Sitting of 3 August 1857

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OATHS TAKEN BY MEMBERS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MINUTES.
A CONFERENCE.—Conference with the Commons. Galway Town Election.—Address to Her Majesty.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Militia; County Court Judges (Falconer and Yates's Salaries); Reformatory Schools (Scotland).
2a Land Tax Commissioners' Names.
3a Boundaries of Land (Ireland).

GALWAY TOWN ELECTION.

  ADDRESS.—CONFERENCE.
  Conference had, at the desire of the Commons, upon the subject matter of an Address to be presented to Her Majesty, under the provisions of the Act 15 & 16 Vict., cap. 57; and Report made that the Commons had agreed to an Address [which was offered], to be presented to Her Majesty, to which they desire the concurrence of their Lordships.
  Afterwards, message to the Commons for minutes of evidence taken before the
  896
  Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Galway Town Election Petition, together with the proceedings of the Committee.

MILITIA BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED.—FIRST READING.
  LORD PANMURE: My Lords, I rise to present a Bill to enable Her Majesty's Government to embody the militia between this and the 25th of March, without calling Parliament together on that embodiment taking place. It would not have been necessary to bring forward such a measure if it had not been that the law requires that on the occasion of the embodiment of the militia Parliament, if not sitting, should be summoned to meet within a period of fourteen days. In the present state of affairs it does not appear to Her Majesty's Government that it would be desirable to compel Parliament to meet during the time of the usual recess. They have it always in their power to call Parliament together if the necessity for such a measure should arise; and if it were proposed to embody the militia in consequence of a war with a foreign country, it would be absolutely necessary that they should appeal to Parliament upon the subject. An impression seems to prevail that the Government require a special power to enable them to embody the militia; but they require no such power provided they are prepared to meet Parliament within a certain time after the embodiment has taken place. I shall now proceed to state the circumstances under which Her Majesty's Government introduces this Bill. Your Lordships are well aware that previously to the year 1854 the militia of this country could only be embodied in the expectation of an insurrection or of a foreign invasion of this country. But in the year 1854 Parliament passed a Bill enabling the Government to embody the militia in the event of a war with a foreign country. Neither of those exigencies exists at the present moment; but a state of things does exist in our Eastern possessions which causes as great a drain on the Queen's forces in this country as if we were at this time carrying on a foreign war. Under these circumstances it has become necessary to supply the vacuum created here by the demand which has arisen in India for regiments of the line. In order to meet that drain Her Majesty's Government have determined, in the first place, to raise ten

