacrity, great steadiness, and good conduct, shown by all the officers and seamen employed on this service."
A letter from Lieutenant N. Graham to Captain Giffard, of Her Majesty's ship Leopard, dated off Uleaborg, June 2, 1854, states—
"I then searched the village on the adjacent island; but finding no stores contraband of war, I re-embarked, and proceeded in search of three schooners, of which information was obtained from the pilot."
A letter from Lieutenant B. P. Priest, addressed to Captain Giffard, of Her Majesty's ship Leopard, dated off Kemi, June 9, 1854, states—
"Having taken possession of the town, I found the storehouses had been cleared out, and their contents conveyed across the barrier to the Swedish territory, and that the inhabitants had destroyed the barracks and public buildings. The purpose for which I had been despatched having been thus completed, I therefore returned on board, after being twenty hours in the boats. Every officer and man behaved to my satisfaction."
The last is from Lieutenant George Lloyd to Captain Giffard, of Her Majesty's ship Leopard, dated off Kemi, June 9—
"I proceeded yesterday, with the boats under my charge, up the Kemi River, on the banks of which, and on the adjacent islands, I burnt eighty stacks of timber (covering about two miles of ground), and the hull of a vessel of about eighty tons burden. A quantity of timber, not fit for ship-building, was spared at the request of the inhabitants."
Well, I should detain the House unnecessarily if I went more at large into these despatches, which, as I have already said, will be printed in the Gazette of to-morrow night. They will bear out my assertion, that the officers, to the best of their judgment, only sought articles that were contraband of war—that they only destroyed that which they found afloat and ashore, which they had positive orders to destroy —that according to the rules of war that destruction was not only justified, but it
920
was their duty to effect it, and I must say that the position of British officers and seamen will be hard indeed if they are ordered to use their utmost efforts, both by sea and land, to inflict the greatest injury upon the enemy, and then, when they have done their duty, they are to be met in this manner. Admiral Plumridge and his squadron have in the most gallant and exemplary manner encountered peculiar difficulties. They entered a sea almost unknown and never traversed before by our ships of war. All the lights were extingished—all the buoys taken up—they had no pilots and no charts. Up to the 1st of June the ice was not all broken up; and yet in the short space of three weeks, with all these difficulties to contend with, and frequently running the ships aground, and yet extricating them again, with the best seaman-like qualities, from their danger, with comparatively a very small loss of life indeed, and without having killed a single civilian, or committed any acts of plunder, not having the slightest regard for prize-money, and having still inflicted so much and such heavy injury upon the enemy, I say it will be hard indeed, if, at the commencement of a war involving immense difficulties and sacrifices, it shall be related to our gallant officers and seamen that the first notice taken of their conduct in the British house of Commons partook of the character of censure. I ask, Sir, why is this particular indulgence to be shown to this enemy? What has been the policy of the British Government with respect to him? What are we to understand to be the wishes and the feelings of the people of this country upon this point? We did commence this war by exercising peculiar forbearance, and Admiral Dundas, having it in his power to destroy the city of Odessa, yet spared that city — he attacked only the batteries. There has been something like censure even cast upon him for his forbearance, and I must say, that I myself may now begin to partake of that feeling. A flag of truce was fired upon, and a British ship of war having by accident run ashore in a fog, immediately art immense multitude of Russian soldiers with batteries and red-hot shot bore down and fired upon that stranded vessel; so that I cannot say that any particular forbearance is now due to such an enemy. Whether they be Fins or whether they be Russians, we have offered them battle on the open sea and upon fair and equal terms, and they have declined it. They sink rocks in the channels, and

921
approaches to their harbours, for fear of our reaching them, and every way obstruct our access to them. Well, I say, if they will not meet us on the open sea, we must visit them in their own homes, and teach them that a war with England is not to be engaged in with impunity. I myself and my Colleagues also should certainly be much embarrassed if it is to be thought that this House discourages proceedings like those which are not of a marauding character, nor for the purpose of obtaining prize-money, nor without reference to the feelings and losses of unoffending persons, but where there has been an honest desire to make the enemy of this country feel the power of the force with which that enemy is now contending by fair and legitimate means. I, for one, am not prepared to check the pursuit of such a course; and I hope and believe that in so acting I and my Colleagues will not violate either the feeling or the sentiments of the people of England.

THE RECENT CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, the House having heard the statement of his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Gibson), and the explanation of the First Lord of the Admiralty, he trusted he should now be permitted to call their attention to a subject with regard to which he had placed a notice on the books —namely, the recent changes in the Ministry. Before doing so he could not help expressing his regret that his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) had by a somewhat unfair proceeding prevented him from introducing the subject earlier in the evening. The course which he (Lord D. Stuart) was now taking was entirely constitutional, and agreeable to Parliamentary practice. It was true that such discussions had generally been raised on an entire change of the Administration, and on this occasion it might be said, that there had only been partial changes in the Administration. The changes which had taken place, however, affected the position of six or seven Gentlemen holding high office under the Crown, of whom five or six were Cabinet Ministers. They had occasioned the addition of one Gentleman to the Cabinet; they had made it necessary that there should be two Parliamentary elections; they had conferred an office of great dignity and trust upon one Member of the Cabinet; they had placed another Mem-
922
ber of the Cabinet in a situation of less importance than that which he held before; they had created an office hitherto unknown to the Constitution; they had considerably altered the position of another Cabinet Minister; and they had deprived the Government altogether of the services of one right hon. Gentleman. He thought no person could have felt anything but pleasure at seeing that his noble Friend the leader of that House, had received a new mark of approbation and distinction from his Sovereign, and for his part he should have rejoiced if he had received a still greater mark of distinction by being called to the first post in Her Majesty's Councils, for he was satisfied that even his political opponents must feel that, from his distinguished career, great abilities, and high personal character, he would confer dignity upon any office, however exalted, rather than receive it. If the noble Lord who had lately held the office of President of the Council was contented in the prime of life and the vigour of age, and with the ability of which he had given proof, to surrender his place and to retire to what had been described as a sinecure office by the right hon. Gentleman who had just left it —if Lord Granville were satisfied to retire into the easy somnolent chair of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—and thereby to elbow out the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Strutt)—all he could say was, that the country would wonder at his taking a post so little suited to his abilities, and he wished that in going to Lancaster he might only be on his way to a better place. He (Lord D. Stuart) must say, the House and the country had a right to expect some explanation why the right hon. Gentleman, who had always discharged his duties satisfactorily, had been treated with so little consideration and in a manner which was very discouraging to those who placed their services at the disposal of the Government, for he thought it would be admitted on all hands that the right hon. Member for Nottingham had received what in common parlance might be described as very scurvy treatment. An addition had been made to the Cabinet in the person of the right hon Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey), a Gentleman of great administrative ability and of high character, but of whose appointment he must say that, looking back to his career, when he filled a subordinate place in the Colonial Office, it did not appear to him a

923
fortunate appointment. On the contrary, he saw in it an illustration of the truth of the saying, that, in the present Government, the parts had been so cast that all the square men were in the round holes, and all the round men were in the square holes. It was perfectly possible to feel confidence in men filling some situations, when that confidence could not be felt, if they filled others, although they might be in the same Ministry; and that brought him to another point—the removal of the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle), who filled the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies, to make way for the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey). He thought the creation of a Minister of War, when they considered what his duties and the attributes of his office were, would materially affect the position of the right hon. Gentleman who held the office of Secretary at War (Mr. S. Herbert), and who would not hereafter find himself in so independent or important a position as that which he now filled, and which was the head of a department. The explanations of the noble Lord the leader of the House were not very precise on that head. He did not say what changes were to be made, what offices were to be amalgamated, and what were to be left separate; but it seemed natural to imagine that, after the appointment of a new War Minister, the office of Secretary at War would not be one of so high a rank or confer so greet dignity, and still more natural that it should he assimilated to that of the Secretary of the Admiralty, and that the appointment of a new Secretary of State should involve that of two under Secretaries. This, at all events, was clear, that either the Secretary at War must be placed in a subordinate situation, or that there would be two heads of the War Department. The House would bear in mind that war was to be carried on by sea as well as by land, and if the new Minister of War was to have authority over the First Lord of the Admiralty, and to direct naval as well as military operations, which, for aught he knew, would be the case, then there would be seven Gentlemen holding high office under the Crown whose position would be affected by these changes. It was a remarkable fact, in connection with the Ministry of War, that matters had been so arranged by the Government—he supposed by Lord Aberdeen—that the whole conduct of the war was intrusted to the hands of Gentlemen belonging to one particular
924
section of the Cabinet, that section to which the Premier belonged himself. The Minister of War (the Duke of Newcastle), the Secretary at War, the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), and the right hon. Gentlemen the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir James Graham), were all Peelites, to say nothing of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had also, in financial matters, a good deal to do with the conduct of the war. But in all these changes that which was incomparably of the most importance, and which alone was necessary, was the appointment of this new Minister of War. The attention of the country had been fixed on the subject for a length of time; and he did not hesitate to say that that which had given to the subject its greatest interest was the confident expectation that when a Minister of War was created the office would be confided to no other than the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston). That had been the expectation, the hope, of this country and of all the friends of this country—that had been the dread of all the enemies of this country. If the noble Lord the leader of that House had come down and moved a new writ for Tiverton, and had informed the House that Viscount Palmerston had accepted the office of Secretary of State for the War Department, that announcement would have been received with loud cheers from that House, which would have echoed throughout the country, and, wafted from the shores of the Thames and of Great Britain, would have met with a hearty response at the Danube and the Vistula, in the Black Sea and the Baltic. In saying this, he did not mean for a moment to speak with any want of respect for his noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle. He hoped he should not be accused of that. He declared most sincerely that nothing could be further front his intention. He acknowledged with pleasure the ability, the industry, the zeal, the administrative talent, the courtesy of the noble Duke; but he did not think the noble Duke could feel that it would be at all derogatory to him, or could be in any degree offended or hurt, if such a man as the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was so peculiarly fitted for this office by his great capacity, by his lengthened experience, by his unrivalled energy, by his more than European reputation, were preferred to himself. if he were

925
told that the Duke of Newcaste, having been appointed to an office involving the duties of Colonial Secretary and those of War Minister also, had a right to make his election between those two offices, he altogether denied that position. The single consideration for the Government to look at was the good of the country, and if the Government—if the Prime Minister, on whom these things must ultimately depend—had allowed any personal considerations to prevent the best man, whoever he might be, from being appointed, the Government was responsible for having in that instance failed in its duty. To him (Lord D. Stuart) it seemed incredible that, when there was such a man in the country as the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), so admirably adapted for this particular office, with the duties of which he had had nineteen years' experience, partly during the progress of one of the most terrible wars in which this country had ever been engaged—it seemed to him, he said, incredible that, when the Government had the opportunity of appointing such a man to the office, they should have neglected to seize it. Did anybody tell him of the number of years that had passed over the noble Lord's head? He replied Lord was an extraordinary man; he united with the experience of age the vigour of youth. There were few men who at the same time of life had his physical strength, and very few, indeed, who had equal mental powers. He did not find that age was considered an objection in the case of naval and military commanders. Admiral Dundas was, he believed, pretty nearly contemporary with the noble Lord; Lord Raglan was not much younger, and Old Charley himself, though he might perhaps have the advantage of one or two years, was not half so active. And a man like that, with all his capacity, with all his reputation, with his political experience of half a century, was wasted in labours about common sewers, boards of health, and county rates, and the armies which he had to regulate were armies of policemen. It was very difficult to believe that people were in earnest when you did not see them take advantage of the means which were obviously the best for carrying into effect the purpose which they professed. The country doubted whether the Government were in earnest about this war—the country doubted not that the best man to direct it was the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Let the Government give the noble Lord the
926
direction of the war, and then friend and foe—all the world—would see that they were in earnest. Such an appointment would be better ten thousand times than all the recantations and retractations and explanations which had lately been made, and better than any professions of a desire to carry on the war with vigour. It would be better than the production of despatches, previously refused in that House, for personal vindication, better than any observations about disastrous treaties, intended, if possible, to retrieve the effect of disastrous speeches. Something must be done if the Government intended to re-acquire the confidence of that House and of the country. That confidence, long declining, was now pretty well lost. The proceedings of that House showed this. What measures had the Government been able to carry? What measures had they not been obliged either to postpone or to withdraw? What minorities they had been in! There would be a long list if he were to weary the House
by going through it. The Government were not in the position that they ought to be. All that they could carry was taxes—taxes for the war; and the reason why over the noble they carried them was, that the people, that the noble being in earnest, would not refuse the man; he united means necessary to conduct the war. But neither the people nor the House were for half-and-half measures, and they did not want a half-and-half Ministry.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he by no means wished to disturb the harmony which usually existed below the gangway, and he therefore hastened to explain that it was quite inadvertently on his part that he had brought on his subject before that of his noble Friend.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he hoped that there was no intention on the part of the Government to proceed with the Estimates at that hour (ten minutes to twelve o'clock).
Committee of Supply was accordingly deferred till To-morrow.

