Sitting of 24 June 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3°Nawab of Surat Treaty; Sardinian Loan.

NAWAB OF SURAT TREATY BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
SIR FITZROY KELLY, in moving the third reading of the Bill, said, that after the unanswerable speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell), in the debate on Wednesday last, no doubt could be entertained that the East India Company had bound themselves to pay an annuity to the Nawab of Surat and his heirs. The merits of the Bill were now fully before the House, and

1899
he thought no one could doubt that the Company were bound to pay the annuity to the heirs general of the Nawab, and that the present claimants were entitled to receive it. He had reason, after communicating with the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Control (Mr. V. Smith) to believe that the East India Company were now the only parties who opposed the rights of the heirs of the Nawab, and the passing of the present Bill.
SIR JAMES HOGGsaid, he rose to move that the Bill should be read a third time that day three months. He could only say that if the Government had come to the conclusion which the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for East Suffolk, had intimated, they ought to be ashamed of themselves, for every Government for the last ten years had insisted upon a totally different view. Lord Ellenborough, Lord Hardinge, Lord Ripon, Lord Broughton, and the right hon. Baronet the present First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir C. Wood), had all held that this claim had no foundation, either in law or equity; and that if the claim was now conceded the effect would he to withhold the provision now made to those members of the late Nawab's family, whose rights as heirs general had been judicially declared. He had on previous occasions contended, and was prepared to contend again, that under the treaty these parties had no right to the Nawabship, and that it was never contemplated that they should have a right. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) spoke of a compromise. He would tell the House what that compromise was, which, in his opinion, was—not to use a harsher term—most discreditable. It had been proposed that there should be given to the present claimant and the heirs general £15,000 a year for ever. The proposal of the Government was, that the present claimant should receive the £15,000 a year for his life, but that none of the collateral heirs were to participate in that arrangement. Both the Courts of Justice and the Legislature of India had declared that those collateral heirs were entitled, by the Mahomedan law, to the whole that had been assigned to them. He would ask the House what they would say if the East India Company, or if Her Majesty's Government, were to consent to rob those collateral heirs of their property? And yet the main point of the measure now before the House was to entirely ignore the rights of those collateral heirs. He
1900
knew that the House of Commons, like an individual, was apt to be acted upon by impulse, but if only time were given he knew that it always came right. The statement of his right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Card-well), the other evening, had its influence; and he was aware of the disadvantage of contending against the Report of that Committee. But there was no oral evidence before the Committee; there was nothing but written evidence, so that every hon. Member having those documents before him was as competent to form an opinion as to the meaning of the treaty as the five gentlemen of that Committee. The Committee were, no doubt, placed in a difficult position, by finding that they had referred to them a case which involved considerations of public interest. But the course they ought to have taken was to report those difficulties, and have left the matter to the House. They, however, very unfortunately, as he thought, proceeded to discuss and decide the case. They had given an opinion with respect to the construction of the treaty of 1800, which the Government of India had not asked them to do. It was assuredly going beyond the constitution to call upon the House of Commons to construe treaties. Upon the Report of that Committee, however, the present Bill came before the House. The House had been told that terms of compromise had been placed before the Court of Directors; but the Court of Directors would have nothing to do with it, because it was grossly unjust to absent parties. It was true he had given his support to the second reading of the Bill, for which he was now very sorry; but be had been coerced into doing so by the Government expressing a wish to support the second reading in Order that the matter might be afterwards in some other form arranged. He had been deceived, and he never would depend again upon anything so slippery as the support of Government. Lord Wellesley had been accused of being guilty of fraud and force in obtaining possession of Surat. The papers relating to that transaction were laid before the House of Commons in 1806, on the motion of Mr. Paul, who was the man who arraigned Lord Wellesley, and if the conduct of Lord Wellesley could then have been successfully assailed for the part he had taken with regard to the treaty of 1800, Mr. Paul would have been most ready, if he could, to convict Lord Wellesley. No proceed-