  897
  new battalions, to supply the place of those which have already left our shores, and to increase the battalions of regiments at home from 840 rank and file to 1000 rank and file, and the battalions in India from 1000 to 1200 rank and file. All this can be done without going beyond the powers of the present Mutiny Act, or the Votes to which Parliament has already agreed. I dare say your Lordships are aware that the charge for the regiments going out to India falls on the Indian revenue, and not on the revenue of this country. But it will take time—and more especially at this season of the year—to raise these new battalions, and to collect these additional men; and during a period when the country must be, to a certain extent, drained of its troops, while garrison duty must be performed, and the national establishments must be maintained in the face of foreign nations, it may be necessary to call out and embody certain regiments of militia, from which, I am quite prepared to contend that it will be no exaggeration to state that we may expect the same good service which would be rendered by a similar number of regiments of the line. It is unnecessary for me to recall to your Lordships' recollection the services which the country has already received from various militia regiments at home and abroad; and I am quite certain that we might now embody militia regiments which would perform the garrison duty and other duties of the country quite as efficiently as the regiments of the line, and which would be perfectly prepared to take their place in case of any national emergency. I do not wish your Lordships should understand that it will as a matter of course be absolutely necessary that we should exercise the powers to be given by this Bill: but if we should think that necessity shall have arisen we shall be prepared to avail ourselves of those powers; and my noble Friend at the head of the Government has this night presented to the House of Commons an estimate for £200,000 to meet the expense that may be incurred in embodying any militia regiments between this time and the 25th of March next. With these observations I beg leave to introduce the Bill, to which I am sure your Lordships will have no hesitation in giving your assent.
  Bill to authorize the Embodying of the Militia presented.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I wish to say a very few words upon this occasion,
  898
  because I think that the Government have again exhibited that remarkable faculty of being a little late in their announcements with respect to warlike operations, which we on this side of the House have so frequently felt ourselves called upon to criticise. Precisely the same thing took place throughout the last war; they were always a little too late. Of course, we judge very much of the energy of the Government by the promptitude which they display in carrying out operations of magnitude and importance; and it will, no doubt, be remembered that immediately upon the arrival of the first disastrous news from India, we, who sit upon the Opposition side of the House recommended that the militia should be embodied, and that all the disposable troops at our command should be sent to India. But it was said, "Oh, no. This is a matter of small importance; we want nothing of the sort;" but it was a very remarkable fact that the very day after that occurrence I received a circular letter from the Secretary at War, stating that the militia would not be wanted for drill or exercise during the present year. I must say, then, that if we are to judge of your foresight and knowledge and power to wield the arms of this country, from what has already occurred we have a right to say that you are tardy in your operations, that you rejected altogether advice in the first instance which we were beforehand with you in recommending, and that you have been compelled to act at last, as you ought to have done at first, with an amount of vigour and energy which a crisis unparalleled in the history of the country appears to me to call for. I venture to make these remarks in vindication of what has been said upon this side of the House, and of the prompt and energetic measures which we, from the commencement, thought it to be our duty to urge upon you.
  EARL GRANVILLE: No doubt, my Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down has a perfect right to criticise the measures of the Government, and no doubt also it is much easier to criticise than to act. At the same time, I do not think that the Government are open in the slightest degree to the attack which has been made upon them by the noble Earl. The suggestion which was made on the other side of the House upon the receipt of the first news from India was that the militia should be immediately embodied; but I still adhere to the opinion that that would have

  899
  been bad advice to have adopted in the middle of the hay harvest, and of course before the beginning of the corn harvest. There would have been great difficulty experienced in embodying the militia at that time; it would have taken men away from most useful and profitable employments, and it would have given an unpopular character to the proceeding, which it was most desirable to avoid. The Government never stated that they would not embody the militia if they should consider the step necessary, but they reserved to themselves the power of judging of the importance of the news as it arrived, and of devising such measures from time to time as they might deem essential. I can see no disadvantage which has resulted from the delay which has taken place in proposing this measure, but I can see great advantage in having taken our own time to mature our plans instead of acting suddenly upon the advice of any noble Lord who jumps up on the spur of the moment, and who offers suggestions without having the responsibility of carrying them into execution.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My noble Friend does not complain that Her Majesty's Government did not follow any particular advice, by calling out the militia in the month of July. But what he stated—and what I think he was justified in stating—is, that Her Majesty's Government arrived very lately at a conclusion very different from that at which they had arrived a short time before, although there had in the meantime been no apparent change in the circumstances with which they had to deal. If I am not much mistaken, there was adopted at the end of June an Order in Council for the purpose of informing all Lords Lieutenants of Counties that the militia would not be called out in the course of the present year; and that Order, which was passed in June, was not made public until late in July, at which period circumstances had taken such a turn that it became manifest to nearly every person in the kingdom, except the Members of Her Majesty's Government, that there existed a great probability that a most urgent necessity would arise in the course of the year for calling out the militia. But now, at the last moment, the Government, after having given that public intimation to the Lords Lieutenant of Counties and to all other parties concerned, that their services would not be required in the course of the year, find themselves compelled to adopt
  900
  the course they had not before the energy or the prudence to pursue, by taking to themselves the power of embodying the militia during the present year; and it is only reasonable to suppose that the services of the force will be required during the year, as the Government themselves have this evening submitted to the House of Commons an estimate of the expense, which would be incurred by such a measure. I do not complain of the course they have taken; I only think that they should have seen somewhat sooner the necessity of adopting it, and that they have very suddenly changed their views upon the subject.
  LORD PANMURE: The noble Earl has altogether misapprehended the object of the present Bill. But let me observe, in the first place, that the Government have not changed any views which they ever had on the subject; and in the second place, that this Bill does not in the slightest degree counteract or interfere with the Order in Council to which he has referred. It was the opinion of the Government, and it is still their opinion, that those regiments of militia which were only disembodied last year were sufficiently well trained not to require additional training this year, and in consequence they dispensed with further training in the case of those regiments, but they propose to call out for training all regiments not embodied last year. The Bill which I have presented to the House this evening does not at all refer to the present time. It is simply intended to give power to the Government to do that when Parliament is not sitting which they have full power to do at this moment. It does not provide that they shall call out the militia; but, contemplating that the time may come when that may be necessary, it is to meet such an emergency, and to save the necessity of Parliament meeting again within a fortnight, if, after the prorogation, the militia were to be called out. It is merely to give to the Government the power of doing that after Parliament rises which they could do now that Parliament is sitting. I think that the Government might be permitted to take steps for enabling them to embody the militia when Parliament is not sitting, if they should see fit, without being exposed to the charge that all their measures are taken after the proper time.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I am quite aware that the object of the Bill is to