STAMP ACTS.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. J. WILSONmoved Resolutions regulating tile duties to be hereafter charged upon leases of lands, &c. for any term of years exceeding thirty-five; and providing, by the first schedule, that if the term shall not exceed 100 years, a duty of 3l. per 100 l. shall be charged; and by the second schedule, that if the term shall exceed 100 years a duty of 6l. per cent shall be charged.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That in lieu of existing Stamp Duties the following Duties be charged:—
Lease or Tack of any lands, tenements, hereditaments, or heritable subjects, for any term of years exceeding thirty-five, at a yearly rent, with or without any sum of money by way of fine, premium, or grassum paid for the same, the following Duties in respect of such yearly rent:—

DUTIES.

If the term shall not exceed 100 years.

If the term shall exceed 100 years.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

Where the yearly rent shall not exceed £5

0

3

0

0

6

0

And where the same shall exceed £5 and not exceed £10

0

6

0

0

12

0

And where the same shall exceed £10 and not exceed £15

0

9

0

0

18

0

And where the same shall exceed £15 and not exceed 20

0

12

0

1

4

0

And where the same shall exceed £20 and not exceed 25

0

15

0

1

10

0

And where the same shall exceed £25 and not exceed 50

1

10

0

3

0

0

And where the same shall exceed £50 and not exceed 75

2

5

0

4

10

0

And where the same shall exceed £75 and not exceed 100

3

0

0

6

0

0

And where the same shall exceed £100, then for every £50, and also for any fractional part of £50

1

10

0

3

0

0"

MR. HADFIELDsaid, he must complain of the perpetual changes which it was found necessary to make in these Acts, which, he thought, ought to be more carefully drawn in the first instance. Notwithstanding the short time which had elapsed since the last Act, it was now found necessary to amend it. He objected to the Amendment now proposed, for he could see no reason why so great a difference should be made in leases for 100 years, and in those over that period. The principle was bad, and would only lead to mischievous results in practice. He should move, therefore, to omit the second column of the hon. Member's Motion, and to make the stamp duties on leases irrespective of their term.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "if the term shall not exceed 100 years."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Resolution."
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he objected to a discussion being taken at that late hour on this important point.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he would remind the Committee that this was but a preliminary Resolution, necessary in order to enable the Government to bring in a Bill, and he would therefore suggest to his hon. Friend to allow it to pass, and to make his objection in Committee upon the Bill. If his hon. Friend would assent to this, there would be no need to discuss the principle of the proposed alteration at that time. The question would then have been before the House for some time.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would rather take the opinion of the Committee at once.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he thought that some explanation of the Resolution should be given by the Government at the present stage of the measure.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the change was proposed in order to meet, if possible, the views of the hon. Member for Sheffield himself, though it met with his opposition. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hadfield) had urged that there was a strange disproportion between a certain portion of their stamp duties and another portion about which he concerned himself, namely, conveyances subject to a chief rent, and he argued that there was a great discrepancy between the yearly annual rate of duty that was levied on leases for 10,000 years, and on conveyances subject to a chief rent which was assimilated to the duty upon conveyances in fee. In a strict point of view the system established by the measure of last year was perfectly defensible. In point of fact, a conveyance at a chief rent was a conveyance out and out; but the payment of the price was thrown into the form of a perpetual annuity, instead of having a sum paid in gross. There was no doubt, however, that in some of its features it approximated to the character of a leasehold, and he wished to place them in as fair a relative position as was possible. Taking the rate of duty upon conveyances in fee at ½ per cent on the capital of the purchase money, they had adjusted leasehold duties, taking twenty-five years' purchase,

929
and likewise conveyances, subject to a chief rent in proportion and relation to the duty upon conveyances in fee.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had much mended his original proposition. There were three descriptions of property affected. Annual rents, under 100 years and above thirty-five years, annual rents above 100 years, and leases in perpetuity. The first the right hon. Gentleman increased six times, the second twelve times, and the last be reduced one-half. Would it not have been fairer to have had an ad valorem, stamp duty on all. The plan of the right hon. Gentleman only made the inconsistencies of the duty more glaring than they were before. He contended that the annual rent was the true test of value, and that upon that an ad valorem duty should be levied.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the House had been sitting since mid-day, and it was now half-past twelve o'clock at night. He therefore proposed that the Chairman should report progress.
House resumed.
Committee report progress.

USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would now move for leave to bring in a Bill for the repeal of the Usury Laws. At that late hour (one o'clock) he could not ask the attention of the House, but would fully state the objects of the measure on the second reading.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the repeal of the Usury Laws."
MR. SPOONERsaid, he could not assent to that course. He did not think that a Bill of such importance should be introduced at that hour, and without any explanation of its provisions.
MR. BROTHERTONmoved the adjournment of the House.
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 49: Majority 31.
Question again proposed.
COLONEL DUNNE, moved that the debate be now adjourned.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must complain that the course taken by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was an unusual one.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he objected to
930
the Motion because the Bill was attempted to be brought in sub silentio.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."
The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 47: Majority 29.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would now briefly explain the object of this Bill, which bore a rather too ambitious title, for, in point of fact, the usury laws were already repealed to a great extent, and now only a mere remnant was left of what they were in former times. Three hundred years ago an Act of Parliament existed in this country limiting the rate of interest on money to 10 per cent; in the reign of James I. another Act was passed limiting it to 8 per cent; in the reign of Charles II. another Act was passed limiting it to 6 per cent, and in the reign of Anne the present law was passed, limiting it to 5 per cent. It would seem, however, as if the framers of that law had contemplated that the State would perpetually break the law, but be that as it might, if they asked themselves who had been the greatest offender against the law, the answer must obviously be the State. [An Hon. Member: No, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.] Yes, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but his backers also, and those who had supported him in passing resolutions to borrow money at usurious rates of interest. The Act, however, of Anne appeared to contemplate that the State would require to evade it, since it expressly provided that this limitation of the rate of interest was not to operate in any way that would be injurious to Parliamentary securities, but the superstition which formerly prevailed on the subject, and which was partly Judaical and partly Mahomedan, had long ago subsided, and step by step the usury laws had almost beets swept away. The law that he now proposed to repeal was the law which prohibited the loan of money at a greater rate of interest than 5 per cent, and this change would largely benefit two classes of securities, namely, mortgages upon land in Scotland, which were liable to be paid up at call; and railway debentures in England, which partook very much of the character of mortgages on land. The system of fixing the rate of interest on money in Scotland differed very materially to that of England, and the consequence was that in a time of pressure mortgagors found a

931
difficulty in obtaining money at the legal rate, while with regard to railway debentures there were periods when even railway companies, with first class resources, could not borrow money under 5 per cent, so it was clear that a railway company of the second-rate kind could not at such times borrow money at all at that rate. Now this Bill would meet both these cases; it would obviate the difficulty of the Scotch mortgagor and the necessity which some railway companies were sometimes under of issuing their debentures considerably below par. He believed that if they were to rip up the history of many of our railway companies, it would be found that the usury laws had driven them to constant evasions of the law. It was proposed therefore to give them the most perfect freedom in the money market. They had already recognised the principle of freedom of trade as applicable to money, and let them not keep up a fragment, a mere shadow of the law, that had the effect of driving men to all kinds of shifts and tricks to evade it. Let the landed proprietor and the railway proprietor go into the market free and unshackled like other people, and then would be completed entire and unrestricted freedom of trade in all that related to the borrowing and lending of money.
Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Wilson.
Bill read 1o.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Cruelty to Animals.
Reported—Legislative Council (Canada).

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (CANADA) BILL.
Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, it now becomes my duty, in pursuance of the notice which I have given, to state to your Lordships the grounds upon which I shall venture, very respectfully, but earnestly, to urge on your Lordships the suspension, at all events for one Session, of a measure, the importance of which, not only to this particular Colony, but to the North American Colonies generally, and to the general colonial interests of this great country, I believe can hardly be exaggerated. I have first of all to apologise to your Lordships for having taken a somewhat unusual course of proceeding in having omitted to record any objection to the second reading of this Bill—for having permitted it to pass a second reading without offering any objection—and then objected, as I did the other night, and as I am now about to do main, to go into Committee upon it for the purpose of considering its details. My apology must be, my Lords, that on the occasion upon which this Bill was read a second time I had omitted to look into the Votes, and I was not aware that it would come under the consideration of the House. I make no complaint of its not having been properly upon the Votes, but it was a day on which, as noble Lords are aware, it is not usual to bring forward any important measure, as many of your Lordships are supposed, on that particular day, to be absent elsewhere. I must say, also, that with respect to a measure of this importance, it would have been more convenient, and more accordant with the usual practice, if the noble Duke, in introducing the measure to the House, had stated the intentions of the Government—had explained, for your Lordships' information, the objects which the Government had in view, and had pointed out the importance of the changes which the Bill was intended to effect. Because, in point of fact, when the second reading of the Bill came on—your Lordships' attention not having been particularly called to it by any notice on the part of the Government —there was, I believe, a very small attendance. I believe the noble Duke will not contradict me when I say that, in laying this Bill upon the table of the House, he did not accompany it with any observations whatever. And although that is a

823
course which may not be objectionable where the subject to be dealt with is not of any very great importance, yet, when you are introducing a measure which does not refer to any matter of minor legislation, but which fundamentally destroys the constitution of one of our most important Colonies, and does away with one of the most important safeguards for the monarchical element in that constitution—a safeguard which has been upheld by successive Governments since the year 179l, and was solemnly confirmed, after full reflection and deliberation, by both Houses of Parliament, in settling the constitution of Canada in the year 1840—I say that when Her Majesty's Government had come to the determination of proposing such a measure as this—a measure which affects that constitution in one of its most important parts—it would have been better, and more becoming the subject, if the noble Duke, in proposing the first reading of the Bill, had stated to your Lordships what were the views entertained by Her Majesty's Government. But, my Lords, that is not all; for upon the second reading of the Bill, a noble Friend of mine behind me (Lord Wharncliffe)—who is here at very great personal inconvenience to take part in this discussion—called the attention of the noble Duke to there having been some despatches or explanations, from the Governor of the Colony himself, bearing directly on the question about to he discussed; and which papers the noble Duke had never laid upon the table of your Lordships' House—had never submitted to Parliament in any shape whatever—although they were most material to the discussion of the question:—and even after notice had been given of the absence of those papers, the noble Duke persisted in taking the second reading of the Bill. These are the circumstances under which I feel myself justified in taking the course, even after the second reading, of opposing the further progress of this Bill. But I remember that, upon a former occasion, when his attention was called to the absence of these papers, the noble Duke replied that they had been laid, during the last Session, before the House of Commons. Now, my Lords, I have the papers here, which have been laid upon your Lordships' table since the second reading of this Bill. They contain a despatch from the Earl of Elgin, received on the 11th of July, 1853, and forwarding an address from the Legislative Council, remonstrating against the
824
proposed change in the constitution of the Colony; and another despatch, dated upon the same day, but not received until the 18th of July, forwarding a counter-address from the House of Assembly, praying that this change might take place. They contain also the resolutions in detail of the House of Assembly, upon which the scheme for remodelling the Legislative Council was founded, and a letter from the Earl of Elgin, in which he states his objections to the measure, at the same time that he accompanies it with a recommendation that it should pass. And they contained further papers of later date, and among them a draft of the Bill itself, founded upon the resolutions to which I have already referred. Now, my Lords, the two letters of Lord Elgin, the address of the House of Assembly, the address of the Legislative Council, and the resolutions of the House of Assembly, setting forth their plan in detail, were all in the possession of Her Majesty's Government on the 18th July, 1853. The noble Duke says, they were laid before the House of Commons in the course of last year. Strictly speaking, that is true, true as to a portion of them, but as to a portion of them only. The address of the House of Assembly and the address of the Legislative Council—one being in favour of the change and the other against it—were laid before the House of Commons in the course of last year. But the opinions of Lord Elgin were not laid upon the table of idle House of Commons—the resolutions of the House of Assembly were not laid upon the table of the House of Commons; and, of course, the subsequent papers could not be laid upon the table of the House of Commons, because they were not in existence. My Lords, if these papers had been laid upon the table of that House, together with the letter of Lord Elgin, and if this had been done with the authority of the Crown as the spontaneous act of the Government, there might be some pretence for saying, that notice had been given to Parliament from which the probable intentions of Her Majesty's Ministers might have been anticipated. But, my Lords, this was not so—it was not the spontaneous act of the Government. But these papers were laid—as many of them as were laid—upon the table of the House of Commons, on the Motion of an independent Member of that House (Mr. Bright, the Member for Manchester). Mr. Bright moved for copies of the two addresses—the address from the