1901
ings, however, were taken in that House against Lord Wellesley in 1806, when the transaction was recent; and surely it was not for men fifty years after to come forward and assail that nobleman. Then, with respect to the treaty itself—between whom was that treaty made? It was a treaty between the East India Company and the Nawab of Surat—between two political powers for political purposes; and no one could contend that the word "heirs" in such a treaty referred to collateral heirs, and not to the persons who should succeed to the throne. Where there was a treaty between two Sovereign Powers in which the word "heirs" occurred, it must be construed to be a treaty between those who succeeded to the sovereign authority:—the word could never be construed to mean collateral heirs. What he contended for was, that this was a treaty between two political Powers, in which the one Power agreed to give £15,000 a year to the other Power to support and maintain him in his title and dignity; the person, therefore, who took the one must take the other, so dignity and the stipend went together; and when the dignity lapsed the stipend lapsed also, as a matter of course. He felt that he had trespassed upon the House too long; but, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think there is my excuse (pointing to the President of the Board of Control, who sat alone on the Treasury Bench)—"the last rose of summer." Every liberality had been shown to the family of the Nawab. Meer Jaffier Ali Khan, who originally received only £1,200 a year, had had that stipend increased by order of the Court of Directors to £2,400 a year; and the aggregate allowance to him and the family of the Nawab was 84,600 rupees a year. In the part he had taken in the debates on the subject, he felt that he had only done his duty, and from a conscientious conviction that the whole of the proceedings of the Governors General of India, of successive Boards of Control, and of the Court of Directors in the matter, had been sound and just.
Amendment proposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he certainly had not any feeling of shame for the part he had taken in endeavouring to bring this question to a close. It appeared to him that the arrangement he had proposed
1902
was one dictated by a desire to do justice to all parties. His hon. Friend had told the House that he had rested upon the slippery support of Government; but the greater part of the embarrassment which he (Mr. V. Smith) had felt had certainly arisen from his having rested upon the slippery support of the Court of Directors. Now his hon. Friend was very much in the habit of assuming that the East India Direction was himself, and that House was in the habit of attending to him as if he spoke on behalf of the whole Court. He (Mr. V. Smith) in his position had no means of communication with the Court of Directors, except by correspondence with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, and he could state that in every step he had taken those gentlemen completely agreed. When the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J. Hogg) taunted him with receding from the course taken by preceding Governments, did the hon. Gentleman mean to say that, when these questions were submitted to his judgment, he was not at liberty to form his own opinion upon them? In that case all discussion and deliberation would be futile. But he utterly repudiated the doctrine. The hon. Gentleman had spoken disdainfully of compromises, but the question now under consideration had been from the earliest time nothing but one of compromise by the Indian Government; and as a question of compromise he had seen no reason why it should not still be treated. But, after all, the whole subject lay in a small compass. The only point they had to consider was, whether it ought to be treated as a legal or as a political question. Now, he had always contended that it ought to be treated as a political question; and, therefore, it was that he dissented from the Gentlemen who sat upon the Committee, because they had looked upon the treaty as a legal question only. With regard to the rights of the parties, his opinion was that, although he did not think the Indian Government were legally bound to pay the stipend to the collateral heirs of the Nawab of Surat, yet he thought they ought to deal with his heirs and descendants in a spirit of the utmost liberality, which he certainly did not think they had done on the present occasion; and he in a former debate stated that, as far as he was concerned, he was willing to extend the bounty of the Indian Government to the full amount of £15,000 a year. As to the matter of compromise, he certainly did feel so strongly against