  901
  enable the Government to do that which a fortnight ago they stated that they had no intention of doing.
  LORD PANMURE: No; that is not so.
  Bill read 1a.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

  RETURN MOVED FOR.
  LORD BROUGHAM:* My Lords, In rising to move for the Returns connected with the Elective franchise, and the notice respecting which has announced my intention of entering upon the subject of our Parliamentary Constitution, I must set out with the admission that I am discharging what I deem to be a duty incumbent upon me at a considerable personal sacrifice; for the great honour of addressing your Lordships is purchased at the expense both of much fatigue in a sultry season, after a somewhat laborious though not very long Session, and of much correspondence during the vacation with able, well informed, but zealous advocates of further change, and others of equal merit, as conscientiously opposed to any alteration of the system established five and-twenty years ago. The share, however, which I had in that great measure imperatively calls for a statement of circumstances connected with it, which to many of your Lordships may not be known, by some may be forgotten, and which are suggestive of lessons and of warnings to guide the course of those who have undertaken to bring forward a plan next Session. The Government has announced this intention, and therefore a measure must be produced. They are to prepare it during the leisure of the recess; and therefore, entirely trusting the capacity and the honesty of my noble friends, I cannot doubt that they will apply themselves ably and conscientiously to the task, they have undertaken. Beside my two noble Friends now absent, Lord Ripon and Lord Glenelg, I alone in this House remain of the authors of the Act of 1832, except my noble Friend opposite who is a Member of the Government (Lord Lansdowne). Lord Ripon's health has prevented his attendance during the Session; but I had hoped to have the advantage of Lord Glenelg's presence, whose great talents, extraordinary accomplishments, and strict integrity would have made me most happy in appealing to him upon the present occasion. The reception your Lordships have given to this remark shows
  902
  that I do not give an exaggerated estimate of his merits; but I must add that I have had no opportunity of conferring with him upon the subject, any more than I have had with my noble Friends opposite. In approaching this important subject, I must begin with the observation that they are equally in error who expect no excitement as likely to prevail in the country upon the question of Reform, and they who expect that it will at all resemble the excitements of 1831. I well recollect when taunted at that time with the apathy which was supposed to have been shown at the General Election of the preceding autumn, I was asked if in my canvass of Yorkshire there had ever been the least allusion made to Reform. Slavery, it was said, had been constantly mentioned, and the late revolution at Paris, but of Reform not a word, although in Yorkshire, ever since the times of Sir George Saville and Mr. Wyvill, that was there a kind of local question. I felt bound to acknowledge that there was some foundation for this statement; as certainly little had been said of Reform, But how grievously mistaken were those who from thence concluded that the question was dead! No sooner had I given my notice of bringing it forward, which was on the very first night of the Session, than all Yorkshire, and soon afterwards all England, became so wrapt up in the subject, that nothing else for months was thought of. Now this was not owing to my notice, but mainly because, on the change of Government, the Ministers announced that they had taken up the subject, and were preparing their Bill. We must not, therefore, suppose that the subject will excite no interest now, merely because of late we have heard little about it. But it is said that the like announcement now will produce the same effect, and that the feeling in the country will soon be as great and as intense as it way in 1831. I gravely doubt it. The excitement at that crisis was owing to the demand for Reform occasioned by its long postponement; the pertinacious refusal to entertain the question; the Duke of Wellington's declaration, perhaps the only mistake he ever committed, that our parliamentary constitution was perfect, and had he to form a new system, he could only found it upon the same principles; the hopeless prospect thus held out of the great towns being excluded from all representation, of nomination, or, as they were termed, rotten boroughs, being maintained