825
Legislative Council and the address from the House of Assembly—and these addresses were produced; but will any one say that, having been moved for and produced, under such circumstances as these, they could be taken in the slightest degree as affording any indication of the intentions and views of Her Majesty's Government? But, my Lords, when were they produced? I find that this paper, containing nothing but these two addresses, was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on the 20th of August, 1853, just two days before the prorogation. I ask the noble Duke, therefore, how he is prepared to justify the course of proceeding adopted by the Government in retaining these papers in its own possession—in withholding them from
Parliament—from the 18th of July, 1853, to the 16th of June, 1854—in producing them, at last, only after the second reading of the Bill which is founded upon them —and in producing them, even then, not of their own accord, but at the request and on the notice of a noble Lord on this side of the House? But, my Lords, I say, more than this—that I think that Parliament has a right to complain that it should have been kept in darkness as to the intentions of the Government—if the Government had formed any—and in doubt as to the opinions of Lord Elgin, down to the beginning of June, 1854, and that then, and not till then, when Parliament is overwhelmed with business which it will scarcely be possible for it to get through, it should be called upon, upon a notice of a few days only, to discuss a measure of such vital consequence—a measure whose influence must of necessity be so great upon the constitution and the future legislation of one of our most important Colonies. Now, I must say that I do not think that withholding papers from Parliament for the space of ten months— until nearly the end of the Session—and then suddenly calling upon Parliament to legislate upon a matter of this deep importance—I do not think, I say, that this is dealing with Parliament as Parliament has a right to expect. But, my Lords, referring to these papers further, I find that the noble Duke—contrary to all his ordinary habits of punctuality in business—did not reply to these two despatches of Lord Elgin until the 26th of May, 1854. Why were they not answered sooner? Because the Government, up to the 26th of May, had not made up their minds what
826
answer they should give—because, as the noble Duke said the other day, he wished to consult Lord Elgin, and to have the benefit of his advice when he came from Canada to this country. On that 26th of May, a short and summary answer was given to the two addresses—one of which was a petition in favour of the change, and the other a petition against it—in which it was announced that a Bill would be introduced into Parliament for the purpose of carrying into effect the wishes of the House of Assembly. But if Her Majesty's Government took ten months to consider what they ought to do in a matter of this importance, is it too much that the House of Lords and the House of Commons should ask something more than a notice of a few days or even weeks before they are called upon at the close of a Session, and in the midst of that pressure of business which the close of a Session invariably brings with it, to decide a question of such magnitude as that which the present Bill involves?
Now, my Lords, what is the question? The noble Duke was not particularly well pleased the other day when I said that this was a Bill which would convert the constitution of Canada into a republic. My Lords, I repeat that statement now; and I say that not only will it convert the constitution of Canada practically, whatever it may be nominally, into a republic, but it will convert it into a republic which will be infinitely more democratic in its character, and guarded by infinitely fewer safeguards and infinitely fewer securities, than are to be found in the constitution of the United States, which, from the wisdom of its authors, and the prudence of those who live under it, has protected itself against hasty legislation, and against the preponderating influence of a single legislative body, by precautions which are not to be found in this Bill, and some of which, actually existing at present, this Bill professes to do away with. It is true that the object of the Bill is not to legislate directly for the Colony, but to enable the Colony to legislate for itself upon a particular question, which has been solemnly reserved to itself by the Parliament and Government of this country as a matter of Imperial importance. Now, my Lords, more than once we have been called upon to sanction Acts of the Colonial Legislature, which, except that they were Acts of the Colonial Legislature—except that they were measures which the Colonial Legis-

827
lature was anxious to have carried into effect—we should certainly have rejected. We were called upon to legalise a measure with respect to the rebellion losses—a measure which gave compensation not only to the loyalists who had suffered on the part of the Crown in Canada, but also to those persons who had suffered loss from Her Majesty's forces in consequence of the part which they had taken in promoting the rebellion; and I do not believe there was a single man in this House, on either side of it, who did not feel that, in assenting to that measure, we were taking a course humiliating to ourselves, and degrading to the country. We were then called upon to pass an Act with respect to the clergy reserves—to give power to the Colonial Legislature to deal with those reserves, because it was said it was a matter which was proper for internal arrangement, although it had been specially reserved as a matter of Imperial interest for the consideration of the Imperial Legislature. We were asked to give that power to the Legislature of Canada, and to hope that it would not exercise that power in the way which many of us apprehended, and it was that hope—that fallacious hope—which induced a right rev. Prelate, whom I now see in his place, to sacrifice the interests of the Colonial clergy and the rights of the Colonial Church by giving his assent to the Bill. My Lords, that measure has realised the worst anticipations of those who opposed it; for the very first step which has been taken under it is the secularisation of those clergy reserves. Now, I say that, if on every point in which Imperial control is reserved over local legislation we are to be pressed perpetually with the arguments advanced on these occasions —that, however wrong, however objectionable, however contrary to the principle of British government, or inconsistent with the Colonial system, yet if it be the will of the Colonial Legislatures, Parliament should waive the exercise of its supreme authority and sanction the violation of those principles—then, I say, that rather than this should always occur, we had better not affect to have any authority at all. It is infinitely better not to retain an authority which in each individual case we are compelled to abandon, and compelled to abandon it for the purpose of sanctioning measures which we directly and absolutely disapprove. It would be far better to say at once to the Colonies, "Parliament will exercise no control over your legislation, the
828
British Ministry will not seek to check your legislation—you shall be altogether independent, subject only to the authority as far as the authority of living under a common Sovereign, speaking to a great extent a common language, and, I hope I may say, participating in common feelings and sympathies." But, my Lords, on the last occasion, on the question of the clergy reserves, we had, at least, the poor consolation of hoping that things might not he quite so bad as we anticipated they would be—that, although we gave the Legislature of Canada the power of acting in a manner unjust to individuals and injurious to the nation at large, possibly, in the exercise of good sense and moderation, they would take liberal, and not extreme views. But in the present case we are not left in doubt; because that paper, which was withheld from Parliament, which was never laid before us until after the second reading of this measure, contains the Bill verbatim which the Legislative Assembly desire to pass as soon as they shall obtain from you the authority asked under the sanction of this Bill. Remember, my Lords, that when, after a series of unfortunate events in Canada, after much irritation and much exasperation, a measure was brought into Parliament, and carried through both Houses with more general concurrence than has attended any measure that I ever recollect as to the propriety of passing it, but with greater doubt than I ever recollect with regard to any other measure as to the danger of passing it, and to the probable consequences to which it would lead—when that measure was passed for the purpose of uniting the two Provinces of Canada, and at the same time solemnly fixing what should be the future constitution of those united provinces, there was no point in the whole course of that discussion which received—I will not say on that occasion—but which received more deliberate attention, than whether the Legislative Council, or Upper House, should be an elective or nominative body. I need not tell your Lordships that, previous to that period, by the constitution of both Provinces, there was a Legislative Assembly elected by a free and extended constituency—a House, undoubtedly, not representing and not filling the place which your Lordships fill in the constitution of this country, for the best of all reasons—because there were no material circumstances, no great hereditary properties, no hereditary titles, no great accumulation of

829
wealth, and comparatively few men of leisure to devote themselves altogether to public affairs. But, my Lords, it was always felt to be most important, as a check upon the undue precipitancy which might attend the legislation of a single Chamber, that there should be another Chamber, and that not of an elective character, but nominated by the Crown, and giving to the Crown the influence which nomination naturally preserves to it. At the same time that that Chamber was not so perfectly independent, perhaps, as your Lordships' House, because there was no hereditary succession, it was independent to this extent—that al member once nominated held the office for life, and was no longer under the control of the Government of the Crown. This question of an elective Council was one of the earliest demands of the democratic parties in Upper and Lower Canada, previous to the Canadian rebellion, and the question was raised upon more than one occasion in the House of Commons, even previously to the discussion of the Canadian Union Bill in 1837. I beg your Lordships' attention to the terms in which a Minister of the Crown then, and a Minister of the Crown now, recorded his opinion in the House of Commons in moving certain Resolutions on the question of an elective as against a nominative Council—
"The first demand of the Assembly is that the Legislative Council, having hitherto been nominated by the Crown, shall in future be an elective Assembly. With respect to the proposition of making the Legislative Council elective, the effect, in the present state of the Colony, would be to make a second Assembly exactly resembling that which already exists. There can be no doubt, from the Report of the Commissioners—and every one who has spoken on the subject seems to have come to the same conclusion—that the second Assembly would be but an echo of the first, and would try to enforce all their demands." [3 Hansard, xxxvi. 1293–4.]
And, in consequence of that opinion, which was held and expressed in the House of Commons by Lord John Russell in moving certain Resolutions, he declared he found on those grounds that it was absolutely impossible the Government could comply with the first and principal demand of the Legislative Assembly of Upper and Lower Canada. The question was put to the vote, and a vote was taken aye or no shall there be two elective Chambers, and the division on that occasion in the House of Commons testified that the opinion in favour of an elective Chamber was 56, and against an elective Chamber, 318. It is
830
but right that I should say that I admit that with whatever vehemence and ability the noble Lord contended against the elective principle in the second Chamber, he contended with even greater vehemence and vigour and decision of language against what was called a system of responsible government. It would be really worth while to turn back to those discussions which took place in 1837, to see the argument then used by the present Lord President of the Council, showing the absolute incompatibility of what was understood by responsible government, and the relations with the mother-country. The noble Lord not alone held those views. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
"If I am asked what is the definition of a responsible government, I answer it means nothing more than an independent Legislature."
That was the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Council on the question of responsible government; though it is quite true in the interval between 1837 and 1840 the President of the Council issued a despatch which practically yielded the case of a responsible government, and had the effect of creating extraordinary difficulties in the administration of the government of Canada. In 1840 it was my fate to succeed to the office of Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, immediately after the recognition of responsible government, and though no abler Governor ever presided over the affairs of Canada than the illustrious man who was then Governor General, Sir Charles Metcalfe could never reconcile the two propositions—namely, the existence of a Government responsible to the local Legislature, and the authority of the Crown exercised through a Governor responsible to the Crown and the Parliament of this country. If any man could have reconciled those two conflicting propositions, Sir Charles Metcalfe was the man; but through the whole course of his administration it was a perpetual struggle between them. But as I stated, this question of an elective Council was one deliberately affirmed when the Act of 1840 for the union of the two Provinces passed the Legislature, and apprehensions were then entertained by various parties as to the possibility of working that Legislative Council, even in the form in which it passed Parliament. The noble and gallant Duke whose loss this country will never cease to lament (the Duke of Wel-

831
lington) expressed very strongly his conviction that the passing of the Bill for the union of the Provinces, even in that shape, would lead to the loss of those colonies at no distant period. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the other House, even though he assented to the Bill, assented with fear and trembling, and pronounced an opinion that it was the first step towards the dissolution of the tie between the colonies and the mother-country —an event which he did not seem to anticipate with as much regret as I should regard it. The noble Earl on the bench above (the Earl of Ellenborough), though he did not join in opposition, expressed in the strongest terms his concurrence with the noble Duke in the apprehensions he entertained in consequence of the measure. But how would the apprehensions of noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen, how would the apprehensions of Parliament, as to the possible working of the measure have been increased, if they had been told that the united Legislature was to consist not of a Governor appointed by the Crown —not of a Legislative Council nominated for life by the Crown, and acting with the Council—an Assembly freely elected by the people—but that it would consist of a responsible Governor, the Governor being guided by the advice of a responsible elective Council, necessarily having the confidence of the House of Assembly, and that House not checked or controlled by any power whatever, except a body elected by the same constituency, subject to precisely the same influence, but practically more dependent titan the House of Assembly itself? I must again refer to the language used in 1840, not invidiously, but because it strengthens the argument, and for the purpose of showing on what understanding it was the Houses of Parliament favoured the measure for the union of the two Canadas in 1840. The noble Lord the President of the Council said—
"A great party is attached to that proposal (the proposal for the constitution of the Legislative Council), and I agree with them in thinking that it will give permanence and independence to that body, which is most desirable. There is a strong party in favour of this proposal, and no party in favour of any other, except those who are in favour of an elective Council, to which the Government always has had a most decided objection, and to which, on a proposition which I made three years ago, this House expressed likewise its repugnance; and the other House of Parliament came to similar resolution." [3 Hansard, lii. 1329.]
What was the language of Lord Melbourne
832
moving in this House the second reading of the Bill? If I recollect right, he said, that after all the discussions which had taken place, and all the controversy which had arisen, it would be matter of surprise that the Government should come to the conclusion to make no alteration in the constitution of the Legislative Council. But, he added—
"I am of opinion that the government of a free community by one Assembly is a matter almost impossible—at any rate it must be subject to great inconveniences, if not to great dangers; and if you are to have popular government at all I think you must have two Houses of Assembly, constituted in different ways, and upon different principles—one of them not being subject to that popular control which I admit to be useful to the other, and to be the spring of all good government." [3 Hansard, lv. 232.]
Those are the words of Lord Melbourne in recommending to your Lordships that constitution, an essential part of which you are called on now to violate and overthrow. In the course of that speech, Lord Melbourne quoted an authority, which, I think, your Lordships will not dispute—at all events, it is an authority not prejudiced against popular interests, or in favour of extending the power and influence of the Crown—I mean the authority of the late Lord Durham, who had been acting as Her Majesty's Commissioner in Canada, and had seen the practical working of the Legislative Cunocil. And what did Lord Durham say of the practical working of the Legislative Council up to that time?
"I am far from concurring in the censure which the Assembly and its advocates have attempted to cast on the acts of the Legislative Council. I have no hesitation in saying that many of the Bills which it is more especially blamed for rejecting, are Bills which it could not have passed without a dereliction of its duty to the constitution, the connection with Great Britain, and the whole English population of the Colony. If there is any censure to be passed on its general conduct, it is for having confined itself to the merely negative and defensive duties of a legislative body, for having too frequently contented itself with merely deflating objectionable methods of obtaining desirable ends, without completing its duty, by proposing measures which would have achieved the good in view without the mixture of evil. The national animosities which pervaded the legislation of the Assembly, its thorough want of legislative skill or respect for constitutional principles, rendered almost all its Bills obnoxious to objection by the legislative Council; and the serious evil which these enactments would have occasioned convince me that the Colony has reason to congratulate itself on the existence of an institution which possessed and used the power of stopping a course of legislation which, if suc-