1903
the Bill being treated as a Private Bill, that he said, if the Bill could be withdrawn and the thing settled out of doors, it would be by far the better course; and that with the sanction of the Court of Directors that was what he was prepared to do. Having always endeavoured to carry on the Government of India in concurrence with the Court of Directors, he sent to the Chairman of that Court the terms of compromise which he was prepared to adopt; but the Court of Directors objected to the proposition. That proposed compromise was, in his view, nothing but an extension of a previous compromise. If the Court of Directors had been anxious to come to some decision upon the question they would have fairly stated it; but their rejection of his proposal was so complete that he had nothing to do but to consider the case as it stood. The hon. Member for Honiton said, on a former occasion, that the Government ought to settle the matter by sending out a despatch to India. There was no doubt the President of the Board of Control had the power to enjoin the Court of Directors to send out a despatch, but there was one subject which ought to be carefully guarded against, and that was the subject of money. He was not prepared to say that even upon that subject, if the President of the Board of Control was desirous of exercising his power, he could not do so; but he should be very unwilling to attempt to exercise that power unless it was perfectly clear that it was his undoubted right. As to its being the duty of the Government to oppose the Bill, he thought it would be a most hopeless attempt on the part of the Government; neither was he prepared to say, after a large majority of that House had supported it, that the Bill should be stopped and not proceed any further. It would go up to another assembly on whose judgment the hon. Gentleman could perhaps be more inclined to rely than on the judgment of the House of Commons. There the question might be re-argued. Upon the whole matter he could only say, on the part of the Government, that he had acted with the utmost frankness, his only desire being that the parties making this claim should be dealt with in a spirit of the utmost generosity, and he thought that the best course for him to adopt was to leave the matter with the House and suffer the Bill to pass without opposition.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, as a Member of the Committee, he fully concurred in the state-
1904
ment made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of that Committee (Mr. Cardwell). Much which the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hogg) had addressed to the House had nothing whatever to do with the question that was really before the House. What the House had to do was, to consider the construction to be put upon the treaty; and considering the representations made by Governor Duncan, upon the faith of which the treaty was signed; looking at his diary, and at the despatch of Lord Wellesley, it was impossible that any one could doubt, if this were a question between A and B, that the construction which the Committee had put upon the treaty was a correct one. It was idle to talk of the construction being different, because the situation of the parties might be different; the construction must be the same, whatever might be the position of the parties.
MR. LOWEsaid, he would offer no opinion on the question that had arisen between Meer Jaffier Ali Khan and the East India Company, but there was another question of great consequence to those concerned in it, and one which involved the reputation of British justice. The case was this—the Nawab died possessed of a considerable amount of personal property, which was taken possession of by the East India Company, and by an Act of the Legislative Council (whether wisely or not it was not his business at that time to argue), the Government of Bombay made a distribution of that estate, and the distribution so made was as final and conclusive, as a decision of the House of Lords would be in this country. The Government of Bombay gave half the property to the present claimant, Meer Jaffier Ali Khan, and distributed the other half among the widow and collateral relatives of the Nawab. The money, however, had not been paid to those parties, and the Committee now, by this Bill, re-opened the question, after those persons had acquired indefeasible rights, to let in Meer Jaffier Ali Khan—represented by able counsel—to appeal, and set up a claim before the Privy Council to the other half. He did not think it would be to the credit of that House if they were to take away the allowance from those poor and unfriended relatives of the Nawab.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the manner in which the East India Company had carried out the treaty which they had concluded with the late Nawab of

1905
Surat was a violation of all justice; for they had passed a measure which gave to their own servants the absolute right to decide on the extent of their obligations under the treaty, or of the manner in which the provision made under it should be distributed. All that the Bill now before them called upon the House to determine was simply whether the East India Company should fulfil their obligations, and whether there should be an independent tribunal having the power to enforce upon the East India Company the performance of those obligations. If any party had obtained a vested interest under any judgment, his rights would not be disturbed. All that the Bill proposed to do was for providing a means for ascertaining and enforcing the rights of claimants under the treaty with the late Nawab of Surat.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that the argument of the hon. and learned Solicitor General was a denial of legislative powers to the Indian Government. He (Sir H.Willoughby) thought that an agreement would be come to on this claim if the third reading of the Bill were postponed. He was very much opposed to haste in a matter of this kind, which involved very grave consequences. Let them not imagine that this was an isolated case. It was not, and in dealing with it the House should deal with general principles. His belief was, that if the third reading of the Bill were postponed, an agreement on the matter could be come to before the expiration of twenty-four hours.
MR. MANGLESsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) had entirely misinterpreted the Act of the Indian Legislature in stating that it gave the East India Company, by their own servants, the power to decide on their own duties under the treaty. That Act referred alone to the distribution of the private property of the late Nawab, in which the East India Company had no interest. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman (the President of the Board of Control) had gone further than he was authorised by the Court of Directors in proposing the compromise which he had submitted to the House.
Question put—"That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 213; Noes 28: Majority 185.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 3°, and passed.
The House at Four o'clock adjourned till Six.
The House resumed at Six o'clock, when Mr. WILKINSON presented a petition signed by 177 registered and qualified electors of West Kent, complaining of the conduct of Mr. Ogle, the revising barrister, for not allowing costs in cases of frivolous objections, and praying for an alteration of the law.
Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at ten minutes after Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Sardinian Loan; Seamen's Savings Banks.
2a Sleeping Statutes; Oath of Abjuration Amendment.
3a West India Loans.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) (on Re-commitment).
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he did not mean to offer any Amendment on this Bill, although, as to the Limited Liability Bill, he confessed he had his misgivings as to the adoption of that principle. He did not, however, agree in all the objections urged against the measure by his noble Friend