  903
  in the existing number; of all the abuses incident to elections in other boroughs more corrupt far with the other evils of the system being continued, produced naturally enough the determination to prevent such glaring defects, such gross abuses being perpetuated. Grievances so enormous, so intolerable could no longer be endured, and the country was bent upon a large remedial measure. The case is entirely different now; and therefore, while I am far from asserting that Lord Palmerston's announcement will produce no effect in rousing a spirit of reform, I entirely deny that it can create anything like the feeling which prevailed in 1831, for the same grievances do no longer exist, thanks to the Bill of that year. That considerable defects may be justly imputed to it I am far from denying, as far as I am from admitting that it was a measure subversive of our institutions—what some able, eminent, and worthy friends of mine have called a revolutionary measure. Whatever imperfections may be found in some of its parts, my defence of it as a whole, I will not say the only defence, but one quite decisive for its acquittal, rests in a word—in a date, the 10th of April, 1848. Had not the Reform Bill passed, that day would assuredly not have passed over our heads in the peaceful, quiet, even tranquil manner, on which all men, whatever may be their opinions upon the merits of the measure, can look back with unmingled satisfaction. But if I differ with those who, in such exaggerated phrases, denounce it as perilous, I can still less agree with those who describe our plan as ineffectual to its purpose; a mock Reform, as some over zealous advocates of change have called all moderate Reforms, using, as Major Cartwright was wont to do, the words moderate and mock as synonymous terms. I have the most absolute certainty the number of such objectors was exceedingly limited, at least among the known and tried friends of Reform; I know that they, generally speaking, were more than satisfied with its extent. To mention names would be invidious; but I assert that some whose devotion to the question had been the longest and the most implicit, who held the highest rank among Parliamentary Reformers, and had the greatest authority with them, only questioned whether it did not go rather too far in the democratic direction. That the measure was faultless no one could affirm; but that it was fitted to remedy safely and surely the
  904
  evils complained of, and that it effected great improvements in our system, cannot be denied.
  Some indeed who admit this, who allow that the measure was by these improvements deserving of approbation, have had doubts respecting the quality of the fabric which it produces—the goods as it were, which it turns out—they look to the Parliament which it furnishes, and do not find that the excellence of the article thus manufactured is equal to that of the mechanism applied to the process. I have no doubt these objectors are in error; and that the results of its working—the value of the workmanship—is entirely to be commended. It may, however, be capable of improvement; and if important defects which must be confessed to exist in the machine are removed, it will work better and more profitably. The House of Commons, as at present constituted, no doubt deserves the confidence of the country; but as certainly its composition is capable of improvement, and so is the course of its procedure, by amending in some particulars, yet without anything like a sweeping change, the provisions of the measure adopted in 1832. Possibly were I to determine the best course to take in the proposed Bill, I should be for confining it within some such limits as curing the manifest defects of that measure, and giving the extension in two material particulars, which I shall afterwards mention, and which may, with perfect safety and great advantage, be so altered. But, at all events, the defects must be cured, whatever else is done. These are not numerous, but they are important; and what I regard as chiefly claiming our attention might have been removed when the second reading of the Bill was debated in this House. I then, referring to the Duke's very pertinent question, how is the King's government to be carried on after the change shall take place? I admitted that some facilities might be desirable; and, in arguing the principles of the measure against him and Lord Harrowby, who had made the ablest speech on that side, I pledged myself that if the second reading were agreed to, some additions should be considered in the Committee with a view to meet the difficulty which had weighed on the mind of the Duke. I conceived that I saw my way to a solution; and though of course I could not pledge my colleagues to the method I contemplated, I could answer for it being fully considered, as well