833
cessful, would have sacrificed every British interest, and overthrown every guarantee for national order and national liberty." [3 Hansard lv., 232.]
Here was most impartial testimony borne not only to the utility, but to the absolute necessity and the vital and essential importance, of having such a body as the Legislative Council, not acted upon by the same popular influence which operated upon the Assembly, but interposing a barrier, or I may say a breakwater, to the force of democratic influence, as it existed in the Legislative Assembly, and the unaided power of the Crown exercised through the Governor. I do not see, my Lords, upon an examination of these papers, any special ground laid for the introduction or discussion of this important question. I see no statement of valuable measures lost by the resistance of the Legislative Council in its present form. I see no evidence of collisions between the two Houses. I do not mean to say if I did see collisions between them, I should at once conclude that the Legislative Assembly must be right and that the Legislative Council must be wrong. But before we are called upon to alter the constitution of a great Colony from a monarchical to a democratic constitution, we ought at all events to have some valid grounds laid before us that the constitution, in its present working, works for evil, and not for good —that it arrests measures which are calculated for the benefit of the Colony, or it stands in the way of good legislation. With regard to this, however, we have not the slightest evidence before the House; there is not the slightest allegation, not the slightest insinuation, that such has been the case. We have heard nothing but of the extraordinary progress of Canada in material welfare, and I believe, and rejoice in it; but is that evidence of bad legislation? Why, my Lords, the whole internal affairs of Canada are left without exception to the free control of these two Houses of Parliament; and if the result of their legislation, under the slight control which the Crown exercises through a Secretary of State and a Governor, has been an amount of material prosperity, of material growth, unparalleled in the history of any other colony, and leaving far behind the boasted progress of the United States, where, I ask, is the necessity for the proposed change?
Now, my Lords, I turn to the Bill which the Legislative Assembly are desirous that
834
the House shall pass, and I am about to show, not only that it is a Bill of a thoroughly democratic character, but, as I have said before, that it deprives Canada of the safeguards with which the founders of the United States surrounded their republican institutions. I need not tell your Lordships that in the United States there is no Assembly exercising perpetual control over the Executive, no party Government requiring the constant support of the House of Assembly and Congress. It is true the President is elected; but once elected, and for a period of four years, he exercises real and substantial authority. The Ministers are of his selection. The defeat of a measure does not involve the defeat of the Cabinet. A single Minister may resign; but there is not that mutual bond of responsibility one for another which is of the essence of what is called "responsible Government," namely, a Government acting by party, going together, framing their measures in concert—as I hope every Government form their measures in concert—and where if one Member falls to the ground, the others, almost as a matter of course, fall with him. That is the principle, and has been the general practice, of the British Constitution; but that is not the practice of the United States. The Senate and the House of Representatives are not only elected at different periods by different bodies, but they represent totally different interests and different communities. The one represents the popular will, the numerical will, of the whole United States; the other, elected by a different constituency, chosen in a different manner, represents the interests of each of the States, giving each State equal value in the representation, whatever the extent of it. There is then a broad line of distinction, not only between the constituencies, but the principles upon which the House of Assembly and Senate are elected in America. Again, the Senate, once elected, is not liable to dissolution, from any extraneous quarter. The Senate exercises a very popular influence on all foreign negotiations. Its consent is requisite to treaties, and, by a wise provision of the original constitution of the United States, no fundamental alteration can be made in the constitution itself—which is a written document, plain and open to every one to read —no alteration can be made in the provisions of that constitution except by consent of two-thirds of each of the legisla-

835
tive bodies—bodies acting under different impulses. Again, if such an alteration should be attempted, there is in the United States a very extraordinary power, a power which is exercised by the Supreme Court of the United States, which, despite of the Legislature—despite of the House of Assembly—despite of the Senate—has the power of pronouncing such Bill at variance with the constitution, and, being an unconstitutional measure, the legislation of both Houses is null and void. These are some of the guards—and they are not all—with which the United States have fenced in their republican Government. Let me contrast these precautions against hasty and improvident legislation with the Bill proposed by Her Majesty's Government for the monarchical institutions of Canada. The Members of the Legislative Council are to be elective; they are to be chosen by the identical constituency which chooses the House of Assembly. There is no variation, no difference whatever, except that two localities may be put together for the election of a Member of the Council, while each returns separately to the House of Assembly. The area may vary, but the constituency is precisely the same. The man remains subject to the same influence. Such a body cannot be considered any independent check whatever on the legislation of the House of Assembly. The Members of the Council are elected, it is true, for six years, and those of the House of Assembly are elected for four years; but are they, as the Senate of the United States, during that period free and independent, and able to exercise legislation as they may think best for the good of the Colony? No such thing. There is a provision in the Bill that if for two years the Legislative Council shall reject or so amend a measure passed by the House of Assembly as that the House of Assembly rejects it, the Legislative Council, on the advice of the executive Minister of the Crown having the confidence of the House of Assembly, is itself dissolved, and sent back for re-election to the same constituency as that by which the Members of the House of Assembly are elected. My Lords, I ash can any body of men, with this threat hanging over their heads, act with any thing like independence or the exercise of their own judgment? Supposing they have so much self-respect as to determine during the period they may sit in the Legislature, not to yield to hat which
836
they believe to be a dangerous demand, what can they do? For two years they may reject the measure, but in the third the House of Assembly is predominant—the House of Assembly advises the Executive Council, the Council advises the Governor, the Governor dissolves the Legislative Council, and the House of Assembly carries everything its own way. I will not compare that mode of exercising judgment and the mode of exercising it by your Lordships' House; I am quite aware of the difference of the two bodies—but is there any Peer so degraded, so little conscious of his duty as a legislator, as to consent to undertake those duties, supposing it possible that, after two successive years, your Lordships, having rejected or amended a measure of the douse of Commons, should be compelled to go for re-election to the very body which returned the House of Commons, whose Bills you had ventured humbly to take the liberty of amending? What, I say, would be the situation of England under such a system? The result of that system must be to introduce nothing more nor less than a republic—the absolute independence of the House of Assembly, elected by large constituencies, and having no effective control which by possibility can be exercised over it. But it may be said there are safeguards with regard to the Legislative Council. They must be of the ago of thirty. I am afraid men of thirty are fully as dangerous legislators as between the ages of twenty and thirty. I do not conceive more ago itself is any security for great vigour of legislation or great prudence; and I am afraid we have seen some signal instances to the contrary. But then they are to be possessed of property to the extent of 1,000 l. That, you say, is something—they are to be men of; some substance and property. If, however, they shall have sat in the House of Assembly for a single hour, that qualification of being possessed of property to the amount of 1,000 l. is dispensed with, and a man is enabled to sit in the Legislative Council of Canada, though he be not possessed of a shilling. But as the law stands at present the Members of the House of Assembly must have a property qualification. That is some check, which Her Majesty's Government do away with in this Bill. They abrogate that property qualification, and, laying great stress on the security afforded by the property qualification of the Legislative Council, they

837
first provide that, in Members who have sat in the House of Assembly it shall not be requisite, and then abrogate the property qualification of Members of the House of Assembly which now exists. Now, my Lords, I think that I have mentioned the principal provisions by which it is proposed that the new Council should be constituted which is to carry on the affairs of the Colony of Canada. There are two Houses elected by the same constituency, the Members of one elected for six years, and of the other for four years, neither requiring any property qualification (for that will virtually be the result of this measure), and one liable to be dissolved within two years if it does not consent to the measures of the other. I ask your Lordships, is it possible legislation can go further in the way of destroying every check, every control whatever which the Government can hold over colonies possessed of free institutions? I say, again, if you mean to abandon all control over the Colony of Canada, say so at once. Bring in a Bill to declare that the Crown will not interfere except through the Minister of Canada, that the house will not interfere, and in no case will Parliament interfere, with the Legislature of Canada. That is intelligible; but it is not intelligible that you should vest in us a discretionary authority which makes us liable for sanctioning their acts, and then bringing in a Bill, without reason assigned or cause alleged, which absolutely revolutionises the whole constitution of the Colony.
Now, my Lords, I turn to the despatch of Lord Elgin, upon which it might be supposed that Her Majesty's Government really found some justification for this measure. That despatch was received in July last, and we are now for the first time made acquainted with it. I am the last man to say a word against Lord Elgin, for I had the honour of first introducing him into public life, by appointing him Governor of Jamaica. I have a great admiration for his ability and prudence; but I cannot help saying and feeling that, great as has been the success of Lord Elgin in the administration of the affairs of Canada, the leading principle on which Lord Elgin has acted has been concessions one after another to popular demands—concessions which would enable him to lead an easy life. How does Lord Elgin write to the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Newcastle). But I must read first the concluding paragraph of the address of
838
the Legislative Council of Canada to Her Majesty, which Lord Elgin incloses—
"We crave permission, may it please your Majesty, to express our fears that should any scheme of the nature adverted to be unhappily adopted, safeguards long held indispensable against hasty and inconsiderate legislation would become inoperative; jealousies would be fostered between bodies, each equally assuming to represent the people, and the chances of collision between them increased; the balance of power in the State would become precarious and subject to frequent disturbance; and further elementary changes would soon be demanded of a democratic character, to an extent, perhaps, which this house is unwilling to contemplate."
I concur in every word of that wise, prudent, and temperate expression of the opinion of the Legislative Council. A corresponding address from the Legislative Assembly is accompanied with a despatch from Lord Elgin, dated in July last, in which he says—
"A proposition which goes to effect a fundamental change in the composition of one of the branches of the Provincial Legislature affords most unquestionably matter for very serious consideration; and it is, moreover, no doubt true, that independently of the important question of principle involved in the measure which is submitted by the Assembly for Her Majesty's approval, difficulties of execution and detail of a very formidable character present themselves, when the attempt is made to combine two elective Chambers with a system of government conducted on the rules of British constitutional practice; difficulties, it may be observed, for which no solution is afforded by precedents drawn from the United States, inasmuch as Parliamentary government and Ministerial responsibility, in the British sense of the term, are unknown to the constitution of that country. Nevertheless, I feel it my duty, in transmitting this Address, to state that I know of no expedient which is so likely to impart to the Legislative Council the influence which it is most desirable that it should possess as the substitution of the principle of election for that of nomination by the Crown in the appointment of its Members."
The objections are stated most emphatically and most forcibly by Lord Elgin; but then he turns round and says, nevertheless, on the whole, he sees nothing so expedient as the adoption of the elective principle. He proceeds—
"According to the plan which is sketched in the inclosed address, the Members of either House of the Legislature will be returned by the same constituency. Exception may doubtless be taken to this arrangement; but, in the absence of any unobjectionable scheme for the election of Members of the Legislative Council at two degrees, I am disposed to think that on the whole it is better that they should be elected by the constituency which elects the Members of the Legislative As-