1891
behind him (Lord Overstone); nor was he, on the other hand, so sanguine as to suppose that this measure would give rise to a new California. He was disposed to think that the anticipations of those who supported the Bill would be disappointed. He hoped that not serious mischief would arise from it, but he certainly did not expect any considerable benefit from it.
LORD OVERSTONErepeated his leading objections to these measures of the Government, but was almost inaudible. He said, that he thought the Government had incurred a serious responsibility in thus disturbing the relations that had hitherto existed between debtor and creditor; and, commenting on the exception of banking and insurance companies from the operation of the Bill, asked the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade how he understood this Bill proposed to deal with companies associated together for these purposes? The Government, by this measure, were about to draw what he believed to be an unjust distinction between banking and the general commercial transactions of the country. He was desirous of knowing what class of companies was to be endowed with the privileges of limited liability, and what class of companies was to be exempted from the advantages of the new system?
LORD STANLEY Of ALDERLEYsaid, he was prepared to admit that the exemption of banking and assurance companies was somewhat opposed to the principle of the Bill. But those companies were excepted from the Joint-stock Companies' Act; and, although this Bill proposed to amend that Act, it was not proposed to make any alteration in this particular. He thought that there were many reasons why banking companies should be excepted, for they were subject to peculiar regulations. Up to this moment no difficulty had been experienced by the absence of a definition as to what constituted a banking company, and he saw no reason to apprehend why greater difficulty should now he experienced in courts of law in making this definition.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, the real question was this, whether there was any practical difference introduced in the relative position of banking companies in the present Bill from the previous state of the law? If there were such difference, it furnished an additional motive for caution on this subject. At the present moment there was an advertisement in the public papers, setting forth the operations of a
1892
future company with the view of claiming the advantages of the law of limited liability, and to all intents and purposes those were banking operations.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, any objection of the kind came inappropriately from the noble Lord, because he had succeeded, in the present Session, in carrying a Bill legalising the practice of crossed cheques. It was very well known that the law, as it at present stood, would not permit more than six persons to establish a banking concern, except they were incorporated. As to the definition of a banking company, there was always a difficulty in making definitions when you came to the extreme line; and if they were to wait for a clear definition before they legislated, they would soon come to a dead lock.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,referring to an observation of Lord Overstone, on his (the Duke of Argyll's) speech on a previous discussion of this Bill, denied that the arguments he had then advanced had been brought forward in a spirit of levity. Those arguments were, he contended, strictly logical, and he was ready to repeat them. The noble Lord had frequently admitted that there was no reason whatever why an individual should not bargain as to the degree of liability which he would incur in any matter of business; and the whole question now was, whether you should enable persons to make that bargain more easily than they did before. On the other hand, however, the noble Lord declared that persons should be liable "to the utmost extent" for all their liabilities. Now, he (the Duke of Argyll) admitted that persons must be responsible to the extent to which they bargained to be responsible; but beyond that he did not think the Government had any right to bind them.
On Clause 18,
LORD OVERSTONE(who was almost inaudible) again protested against the course adopted by the Government; and urged that it was not right that the Legislature should refuse to impose any safeguards upon Joint-stock Companies, but leave every man to the exercise of his own discretion. The noble Lord having read Lord Ashburton's description of the panic of 1825, contended that similar results might be anticipated if the House persisted in sanctioning this measure; and warned their Lordships that when the crisis arrived—as it might do even in a more exaggerated form than then—it was not the imprudent, the rash, and the foolish only who would

1893
suffer; but that the innocent, and even the careful would be necessarily drawn into a vortex from which they could not escape.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the account which the noble Lord had read of the occurrences of 1825 was truly descriptive of the evils of excessive speculation; but he begged to remind their Lordships that all those evils existed under the present law; and it proved that the paternal system of legislation which the noble Lord recommended was not the wisest that could be adopted; but that, instead of treating the whole public as children who could not take care of themselves, it was better to leave these matters to the judgment of the public, who would then act like grown-up, sensible men, and would not be deluded by the false security supposed to be imposed by a number of fallacious restrictions which did no good, but, as he believed, encouraged and created the frauds which they were supposed to prevent. The principle of limited liability was no new one; it had been conceded already by three successive Parliaments, and he called upon their Lordships now to make the proposed attempt, and not to be deterred by descriptions of results which had accrued from rash and desperate speculation.
Clause agreed to.
Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.