839
sembly, than that a pretence should be afforded for raising a prejudice against the former body, and weakening its moral influence by the allegation that it represents only a privileged class."
I must say the reasons assigned in the despatch of Lord Elgin are the very reasons which would induce me to reject this Bill, and retain the wholesome check of the Legislative Council, which it is not pretended in later days has been abused or perverted to improper purposes. Lord Elgin affords us no reason for this measure except this: that his Ministers are chosen from the more liberal portion of the community, who have a majority in the House of Assembly; and so no plan is so simple for doing away with any objection on the part of the Legislative Council as converting the Legislative Council into a more echo of the House of Assembly. No doubt that is a very easy mode of simplifying the difficulties of a Governor General, and saving the work of an overworked Secretary of State for the Colonial Department. But the question is, not how to smooth the difficulties of a Governor General, or how to make the work easy for a Secretary of State, but how to enable the Colony of Canada to have its government carried on in a spirit consistent with monarchical institutions, and preserving something like the direct control of Parliament. The noble Duke will tell me there still remains a veto of the Crown on any measures that are passed. But, I would ask him, does he rely on that for any effective safeguard or any real control? If, when legislation is so objectionable, that you must be bound by the wish of the Legislative Assembly of the Colony, and come to Parliament and ask them to make themselves parties to a measure they disapprove rather than thwart the wishes of the Legislative Assembly of Canada, what probability is there, in any conceivable case, that a Minister who comes with such a request will advise the veto to be exercised in cases where the measure has passed, not the Legislative Assembly only, but the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council together, and has received the sanction of the Governor of the province? The authority of the Crown in this country does not depend upon the veto which Her Majesty theoretically possesses to impose upon Acts of Parliament after they have passed, but upon the right and proper influence which she exercises over her Ministers, and through them over both branches of the Legislature, which gives her the
840
opportunity of exercising her judgment upon measures before they have been submitted to Parliament, not after they have received its assent; and it rests also upon that fixed character of our Constitution, which renders it the interest, not to say the paramount duty, of every Minister so to shape his course as, if possible, to keep the two Houses of Parliament in harmony, and not to throw himself absolutely and entirely into the hands of one branch of the Legislature, regardless of the wishes and feelings of the other. So it is in Canada; and therefore it is the duty of the Governor General not to sanction measures framed by the Legislative Assembly alone, indifferent to the wishes, opinions, and feelings of the other body, which depends for its appointment in the first instance upon the Crown, but which is afterwards perfectly and absolutely free and independent. That principle must and will prevail if England is determined that, so long as Canada remains a colony of this country, its constitution shall continue upon its present basis. If the Governor General knows that you are determined not to suffer a violation of that constitution, and that the two branches of the Colonial Parliament shall remain each within its proper functions, not encroaching upon those of the co-ordinate authority with which it is associated—if the Governor General knows that such is the determination of the British Parliament and the British Minister—it will become a necessity for him and for his Government so to frame their measures as to obtain the assent of both branches of the Legislature, and not of one only. But if, on the contrary, the Governor General is to be told that the Legislative Council is not to be supported by the British Parliament, that it is to be made subordinate to and the more echo of the Legislative Assembly—liable to be dissolved, after a period of two years, if it ventures to differ from that Assembly—of course the whole of the Governor General's measures will be framed so as to meet the views of that body which exercises the only real power in the Colony, as the Council will be easily got rid of by an appeal to the same constituents as elected the Assembly. The differences between the two bodies will be thus extinguished, but the independence of the Legislative Council will be extinguished also. But it is said that it is difficult to obtain persons properly qualified willing to take seats in the Legislative Council. I think the fact is very likely to be so; but why is it so? You

841
may depend upon it that you will never get the best class of men to accept seats in the Legislative Council, if the Crown or the Governor General does not give due weight and influence to the deliberations and authority of that Council, but persists in treating it as a body to be overruled whenever it sets itself in opposition to the Legislative Assembly. I do not wonder that you cannot get men to accept seats in the Council upon such a tenure, even from among the most devoted servants of the Crown; for who would make a sacrifice of personal convenience, perhaps of private friendships, for the purpose of maintaining the authority of the Crown, and upholding the monarchical principle in Canada, while they are placed in a position dependent upon the opinions of the Assembly? If you want intelligent and respectable men to devote their time and attention to public affairs in the Colony, by becoming Members of the Legislative Council, you must give them an assurance that, so long as they are right, so long as they have a just principle to stand upon, they shall have the cordial support, not only of the Governor General of the Colony, but of the Government and Parliament at home. Depend upon it that if you give to the Legislative Council that weight and consideration, and that influence upon the legislation of the Colony which the constitution says belong to it, there will be no lack of men willing to take seats in that branch of the Legislature; but if you make the Members of that body the more tools and instruments of the Legislative Assembly for passing radical and democratic measures, you will never persuade the highest class of colonists to accept the office upon such conditions.
In speaking of the safeguards with which the United States have surrounded their republican institutions, I mentioned as one the necessity for more than a bare majority to carry into effect any fundamental alteration in the constitution itself. That wise precaution, together with a property qualification, was introduced into the Constitutional Act of Canada, so that no measure altering the constitution of the House of Assembly could be carried into execution, unless upon the second and third reading of the Bill there was a majority amounting to two-thirds of each of the legislative bodies in favour of the proposed change. I think that was a judicious and wise security to take against hasty and ill-considered alterations; but the present Bill,
842
while it throws away all other securities, formally abolishes and abrogates that security also, and provides that a bare majority of the Legislature may make such alterations in the constitution of the Colony as it thinks fit. So that any change may be made at the more will and pleasure of the Legislative Assembly, through its obedient instruments the Governor and his Executive Council. There was one other provision of the Bill to which I intended to advert; but I think I have already laid before your Lordships sufficient grounds for pausing, at all events before, at this period of the Session, you accept yourselves, and call upon the other House of Parliament to accept, a measure so fundamentally, and, as I think, so injuriously, affecting the condition and constitution of one of our most important colonies. But, supposing you pass this Bill, how is it to be carried into effect? I imagine that even Her Majesty's Government would not propose that the mere Act of the Legislative Assembly alone should carry a measure which fundamentally alters the constitution of the Colony. I presume you must obtain the assent of the Legislative Council to this measure before you put it into execution. But the Council has already recorded in very plain terms its determination not to sanction or to carry out a measure which entirely changes the constitution of its own body. The Council consists of not less than twenty-four members. Are you prepared to deal with the recalcitrant councillors, and to make such an addition of new members who will be willing to enter into your scheme as will enable you to carry your proposal into effect? If you pass this Bill and send it over to Canada, without taking measures to ensure its acceptance by the Legislative Council, observe what you do —you perpetuate a conflict between the two branches of the Legislature upon a question affecting the constitution of that part which alone is interested in upholding the rights of the Crown. It is true, you may get rid of the difficulty by putting into the Council a sufficient number of new Members to overrule the present majority. If this Bill were passed, you might then proceed in a very simple manner; for it is only requisite for the House of Assembly to send any Bill of any kind to the Legislative Council; then for the Bill to be amended there, and for the House of Assembly to reject it with its amendments; and then at the expiration, of two years to dissolve the Council, with the consent of

843
the Executive Council; and then you will get a more subservient Council. Or, thirdly, you might proceed to appoint a body for the purpose of committing political suicide, by declaring itself dissolved after it had decided that its successor should be elected by the colonists, not nominated by the Crown. Any of those modes you may adopt to carry your proposal into effect; but, in the meantime, what becomes of the existing rights of the Legislative Council? The Members of that Council hold their appointments from the Crown under the authority of Parliament, and those appointments are for life or during good behaviour. Indeed, they hold their seats in the Council by a tenure as valid as any one of your Lordships holds his seat in this House; and yet you are asked to pass a Bill which will deprive them at once, or in two or three years, of those rights which, under the sanction of the Crown and of the constitution guaranteed by Parliament, they have a right to enjoy during their natural lives. I do not ask you to reject this Bill; but I do entreat you not to take upon yourselves, by passing this Bill, the serious responsibility of effecting such a change in the constitution of the Colony, and of calling upon the other House of Parliament at the end of June, overwhelmed as that House is with business, to assent at once to a measure the ultimate and remote consequences of which it is impossible to foresee, although I believe those consequences will be even more formidable than my worst apprehensions lead me to anticipate. Do not imagine that this is a Bill affecting Canada alone. When you have sanctioned this measure for Canada, the whole of your North American provinces will come forward with a similar demand. The spirit of democratic encroachment is the same throughout the world. Give it the means of obtaining power, and it will not hesitate to stretch out its hand to grasp more and more: and if you show in the case of an individual colony that the remonstrances of the Legislative Council have availed nothing, that the opinions of the Legislative Assembly have availed everything, and that to the clamours of that body you are prepared to sacrifice the existing constitution of the Colony, you may depend upon it that many years, probably many months, will not elapse before from all your North American Colonies you will receive the same petition to be placed upon the same footing of an elective Council—a
844
Council acted upon and permeated by popular influences, the monarchical influence being altogether extinguished. Such a demand, I apprehend, must be a necessary consequence of passing this Bill. Now I know that there are those who treat lightly the separation of the Colonies from the mother-country; but, for my own part, I am one of those who would deeply regret that separation, although in the course of time I anticipate it, as the natural result of the growth and progress of democratic principles. I anticipate that the time will come when the great North American Federation, if I may so call it—the great aggregate of the North American Colonies — will take upon itself the entire and independent control of their own affairs, and will be, if not nominally separate, at all events practically and virtually separate, and independent alike of Parliament, of the Government, and of the Crown. I trust, however, that even in such a state of things that great federation will remain in perfect harmony with this country, bound by tics of loyalty to the same Sovereign, although that sovereignty may be but nominal; but that community of feeling, that community of interest, cannot exist if you pass a measure by which you deprive the most important of all your North American Colonies of everything which assimilates it in the slightest degree to the constitution and monarchical institutions of this country, and place its inhabitants in a position similar to that of their immediate neighbours, with whom they are every day in habits of closer connection and more constant intercourse. I have dreamed — perhaps it was only a dream—that the time would come when, exercising a perfect control over their own internal affairs, Parliament abandoning its right to interfere in their legislation, these great and important colonies, combined together, should form a monarchical Government, presided over either by a permanent viceroy, or, as an independent Sovereign, by one nearly and closely allied to the present Royal family of this country. I have believed that in such a manner it would be possible to uphold the monarchical principle, to establish upon that great continent a monarchy free as that of this country, even freer still with regard to the popular influence exercised, but yet a monarchy worthy of the name, and not a more empty shadow. I can hardly believe that under such a system the friendly connection and close intimacy

845
between the Colonies and the mother-country would in any way be affected; but, on the contrary, I feel convinced that the change to which I have referred would be productive of nothing, for years and ages to come, but mutual harmony and friendship, increased and cemented as that friendship would be by mutual appreciation of the great and substantial benefits conferred by a free and regulated monarchy. But pass this Bill, and that dream is gone for ever. Nothing like a free and regulated monarchy could exist for a single moment under such a constitution as that which is now proposed for Canada. From the moment that you pass this constitution, the progress must be rapidly towards republicanism—if anything could be more really republican than this Bill. The next step is an elective Governor; and after you have passed this Bill, I do not know that an elective Governor would not be perfectly and absolutely unexceptionable. I should undoubtedly object now to an elective Governor; but after you have passed this Bill, it matters not whether you have a Governor sent out from this country, and bound to act upon the advice of his responsible councillors, or whether, as in the United States, you had a Governor elected by the free suffrages of the people over whom he has to rule. But, my Lords, I do not ask you to reject this Bill altogether, and at no time to listen to the petition which has been laid before us, and therefore I will not pursue that question any further. But I say that if Canada, if the North American Colonies, increasing in wealth, in population, and in importance, desire to separate from this country, in God's name let us part on terms of peace and friendship. Let us not wrangle with them as to the conditions upon which we are to separate; but let them well understand that the passing of this measure, considering the relationship in which Canada stands to this country, and the nearness, on the other hand, of their republican neighbours, must inevitably and indisputably lead to the adoption of republican institutions, and must as inevitably and indisputably lead to an early separation from this country. I will leave these considerations with your Lordships, with the other House of Parliament, with the Colony, and with the people of this country. Do not let the demand of the Minister, on the scanty information which he has given to you, the interests of party, or any other motive
846
whatever, induce you, at the close of the Session, overwhelmed as you are with other business, to pass hastily a measure which cannot fail to produce the results which I have stated to your Lordships, and from which there is no appeal. I do not ask you to pronounce a positive and absolute denial to the wishes of the Colony if they are anything more than the wishes of the Legislative Assembly; but I entreat you to postpone the adoption of this measure—to delay your final judgment upon this weighty and important question — until both the Colony and yourselves have had full opportunity calmly and deliberately to weigh all the consequences involved in it, and not to pass, in the course of the present Session, a Bill which, if it is carried through Parliament, you will have the mortification to feel has inflicted great injury upon one of the most important colonies of the Crown.
Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this day three months."
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: My Lords, before I proceed to make a few observations with reference to the opinions expressed by the noble Earl, both upon the general principles which have induced Her Majesty's Government to introduce this Bill, and upon the provisions of the Bill itself, I think it is incumbent upon me to say a few words with regard to the remarks made by the noble Earl at the commencement of his speech, when he thought it necessary to explain why, instead of opposing the Bill upon the second reading, he took the course, unusual as he admitted it to be, of opposing our going into Committee upon it. I do not complain of the course taken by the noble Earl; but I think it right that I should explain to your Lordships what the noble Earl seemed to think a mistake or neglect on my part. The noble Earl said, in the first place, that he thought, in introducing a Bill of this importance to the House, I should have acted more in accordance with propriety, and with what was clue to your Lordships, if, instead of simply laying the Bill upon the table without a word of explanation, I had made a statement of its provisions. But I apprehend that none of your Lordships are ignorant of the fact, that the almost invariable practice in this House is, to do as I did upon that occasion —to present a Bill sub silentio, and to state its provisions, and to enter into a discussion upon it, upon moving its second reading. Since I have had the honour of