FACTORIES BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
On Clause 4,
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY,remarking that the words of the clause were doubtful, asked whether it was intended to continue to males above eighteen years of age the same protection which they enjoyed under the existing Act? The present clause appeared to limit the protection to females and young children. Now, he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) thought that no class was more exposed to injury from mill-gearing than this class of half grownup lads. He thought that the vague and indefinite manner in which horizontal machinery was mentioned would lead to confusion and dispute. It would be far better to introduce words to the effect that all such machinery should be not less than seven feet from the floor.
THE EARL OF DERBYobserved, that the Bill did not touch machinery at all. Its sole object was to place mill-gearing
1894
on the same footing as machinery. In many of the older factories a large portion of the horizontal machinery was at a less height than seven feet from the floor, and yet it was perfectly secure. He did not think, therefore, that there was any necessity for enacting that such machinery should in all cases be seven feet from the floor; and he might remind their Lordships that the words in the Bill relating to horizontal shafting were introduced after mature deliberation, and with the sanction and approval of the Home Secretary. The Bill would not deprive male adults of any real protection which they enjoyed under the present Act. The effect of the Bill as a whole was, that it relieved the manufacturer from fencing that portion of his gearing which young persons were not liable to approach, and which the inspector had not declared to be dangerous; while, on the other hand, it extended to mill-gearing the penalties for non-compliance with the Act which now applied to machinery only. It also gave to workmen the liberty of bringing an action for any accident caused by the gearing or machinery, and it provided that penalties might be inflicted for non-compliance with the Act, whether an accident occurred or not. The terms of the clause had been arranged between the manufacturers and the Secretary of State; and therefore it would not be altered by their Lordships.
Bill reported, without Amendment, and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.

POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Further Amendments made.
THE EARL OF POWIS THE EARL OF POWIS moved the insertion of a clause giving to the magistrates increased powers with respect to the appointment and suspension of police constables.
LORD WROTTESLEYexpressed himself in favour of such a clause.
LORD PANMUREopposed the Motion, and said, that the Government could have no objection whatever to a committee of the magistracy meeting to inquire into and report upon the finance and other matters relative to the police force of counties and boroughs, and transmitting the result of their labours to the Secretary of State. But he thought it would be a course attended with great inconvenience if the

1895
magistrates were permitted to exercise constant control and superisvion over the force.
After a few words from Lord BERNERS,
Amendment negatived.
Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.

SLEEPING STATUTES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL FORTESCUE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, observed that the statutes with which it proposed to deal were 120 in number, extending over a period of about 500 years—from 13 Edw. I. to the 17 Geo. III. A cursory view of the titles of those statutes would, he was sure, satisfy their Lordships that they ought not at this time to form part of the law of England. Those statutes had been condemned by the Statute Law Commission, and this Bill had, he believed, passed the other House without a word of dissent from any quarter. There was this danger attending these obsolete laws, that, although they might be permitted for a long time to slumber, they could at any period be called into pernicious activity. On these grounds he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
Moved—That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD CAMPBELLgave his hearty concurrence to the measure, observing that while the common law held a statute, no matter how old or disused, to be in use unless repealed by the same power that called it into existence, the civil law held that any law that had fallen into desuetude lost all force and became extinct. This Bill would help to purge the Statute-book from a mass of excrescent legislation, and the noble Lord was entitled to the thanks of the public for introducing it.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that a noble Lord having asked him whether he intended to propose that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, he had replied in the negative; and for this reason, that the measure had already undergone the full consideration of the Statute Law Commissioners, in order that it might have been introduced with several other Bills which they had in preparation, and which would, he hoped, be ready to be laid on the table before the end of the Session. The object of the Commissioners had been to discover all those effete enactments which were a disgrace to our Statute-book, with a view to their repeal;
1896
but it was necessary to include within the same category not merely entire statutes that were practically obsolete, but all the parts of statutes of the same character. This task was, however, found to be so great that it was deemed better not to delay the introduction of the present measure until it had been completely achieved. Such a postponement would have made this a "sleeping Bill;" and it had, therefore, been thought inexpedient. The measure had his entire concurrence; and, under the circumstances which he had described, he believed that to send it to a Select Committee would be a sheer waste of valuable time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, while he abstained from opposing the Bill after the explanation just given, was understood to protest against the passing of laws of the highest importance without the House being furnished with the documents and evidence on which they were based.
LORD MONTEAGLEsupported the measure; adding, that he hoped the Irish statutes, in similar cases, would undergo a similar deletion.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