847
a seat in this House, I recollect only one instance, and that a Bill of very trifling importance, in which this practice was departed from, and upon that occasion the noble Earl who departed from it was called to order. The noble Earl cannot point out any Bill of importance in which that practice has been departed from; and although I am ready to admit that, if many Bills were introduced into this House, instead of into the other House of Parliament, it might be convenient to alter the present practice, yet I presume that so long as that practice is allowed to exist, I cannot fairly be censured for acting in accordance with it on this occasion. The noble Earl then complained that certain papers had not been presented to the House until I moved the second reading of the Bill. I readily admit that that was an error on my part. I regret it; but certainly I, laboured under the impression—arising, probably, from my having seen the most important of these papers in print—that they had been laid on the table of both Houses, instead of on the table of the other House only. With respect to the draft of a Bill which we received from Canada, I did not think it was necessary to lay that document upon the table, because the Government having resolved—not to adopt that measure or any other measure affecting the permanent constitution of Canada—but simply to yield up to what we believed the proper body, the Canadian Legislature, the exercise of power which now belongs to the Imperial Parliament, and as we had resolved to introduce simply a permissive Bill, I was apprehensive that the production of the draft Bill which was sent to us from Canada would induce your Lordships to believe that it had the approbation and support of the Government. I will not enter into any discussion upon a point on which the noble Earl dwelt with some emphasis—that the papers which were laid on the table of the House of Commons were presented, not by the authority of the Government, but upon the Motion of an independent Member. I apprehend, that in whatever way the information came before Parliament—whether by the command of Her Majesty, or on the Motion of a private Member—the important thing was, to know what the documents contained, and the opinions expressed in them. The noble Earl then proceeded to comment upon the interval which occurred between the receipt of Lord Elgin's despatch, inclosing the ad-
848
dresses from both branches of the Canadian Legislature, and my reply. Now, I give the noble Earl the benefit of any advantage which he thinks he may obtain from that observation. The facts were simply these:—The Session of the Canadian Parliament was over before the receipt of Lord Elgin's despatch, and that Parliament was not bound to meet again until the 13th of the present month of June; so that it did not matter whether I replied within one day of the receipt of the Addresses, or six months afterwards, so far as regarded the communication of the information which I wished to convey to the bodies which had presented them. As I stated on a former occasion, although I was in possession of the opinions of the Governor General, as expressed in the despatch from which the noble Earl has quoted, yet, knowing that Lord Elgin was coming over to this country, I thought it was desirable that I should have the benefit of personal communication with him, in order to ascertain more fully his views upon the subject than it was possible to do if I had requested further explanations by letter. The noble Earl having disposed of these points, proceeded to ask what was the question before the House, and then entered into an elaborate discussion, both of the general principles upon which the Bill is framed, and the provisions of the Bill itself; but the noble Earl concluded by saying that he did not ask your Lordships to reject the measure, but only to postpone it to another Session, in order to enable the Colony whose interests are affected by it maturely to consider the question involved, and to enter upon a fresh agitation, and decide whether or not they intend to adhere to their former opinions. Now, if I understand the noble Earl aright, that is the ground upon which he proposes to postpone the Bill for the present Session; and, although he stated broadly and strongly various objections to the principle of the measure, which undoubtedly would have justified an open rejection of the Bill upon its merits, instead of a more postponement, yet, having concluded his speech by saying that he meant not rejection, but postponement, I think I have a right to claim the votes of those Peers who are prepared to support such a view; because I am prepared to show that the people of Canada have already maturely considered this question, and have expressed their opinions upon it, and that, unless we act upon our own judgment, or from a

849
spirit of strong opposition to the principle of the Bill, it would be desirable on all accounts that we should concede to the Parliament of Canada that power which at present belongs to the Imperial Parliament. The noble Earl said that this was another step in the course of legislation which the Parliament of this country has been pursuing for some time past. I am not prepared to deny that statement. The noble Earl quoted two examples—first, the Rebellion Losses Bill; and, secondly, the Clergy Reserves Bill. With respect to the first, he said that, under the Rebellion Losses Bill compensation was given, not only to those who had suffered on the part of the Crown, but likewise to those who had opposed the legitimate rights of the Crown. Now, I think I may fairly cite the Rebellion Losses Bill as an argument in favour of the present measure; because even if there was a vicious principle in that Bill, the confidence shown upon that occasion in the people and Legislature of Canada was not misplaced; and I defy the noble Earl, whatever he may say with reference to the principle of the Bill, to maintain that the measure was not carried out with every deference and respect for the laws and sovereignty of this country. I am not prepared to vindicate the principle of that measure. I do not recollect whether I voted for it in the House of Commons, or not; but I know that I disapproved of it, and if I did not vote against it, it must have been in consequence of my temporary absence from the House. It cannot be doubted, however, that those in whom we placed confidence upon that occasion showed that they were worthy of it. The noble Earl then proceeded to comment in the same sense upon a Bill which your Lordships passed last year, with respect to the clergy reserves. Here the noble Earl certainly made a most extraordinary statement, for he said that hopes were held out in this House, that, if we gave the power in question to the Colony, it would not be exercised inimically to the interests of the clergy. That, undoubtedly, was true; but he then proceeded to say, that the very first step taken after the passing of this measure, was an attempt to secularise these reserves. I do not know from whence the noble Earl has derived his information, but I can assure him that, having held the seals of the Colonial Office from that time until ten days or a fortnight ago, I not only have not heard of any attempt on the part of the Canadian Legislature or Go-
850
vernment to secularise these reserves; but I am enabled, from conversations I held with Lord Elgin and Mr. Hincks, when they were in this country, to give the most positive contradiction to the statement that any such attempt has been made. I still entertain the hope which I expressed last Session, that the clergy reserves must in future be classified; but they have not been classified yet, and I can assure the noble Earl and the House that the subject has not even been mooted in the Parliament of Canada, and I have every reason to believe that there is at present no intention of making any such attempt. The noble Earl, towards the close of his speech, referred to an anticipation which he entertained—he called it a dream—that at some future time, when that event occurred, which, in answer to a noble Friend of mine, I ventured to deprecate a few days ago—namely, the separation of the Colonies from the mother-country—a new monarchy might be formed in the North American provinces, the Sovereign of which might be a near relative of our gracious Queen. I will not discuss the noble Earl's dream; but I will say that when he asserted that if we pass this Bill that dream is gone for ever, he was labouring under a considerable misapprehension. I deny that his dream is affected by this Bill in any way whatever—unless, indeed, the effect of the measure should be to increase the securities of the new monarchy, and to strengthen its associations and connection with this country. In one of the quotations which the noble Earl read, he gave us some instances of the necessity of having two legislative bodies in the Colony. He did not express any opinion upon that subject himself, and I apprehend that, however much the noble Earl and the Government may differ upon any other topic, we are entirely agreed upon that. We are at one in thinking that two Houses are necessary and essential to the practical and harmonious working of the English Constitution, whether as established in this country or engrafted in any of our Colonies. So far, then, we are agreed; but what is the principle of this Bill; or, in the first instance, let me ask, why do we require an Upper Chamber? It is undoubtedly in order to secure, in the legislative and social condition of the country, that conservative element which is supposed to exist in your Lordships' House, and the object is, by means of a second Chamber, to check that hasty le-

851
gislation which is no uncommon characteristic of a popular assembly. But I apprehend that a second Chamber can be of little use for that important pupose, unless it possesses and maintains the respect of the community of which it forms an important element. I stated upon a former occasion that, so far from the Legislative Council of Canada being respected as a body—as individuals I believe they are among the most highly respected gentlemen in the Colony—they do not in any degree possess the esteem or respect of the community. To such an extent is that carried, that it is exceedingly difficult, when vacancies occur in the Council, to obtain the consent of any gentleman to enter it. The noble Earl, in replying to this, said, that doubtless, if the Governor General showed no disposition to support the voice of the Council, it was possible it might fall into disrepute. I hope the noble Earl did not intend that as a reproof to the Governor General of Canada, because I can assure him that Lord Elgin knows his constitutional position too well to have thwarted, in any way, either of the branches of the Canadian Parliament, and that in this country he has respected the rights and privileges of the Legislative Council to the fullest extent to which he has respected those of the Legislative Assembly. But what I say is, that unless the Legislative Council, no matter how formed, possesses the respect of the community, it loses that character of conservation which is its proper attribute; and instead of being conservative, it becomes only obstructive. I apprehend there is nobody on either side of the House who will believe that these are convertible terms; I trust that every one of your Lordships will appreciate the distinction which I am anxious to draw between a body which, having ceased to possess the confidence and respect of the country, is calculated only to obstruct legislation, and that body which, possessing the confidence and respect of the community, in enabled to evince its conservatism by preventing hasty legislation, and refusing its assent to measures of a violent and dangerous character. The noble Earl has left your Lordships to understand that be looks upon a nominated Upper Chamber as being to as full an extent as possible an imitation of your Lordships' House. Now, I believe it is perfectly futile to attempt in the Colonies any imitation of your Lordships' House. To a certain extent the form might be imitated;
852
but it would be in form only, for the substance would be entirely wanting. In my opinion, an elective Chamber, if composed of persons possessing requisite qualifications, would possess a higher character than a merely nominated Chamber. I am aware that with respect to your Lordships' House an opinion prevails to some extent out of doors that the agricultural is the only interest here represented. No doubt, a considerable number of the Members of this House are possessed of a large amount of landed property; but if we look at the constitution of this House, it will be found that not only agriculture, but commerce, manufactures, and every other interest in a subordinate degree, is represented here; and no question can come before your Lordships which does not meet here a fair representative on every occasion when such interest requires to be represented. This body, however, although originally nominated by the Crown, possesses qualifications which no Upper Chamber of any colony has ever yet obtained, or can hope to obtain, without a ridiculous aping of your Lordships' House—I mean its hereditary character—the Assembly possesses a hold on the respect and affections of the people by means of its traditionary and hereditary character. This is what no nominated Assembly can ever hope to possess. There are many who object to hereditary legislators; but I think few will be found to deny that hereditary legislators appear to advantage in comparison with nominated legislators; and of this I am convinced, that if we were to sit here merely as a nominated body, we should be looked upon by the great bulk of the people as the mere tools of the Government of the day, and should be deprived of that respect which alone enables us to exercise properly our functions and our duties. The names of Stanley and Howard are still borne by Members of your Lordships' House, and the services rendered by their ancestors come in aid of those who now bear those honoured names in the execution of the duties which devolve upon them, and give an additional charm to the brilliant eloquence and ability which they evince in debate, and enhancing the spotless private character which they are known to possess out of your Lordships' House. It is impossible, I say, for such qualities to exist in any nominated Upper Chamber. Such an Assembly becomes, as we have seen in the Colonies, more distasteful to the community year by year,

853
until finally its members are regarded as the more tools of the Government in our Colonies. The only alternative, therefore, for the good government of the Colonies is that of an elective Upper Chamber; but if you are to have these Chambers, it will be necessary to fence them round with provisions which shall serve as correctives to the hasty and inconsiderate legislation of the more popular Assembly. Among those conservative elements which it is proposed to introduce into the Upper Chamber in Canada is that of a property qualification. It cannot be denied that the possession of property is an element of this kind; and yet the noble Earl appears to have commented with severity upon the circumstance that we propose to establish a higher property qualification for the Upper Chamber than for the Legislative Assembly. Another element which it is proposed to introduce is that of age, as the Bill provides that no person under thirty years of age shall be eligible to a seat in the Upper Chamber. The noble Earl will not deny that this condition of age is valuable as a conservative safeguard; he will not deny that a man at the age of thirty is more likely to have his opinions formed, and not to be so easily led away by popular theories as he would be at the age of twenty-one. He will not deny that he has himself become in his later years more conservative than he was when a younger man; and if that process has taken place in the noble Earl, he will surely agree that it is but fair to suppose that others who, like him, attend to public affairs, may make brilliant Members of the Legislative Assembly at twenty-one, and at thirty may become ornaments of the Legislative Council, and maintain with ability those conservative opinions which possessed less influence over them at the earlier period of their lives. A third safeguard which is proposed is that of the longer occupation of a seat in the Upper Chamber. By the proposed arrangement a portion of that body only will be elected at one time; and the time at which their election will take place will be different from that at which the Members of the Legislative Assembly will be elected. This will have the effect of preventing the whole body of the two Chambers being elected under the influence of some one strong popular feeling that may prevail at the time of the election. I confess that I attach very great importance to this part of the proposal. A fourth guarantee is
854
one which, though not of such great importance, is still undoubtedly of great value, and that is, that the number of Members of the Legislative Council should be considerably smaller than that of the Legislative Assembly. The noble Earl has quoted the opinion expressed by the Legislative Council last year on the subject. I will also call your Lordships' attention to the address of the same Council. The address states—
"We would respectfully represent to your Majesty, that to refer the selection of Members of the Legislative Council to the popular vote, is to destroy the harmony of system upon which, in accordance with the theory of the British Constitution, the Government of this country has hitherto been considered to rest; and by thus discarding the principle of appointment by the Crown, which has hitherto been deemed essential to the maintenance of a due balance in the State, to bring the Royal authority into direct contact with two Houses, both deriving power Mom and responsible to the people. We crave permission, may it please your Majesty, to express our fears that should any scheme of the nature adverted to be unhappily adopted, safeguards, long held indispensable against hasty and inconsiderate legislation, would become inoperative; jealousies would be fostered between bodies, each equally assuming to represent the people, and the chances of collision between them increased; the balance of power in the State would become precarious and subject to frequent disturbance; and further elementary changes would soon be demanded of a democratic character, to an extent, perhaps, which this house is unwilling to contemplate."
I quote this sentence to show how very little the Legislative Council must really have weighed the matter, when they could oppose two such antagonistic objections to the plan for the constitution of an elective Legislative Council. How could a collision between the two bodies ensue if there could be no check given by the one or the other. I may also refer to some other opinions expressed on this subject which are entirely at variance with those laid down by the noble Earl. The noble Earl endeavours to show that these two bodies are really already so entirely accordant in opinion that they will co-operate together in all measures, however violent. What, however, is the opinion of those who, living in the Colony itself, are not unlikely to be able to form as accurate an opinion of the consequences of such a measure upon the community as the noble Earl or any of your Lordships? When these Resolutions were proposed in the Legislative Assembly of Canada, a certain gentleman of very strong democratic opinions—a Mr. Brown —was so apprehensive of the strong conservative or monarchical character of this

855
measure that he proposed not less than three different Amendments to get rid of that principle. In the first place he considered—
"That the rapid changes which experience has shown continually to take place in public sentiment, the difference in the electoral divisions for which the Members of the two Chambers respectively would sit, and the different terms for which they would be elected, leave no reason to doubt that the political views of the majority of the Lower House would frequently be in direct opposition to those of the majority of the Upper House; that when such variance of opinion occurred in the political views of the majorities of the two Chambers, an address of want of confidence from one House might be met by a vote of confidence from the other House, and the Executive would be left practically uncontrolled; that when such variance in the opinion of the two branches occurred, the responsibility of the Ministry of the day, for the right conduct of all public affairs, legislative and executive—so absolutely essential under the British constitutional system—would cease, for the time being, as no party administration could, while such variance existed, command a majority in both bodies, and the measures deemed necessary by Government could only become law by the consent of its political opponents. That two elective Chambers are utterly incompatible with British responsible government on the British system, and that the great power intrusted under that system to the Ministry of the day, could not be safely continued under the relaxed restraint which two elective Houses would entail. That no urgent necessity calls for a change of the constitution of the Legislative Council—that no practical evil exists which such a change would remove—and that there is no practical end now sought to be attained and found unattainable, which such a change would render attainable. That in consideration of the foregoing, and in view of the rapid social and material progress of the country, which cannot to affect the working of any political system, it is not expedient to make any change at present in the organisation of the Legislative Council, but it is advisable that means should be taken forthwith to render that body more efficient under its existing constitution."
Mr. Brown was not successful in carrying this Amendment, the numbers being seventeen for, and fifty against it. I quote this decision to show how little desirous the Parliament of Canada was for adopting any measure of a democratic character. Still, so apprehensive was this democratic gentleman of the consequences of this measure, if passed, that he moved another Amendment, in which he expressed himself willing to get rid of the Upper House altogether, rather than adopt the change proposed. He accordingly proposed—
"That two elective Legislative Chambers are utterly incompatible with British responsible government; that the great power committed under that system to the Ministry of the day could not be safely continued with two elective Houses, and
856
would render necessary the imposition of checks on the power of the Executive known to other constitutional systems, but totally inconsistent with British party government; and that, in view of the declaration of the majority of this House that some change in the existing constitutional system of this province ought to be made, it is expedient that the Legislative Council should be abolished."
This was defeated by fifty-eight against nine. Mr. Brown, however, was not yet disconcerted, and he proposed even a third Amendment—
"That the extensive powers intrusted to the Executive under the system of government which has obtained in this province since 1841, cannot be safely continued when 'the well-understood wishes of the people' shall be expressed by two separate Houses, elected by popular vote of different constituencies and for different terms; and that it is expedient to provide for restraining the powers of the Executive simultaneously with the creation of two elective Houses."
So apprehensive was this gentleman that the power of the Executive would be increased, and the influence of the democratic power be diminished. I mention these Amendments in consequence of the quarter from which they came—for I must be permitted to say, with all respect for the talent, the ability, and the knowledge of the noble Earl, that, upon this occasion, I think I have a right to appeal with confidence from the Earl of Derby to Mr. Brown. The noble Earl asks, if we pass this permissive measure, how do we expect it will be carried into effect? My answer is, in that only way in which I wish to see it carried into effect—by the Government of Canada, when the people wish to obtain it. If the opinions of the people of Canada are against the measure, the Legislative Council of Canada will act upon their own independent opinions and resist it, precisely as your Lordships, in giving an opinion upon any measure, would do, until you were satisfied that it was the general wish of the country that such a measure should be passed, and then your Lordships would gracefully yield to that expressed opinion. So would the Legislative Council of Canada gracefully yield, when they knew that it was the wish of the people of that Colony that this measure should pass, and not before. I ventured to say, on moving the second reading of this Bill, that a measure of this description had been long required; and although the noble Earl has quoted an opinion to which I attach great weight, expressed in former years, as to the very serious nature of the question involving an alteration in the constitu-

857
tion of Canada, I nevertheless shall be able to show to your Lordships that this I is not a new want expressed on behalf of the people of Canada, nor is it a new opinion expressed on their behalf by statesmen in this country who have considered the subject. But, before I proceed with this part of the case, allow me to premise that this is not a new principle, but it is following out a principle which has already been adopted, and which, I maintain, having been adopted in other cases, it would be most unfair to refuse to Canada. The noble Earl says, that if we pass this Bill, we cannot stop here. I really admit it. I admit that we ought to legislate for a principle, and not for any particular colony. The noble Earl says, if we give this measure to Canada, we cannot refuse it to the North American provinces. Why, it is a fact that some of the North American provinces have already expressed opinions in favour of having granted to them a similar measure; and not only that, but opinions have been expressed by the governors of those provinces in favour of conceding this privilege. Sir E. Head, a most eminent man, the Governor of New Brunswick, in a despatch in the year 1850, expressed an opinion that it would be desirable to grant a similar boon to that colony. This Bill is to enable the Canadian Parliament, if it thinks fit, to change its own constitution. A Bill was passed in the year 1850, giving— wrongly I think—to the Australian Colonies a single Chamber, but that was coupled with this condition—that each of those colonies should have the power to amend their own constitution and have a second Chamber. Some of those colonies have already availed themselves of that power, and it is a power which, being given by Act of Parliament, you cannot take away from them. Within the last fortnight the colony of Victoria has sent home a Bill, in which they have framed a constitution for themselves, one element of which is an elective Upper Chamber. But we have gone further than that. We have actually ourselves erected a second elective Chamber. An elective second Chamber has been given to the Cape of Good Hope. The noble Earl the other night split upon that rock, and he to-night has carefully avoided making any allusion to the Cape of Good Hope. I know that when the noble Earl was in office he did not object to the constitution with a second elective Chamber; being given to the Cape of Good Hope;
858
and when on a previous occasion I alluded to this, the noble Earl said, that he allowed that constitution to pass on the ground that he was too late to object to it, inasmuch as that there was an Act of Parliament on the subject; but the noble Earl is wrong in that statement. There was no Act of Parliament in the case of the Cape of Good Hope. The constitution was not conferred by Act of Parliament. No Act was requisite. It was requisite in the important colony of Canada, but for the Cape of Good Hope an Order in Council was sufficient. The granting of the constitution was, however, by circumstances delayed till the noble Earl succeeded to power. What was then done? This was the whole question. Sir John Pakington wrote two despatches. In the first he stated that the constitution would be granted immediately; and in a despatch dated September, 1852, in which he assigned the reason why the constitution should not be given—I am not about to dispute the policy of withholding the constitution, although my opinions are well known upon that subject, for my very first I act in succeeding to the Colonial Office was to issue that constitution to the Cape of Good Hope—but, in that despatch, Sir John Pakington showed that the whole question was open, and that the reasons for not granting the constitution at that time was the war which was then prevailing in the colony. [The Earl of DERBY: Hear, hear!] The noble Earl cheers; but I was going to show that, while that was stated in various shapes elsewhere, the noble Earl has never mentioned it in this House. I am not raking up these things with any hostile feeling, though, in referring to them, I am only following the example of the noble Earl, who quoted what had been said by Lord John Russell and Mr. Gladstone some sixteen or seventeen years ago. I have referred to what was said by Sir John Pakington only two years ago, and who proposed to do for the Cape of Good Hope that which we have not proposed to do for Canada; for he would give a second elective Chamber to the Cape of Good Hope, while we only propose to enable Canada to constitute a second Chamber for itself, if it should think proper to do so. The noble Earl quoted the opinion of Lord Durham upon this question; and I own I was astonished when I heard him refer to Lord Durham as an authority for a nominated Chamber. I know not what

859
opinion the noble Earl particularly referred to; he stated that he could not give me the date; I apprehend, therefore, that it must be some sentence taken from the Report of Lord Durham on Canada, printed in 1836. Now, I hold in my hand that very elaborate Report, and I will read to your Lordships some portion of it which refers precisely and specifically to this very point. Lord Durham in his Report said—
"The constitution of a second legislative body for the united Legislature involves questions of very great difficulty. The present constitution of the Legislative Councils of these provinces has always appeared to me inconsistent with sound principles, and little calculated to answer the purpose of placing the effective check which I consider necessary on the popular branch of the Legislature. The analogy which some persons have attempted to draw between the House of Lords and the Legislative Councils seems to me erroneous. The constitution of the House of Lords is consonant with a frame of English society, and as the creation of a precisely similar body in such a state of society as that of these colonies is impossible, it has always appeared to me most unwise to attempt to supply its place by one which has no point of resemblance to it, except that of being a non-elective check on the elective branch of the Legislature. The attempt to invest a few persons distinguished from their fellow-colonists neither by birth nor by hereditary property, and often only transiently connected with the country, with such a power seems only calculated to ensure jealousy and bad feelings in the first instance, and collision at last. I believe that when the necessity of relying in Lower Canada on the English character of the Legislative Council as a check on the national prejudices of a French Assembly shall be removed by the union, few persons in the colonies will be found disposed in favour of its present constitution."
My Lords, I pause here for one moment to call to your Lordships' attention how accurate has been the prophecy of Lord Durham. The union has been attended with the results he anticipated, the antagonism between the French and the English has almost entirely disappeared, and those who thought an Upper Chamber appointed by the Crown was the only check and the only means to preserve the English connection with Canada, now find that by the union of the two colonies that is no longer requisite; that those changes of opinion which Lord Durham foresaw have taken place, and that the opinion of the people of Canada is now in favour of the very change which was formerly so strongly opposed. The Report proceeds—
"Indeed, the very fact of union will complicate the difficulties which have hitherto existed,
860
because a satisfactory choice of Councillors would have to be made with reference to the varied interests of a much more numerous and extended
community."
Is there not good sense in this? While the difficulty is met by an elective Chamber, it must be seen that, on the other hand, it would be impossible for the Government to select a Chamber of nominees for Canada, without violating and offending those principles which Lord Durham has here so ably laid down. Lord Durham then proceeded to say—
"It will be necessary, therefore, for the completion of any stable scheme of government, that Parliament should revise the constitution of the Legislative Council, and, by adopting every practicable means, to give that constitution such a character as would enable it by its tranquil and safe, but effective working to act as a useful check on the popular branch of the Legislature, and prevent a repetition of those collisions which already caused such dangerous irritation."
I think your Lordships will now be of opinion that my quotation of Lord Durham's opinions is worth more than the solitary sentence quoted by the noble Earl; and that, at any rate, I have a right to say that this is no new view—is no new opinion —but that it was espoused and announced so long ago as the year 1839 by one of Her Majesty's Ministers, who was expressly sent over to Canada for the purpose of reporting on the then existing state of things in that Colony. The noble Earl has objected to the power given to the Governor General of dissolving the Legislative Council. Precisely the same power is given to the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope. But the Government of Canada possesses exactly the same power at the present moment. If, under the existing system, he finds the two Chambers not co-operating, he has the power of dissolution, which is certainly a better mode than resorting to that not very elegant but expressive act called "swamping" the Upper Chamber. Although, unhappily, we have sometimes heard of threats of swamping the Upper House of Parliament, it is a threat which has never yet been carried into effect. For my part, I greatly prefer that the power of the Governor General should be exercised by open dissolution rather than, by the use of a secret and arbitrary power, of turning the majority of the Upper Chamber by pouring into it a certain number of nominees of the Crown. The noble Earl said that the veto would be no security. I readily admit that it would