THE OATH OF ABJURATION AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DERBY, in moving the second reading of this Bill said, that at that hour, and in that state of the House, he would not enter into any detailed statement. He did not, indeed, expect any opposition to the object he had in view; for, although the object which it was designed to effect would have been attained by a measure which was under consideration on the preceding evening, their Lordships had rejected that measure because it contained another proposal of which they had repeatedly expressed their disapproval. The present Bill, strictly limited as it was to the Amendment of the statute imposing the oath of abjuration, was not liable to any such objection, and deserved to be received with favour. Although some time ago he had come across a book in which it was stated that certain descendants of the Pretender were still alive and had been recently visiting their dominions in Scotland, he had no apprehension that those persons

1897
would presume to put forward any claim to the Crown of these realms. They were beings who had no other than a visionary existence. It was matter of notoriety that all the legitimate descendants of the Pretender were now defunct; and, this being so, to abjure them was a mockery. The oath being no longer necessary, it was desirable that it should be got rid of as soon as possible, and the more so, as many of their Lordships conscientiously objected to it, on the ground that it was not only superfluous but blasphemous.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he should not object to the second reading of the Bill, and offered his assistance to the noble Lord in making certain alterations necessary to its perfection. There could be no doubt that for a long time this oath had been a disgrace to the Statute-book, and he had been a painful sufferer in having to administer it, and even Judges had been affected by it. The Act required that the oath should be repeated aloud; and in the appointment last year of an eminent Judge to the bench (Mr. Justice Willes), on his being sworn in, when he came to the words in the abjuration oath requiring his abjuration of the descendants of the Pretender, that learned personage stopped short, and on his admonishing him, as in duty bound, he replied that he was abjuring the descendants of the Pretender in his heart; but the learned Judge was obliged to repeat the words audibly, or he would not have properly taken the oath, and would not legally have been able to exercise the functions of a Judge. He (Lord Campbell) desired to see this oath abolished, believing no oath was necessary beyond the oath of allegiance; but the Bill of the noble Earl in its present state was so botched an affair as had never before been sent down by that to the other House of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord criticised the construction of the Bill, and said it would be far better to enact the oath in the precise form in which it was to be taken, than to enact that certain words should be added to, and certain words omitted from the existing oath. Unless that was done, much inconvenience might arise on administering it. The House of Commons would be more inclined to entertain the question in that form than in the form prescribed in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEthought that, considering sthe circumstances of the moment at which this Bill was in-
1898
introduced, and the result of the debate of the previous evening, it would place that House in most offensive antagonism with the other House of Parliament. Unless the measure were materially altered in Committee, he should at some future stage move its rejection.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWopposed the Bill; but, he said, on different grounds from those taken by the two noble Lords who had just spoken.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that he had been induced to put his Bill in its present shape, by a desire to avoid a conflict with the other House of Parliament. Had he adopted the course recommended by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell) the words "on the true faith of a Christian" would, in all probability, not have been re-enacted by the House of Commons, and the Bill would have been lost. The course which he had taken would effect the abrogation of an unnecessary and, therefore, improper oath without calling attention to those special words with which their Lordships were not disposed to part; and he hoped that the House of Commons would not seek an unnecessary conflict, by rejecting a Bill which effected an object which all desired, because it did not make other changes upon which there was a difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a, accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.
House adjourned to Thursday next.