861
not be an efficient security. It is not so now even in this country. The Colonies must be left to influences similar to those which operate at home, and I have no fear that the same effect would result. But it seems to me that the noble Earl throughout the whole of his speech was haunted by the apprehension of some great evil resulting from the bugbear of democracy. It was the same feeling which influenced him on his assuming the reins of power, when the noble Earl told us that he considered it to be his specific mission to check the torrent of democracy with which the world was threatened, and we all remember that it was said by some of his supporters that when the noble Earl should leave office then would come the deluge. Since then a change of Government has taken place— the noble Earl has been out of office for a year and a half. I appeal to noble Lords on the opposite side of the House, who do not agree with me in political opinions, whether they can seriously maintain that this change in the Government has brought on those rapid strides of democracy which the noble Earl, no doubt honestly, had anticipated. I believe, as regards this country, so with respect to Canada, these apprehensions may be dismissed. Of late years there has been greatly relaxed that hold over the Canadian Legislature, which Parliament had before professed to exercise most prejudicially to the interests of the Colony. I will refer to one instance. In the Union Act a provision was inserted granting a civil list to Her Majesty. The colony of Canada regarded that provision as indicating a distrust of their anxiety to -maintain the monarchical institutions of the country, and on that ground objected to the provision. This country, not knowing the feelings of Canada so well as the colonists themselves, thought the objection a feigned complaint, and suspected that what Canada really wanted was the means of obtaining the power of getting rid of the civil list altogether. Nevertheless, in 1847, the right of settling the civil list was given up by this country, precisely as it is now proposed that Parliament should grant to Canada the power of legislating for the Upper Chamber. The Canadian Legislature immediately voted a civil list, and from that hour to the present I have not heard any grievances complained of on that subject, such as were almost continually arising so long as the Parliament of England interfered. A similar result, I an-
862
ticipate, will attend the proposed legislation on the present subject. To 1847 succeeded 1848, when all Europe was convulsed, and every democratic element of society was let loose; and what was the condition of Canada? So far from participating in the feelings that had brought about that convulsion, the French element in Canada, and the Irish element also in Canada—such was the reward of our new principle of legislation—remained quiet. I say that it was greatly due to the confidence shown in the people of Canada by the liberal legislation which the Imperial Parliament had begun to adopt, that the events in 1848, which created a devastating storm in Europe, failed to raise even a ripple on the surface of society in Canada. We now have the advantage of beholding the satisfactory effects of our recent legislation. The sentiments of the Canadians, which at one time were alienated from this country, are now entirely favourable to it; and, instead of the rancorous feelings of hatred which formerly prevailed between conflicting parties in that Colony, there is substituted that wholesome party spirit which exists in this country, and without which representative institutions could never be effectively worked. Further than that, the attention of the Legislature of Canada is now devoted to the passing of useful laws of every kind; and the noble Earl has referred to one consequence, as I believe, of our recent policy—the material prosperity of Canada within the last few years, the increase of which has been so great as to eclipse that of the United States. I agree with him in that; but the noble Earl may maintain that this prosperity was caused in spite of the legislation we had of late years adopted; but I contend that it is the result of that legislation, and therefore I call on the House to persevere in the same course. I am really ashamed to have trespassed upon your Lordships' attention so long. I have endeavoured on the present occasion not to deal with those explanations which I gave your Lordships on a previous stage of the Bill. I have rather sought to meet, however feebly, the objections raised by the noble Earl both to the general principle of an elective Upper Chamber, and specifically to the granting it to the colony of Canada; and I now entreat your Lordships not to agree to the Amendment of the noble Earl, whether it be intended as a final rejection of this measure, or whether

863
it be intended to give a locus penitentiœ to the Colony. For the latter purpose it is not required; and as regards the former, I am confident that it will be looked upon in Canada as a retrograde step on the part of your Lordships in legislating for that Colony. I am satisfied, if your Lordships pass this measure, that it will not be abused in the way which the noble Earl appears to apprehend; but, on the contrary, that it will form an additional link—if an additional link be wanting—in that chain of connection which, I believe, indissolubly binds that important and magnificent Colony to the parent State of England.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that this was one of the greatest questions that could come before the House in relation to colonial Government, for the noble Duke had explicitly admitted that if this principle was carried on behalf of Canada, a similar one must be applied to every other British colony. He (Lord St. Leonards) wished their Lordships to bear in mind that their vote on this occasion would decide the question whether every colony of Great Britain was or was not to be governed simply by an elective Assembly, uncontrolled by the Crown—for that was in reality the effect of the proposition—a form of Government by which no country had ever yet been governed with any good effect; or, in other words, whether the existing ties were to be severed between the mother-country and the colonies at large. It was alleged by those that supported this Bill that it was merely a permissive measure, and that of itself it would not have the effect which was apprehended by those who opposed it. But Her Majesty's Government knew that the act apprehended on this side of the House would be done by the Canadian Legislature, under the provisions of this Bill, just as much as if the Bill contemplated the doing it at once. Why had the Government, then, not had the manliness to do the thing at once? The noble Duke said he did not ask the House to pass the Bill which had been sent from Canada, but to pass a Bill which he had himself brought in. What was that Bill? Why a Bill to enable the Assembly of Canada to do the very which he himself declined to call upon their Lordships' House to undertake the responsibility of accomplishing. The noble Duke had in the course of his speech taunted his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) with having begun life as a Li-
864
beral and ending in becoming a Conservative. But the noble Duke might have remembered that he himself had also undergone political conversion, but with this disadvantage, that, beginning life as a Conservative, he had degenerated into a Liberal. The noble Duke had also taken great credit on the score that the measures for the emancipation of the colonies had proceeded step by step; but he would remind the noble Duke that hitherto the Government of this country had resisted the principle of an elective Upper Chamber. The present Government, however, were giving all the assistance in their power to the simple principle of election to the government of the country, without any interference on the part of the Crown whatever. They had only recently granted a constitution to New Zealand, and in that they had taken great care to have, as far as they could, two distinct effective Chambers — one being a Legislative Council, and the other an elective Assembly. That was by an Act passed in 1852; and they must, the moment this Bill passed, repeal that Act of Parliament, and give to New Zealand a new constitution, similar to that which would be the result of passing the measure now under consideration in respect to Canada. He was much surprised to hear the noble Duke quote the opinions of the late Earl of Durham in support of the principle of this Bill. He (Lord St. Leonards) contended that the feeling of the Earl of Durham was as clear as it could be expressed in language, that there ought to be a check on the elective Chamber. He (Lord St. Leonards) would ask, where was the check to be found in this case? Was it not the opinion of the world at large that a more elective Assembly, without any check, was a democracy in every sense of the word, and in which it was almost impossible for any government to be carried on? Supposing the Council and the Assembly to agree together, and supposing their views were opposed to those of the Crown, then the Crown might dissolve the Assembly, but could not dissolve the Council, which would remain independent of it and do all the mischief it could. The Crown, however, would be compelled to dissolve the Council whenever that body ran adverse to the Assembly. If the two bodies agreed, the Council would be able to defy the Crown; if they disagreed, the Council would be absolutely powerless, and the whole power

865
would be centred in the Assembly. Let their Lordships mark what would be the effect of such legislation—the result would be that there would be a more semblance of a colony in Canada. There was another point worthy of attention. When the Clergy Reserves Bill passed they had a Legislative Council; but they were now, by this Bill, taking away the only check that existed against aggression,—theywere removing every obstacle, and leaving the clergy reserves to the entire control of the people at large, without any limitation whatever. The noble Duke, not satisfied with the proposition which had been sent to him from Canada, proposed to repeal those parts of the 3rd and 4th Victoria relating to the rights of the Crown in matters ecclesiastical, and of his motion removed all the checks that were possessed under the Act of Parliament by the Crown against any violent act of spoliation. Under all these circumstances, and for these reasons, he should see it his duty to vote with his noble Friend against the present measure.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he entertained the strongest opinion that, if they wished to have a conservative measure, whether as regarded the connection between the Colony and the mother-country, or its own internal good government, it was absolutely essential that the Council should not be merely nominated by the Crown, but elected by the people. He regarded it, however, as a defect in the measure that, in coming to a conclusion on the most important of all questions that could be discussed in the Colony—namely, the form of its constitution—the decision was left entirely in the hands of the popular body itself, as now constituted. This was a question that affected not simply the monarchical feeling and monarchical character of the Government, but it was more than that; and further than that, it concerned the good government of Canada in all time to come, whether as monarchical or as democratic—whether as connected with this country, or unfortunately separated from it—that they should give them a wise and good system of government. He, therefore, thought that the Imperial Parliament ought to take this question into their own hands; and then, having deliberated upon what appeared to them to be best for the Colony —taking into account, at the same time the wishes of the colonists—to pass such a measure as would, to the best of their judgment, secure the future good govern-
866
went of the Colony. Having done so, let them leave to the body so constituted the absolute control of the future of the country. Surely, before they entrusted to them the important and irrevocable step of framing their own constitution, they ought to give them the best means of coming to a conclusion on the matter. But the Government's own act implied the conviction that the Legislative Council was not fitted to deal with this matter. There would be no inconvenience in that course. It was the course which was adopted with regard to the other colony, the Cape of Good Hope, which had already been referred to in the debate. These were the grounds on which he could not approve of the present Bill: at the same time, he wished to explain that he had no objection to an elective Council. He believed that a merely nominal body would never be in a position to exercise the important functions which were required of a second Chamber. They were said, indeed, to be nominated by the Crown, but, in point of fact, they were nominated by one Minister after another to serve the purposes of successive parties. They did not seriously represent either property, station, or character. They had no one element of strength except the parchment in right of which they took their seats; they had no hold upon the affections of the country. But an elective Council, rightly constituted, would undoubtedly give a conservative element to the Colony, and secure its future good government, whether it remained in connection with the mother-country, or declared its independence. But, for that reason, he thought the constitution of an elective Council ought not to be left to the Colony itself. It was upon these grounds that he must reluctantly vote for the postponement of the measure.
THE EARL OF DERBY, in reply, said, the noble Duke had referred to the measure which was introduced when he (the Earl of Derby) was in office for the government of the Cape, and observed that he then seemed to have no objection, such as he now urged, to an elective Council; but the noble Duke appeared not to recollect the proceedings that took place on that occasion. He must remind him that the noble Earl who was at the head of the Colonial Department took the unusual step of referring the Cape ordinances to the consideration of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who recommended the substitution of an elective for a nominee Council; and that a draught Order in

867
Council was sent out to the Cape, founded on the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which decision had been adopted and sanctioned by the Government. At the time he the (Earl of Derby) succeeded to office, he found that the draught Order, to which he had just referred, had been laid before Parliament, and in the discussions which took place in that House, he stated that, though it was in the power of the Crown to withhold its consent to the colonial constitution, yet, that after having offered free institutions to the Colony, it was not in the power of the Crown to withdraw the concessions so made. Whatever might have been his private opinion as to the principle of an elective council, he would have thought it a breach of faith to withdraw a concession that had been made by the Crown on the advice of the preceding Government, and which was based on the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Then, as to the course which the Government subsequently took, he consulted with his right hon. Friend then at the head of the Colonial Office; and he concurred with him in the opinion that it was desirable, till a state of peace arrived, that no further steps should be taken to carry into effect the intentions of the Government. That state of peace did not occur during the time he was in office, and the matter was suspended during the whole period of the war. With regard to the Bill now before the House, he wished just to say that several of the clauses were not in accordance with the title of the Bill. He had stated his opinion as to the propriety of not proceeding with this measure. If the Government should, however, proceed with it, he (the Earl of Derby) should take no part in the responsibility of passing the measure, as he should consider that he had done his duty in moving the postponement of the Bill, and should not give the Government any further trouble as to its details.
On Question, that "now" stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided:—Content 63; Not Content 39: Majority 24.

List of the CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

EARLS.

DUKES.

Aberdeen

Argyll

Airlie

Newcastle

Albemarle

Wellington

Bessborough

MARQUESSES.

Clarendon

Ducie

Breadalbane

Ellesmore

Clanricarde

Fingall

Lansdowne

Granville

868

Haddington

Byron

Harewood

Camoys

Ilchester

Cremorne

Portsmouth.

Congleton

Somers

Dufferin

Spencer

Enfield

Suffolk

Foley

VISCOUNTS.

Godolphin

Canning

Hatherton

Falkland

Kinnaird

Sydney

Leigh

Torrington

Monteagle

BISHOPS.

Mostyn

Cork

Overstone

Down

Panmure

Llandaff

Petre

Oxford

Rivers

Ripon

Say and Sole

Salisbury

Stafford

St. Asaph

Stanley of Alderley

St. David's

Suffolk

BARONS.

Teynham

Auckland

Wrottesley

Beaumont

Wodehouse

Belhaven

List of the NOT CONTENTS.

MARQUESSES.

Mornington

Bath

Nelson

Drogheda

Pomfret

Exeter

Powis

Salisbury

Roden

EARLS.

VISCOUNT.

Beauchamp

Hawarden

Bradford

BARONS.

Cadogan

Bateman

Clancarty

Berners

Caledon

Clarina

Dartmouth

Colville of Culross

Derby

Crofton

Desart

Downes

Eglinton

Dunsandle

Glengall

Dynevor

Hardwicke

Feversham

Harrowby

Plunkett

Lonsdale

Redesdale

Longford

Rayleigh

Mayo

St. Leonards

Malmesbury

Resolved in the Affirmative: House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment; an Amendment made; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
House adjourned till To-morrow.