  905
  as another difficulty, arising from the uniformity of the ten pound franchise, the great variety in the rent of houses seeming to require that it should be different in different towns. But the very practical objection raised by the Duke appeared likely to be removed by two improvements upon the Bill, applicable to the two principle evils, the gravity of which cannot be denied, and of which the bad effects are still experienced in the exclusion from Parliament of persons whose presence is most desirable, and, indeed, their exclusion also from office. Certain important offices can only be held by members of the House of Commons. But even if a person has obtained a seat, he may lose it by taking or by changing a place, and he may lose it from no fault of his own. A Chancellor of the Exchequer by proposing a tax necessary for the public service, nay required to support the public credit; an Attorney General, by performing his duty in prosecuting frauds upon the revenue, or parties guilty of sedition, may be thrown out by a popular outcry; or may, by the local changes incident to elections, lose their seats. This happened soon after the Act passed in 1832. The Solicitor General having been promoted had to be re-elected; he failed; and the whole measures for the improvement of our Jurisprudence were stopped during an entire Session, because the first law officer of the Crown was not in Parliament. No seat could be found for him until the Member for Edinburgh being raised to the Bench, occasioned a vacancy during the recess, and the Attorney General returned to Parliament. Now two modes of remedying this serious practical evil at once suggested themselves— giving official seats in the other House without votes, and enabling members to take office without being re-elected. On both these proposals I had a good deal of discussion with Lord Grey and Lord Althorp. To the second they saw no objection whatever, and considered that the only alternative which could be urged was the confining it to a change of the member's office, so as to require his vacating only upon his first appointment; but upon this neither of my noble Friends held any decided opinion, or saw any material objection to the plan proposed. Respecting the other plan, both had much greater doubt; indeed they felt considerable repugnance to it, not merely as a scheme of foreign growth, but from the anomaly of seats without votes, and the manifest impossibility
  906
  of persons voting only in right of their offices. Yet I feel well assured that had an opportunity been afforded for a full consideration of the subject, the evils arising from the restriction upon the choice of public servants, and the complete success of the proposed arrangement both in France, while she had a Parliamentary constitution, and in all other countries enjoying that blessing, would have gone far to overcome the repugnance of my noble Friends; and of nothing can I be more absolutely certain than of the entire candour, the freedom from all bias and all narrow minded prejudices, with which they would have entered into the important discussion. No opportunity, however, was given for it; the opposition confiding in their strength, as the event proved they had reason to do, threw out the Bill; and when it was again introduced the year after, all compromise was precluded by the course which both parties pursued. I may, nevertheless, add, that upon the lessser of the two measures, the dispensing with re-election upon taking office; a noble Friend (Lord Hatherton) afterwards made a proposal, in which my colleagues entirely concurred, and some accidental circumstance alone prevented it being adopted.
  I must, at the same time, fully admit that the requirement of the Duke and those who went entirely with him, would not have been satisfied by any such addition to the Bill, however much it must have tended to remove a main part of the objection; for he regarded the extinction of Nomination Boroughs as practically fatal to the prerogative; and it never was in my contemplation when I held out the prospect of alterations in the Committee, to break in upon Schedule A. Nothing could be better known at that time than my reluctance to accept this part of the Bill; for I had on the eve of the Duke's resignation laid before the Whig party the plan to be proposed on my Motion, which stood for the day of that resignation, and which having been framed with the concurrence of my noble Friends at the head of the Government that succeeded, had been fully approved by the meeting; and that plan retained one member for each close borough. But I was bound in candour to admit that upon no constitutional principle could the choice of representatives of the people by single individuals be defended; and when a measure was to be propounded by the Government for establishing a representative system, I felt that all objections

  907
  to the abolition of close seats must give way to this paramount consideration; objections grounded on the undeniable fact that these seats have great practical uses in facilitating the working of the constitution, and that they are very much less liable to the charge of corruption than are the small boroughs with nominal rather than real bodies of electors; the creation of a good number of which is one of the greatest blots upon the Reform of 1832.
  Another defect appears to be manifest, and it is easily removed; there seems to be no good reason for requiring in the registration that the voters in towns should annually prove their qualification. The ground of the requiring occupancy of a certain value is to secure a respectable station in the voter. His year's residence is required; but why should be cease to have a vote because he no longer occupies a £10 house? If he has already been put on the register as of sufficient station, surely he does not lose that degree of respectability by lowering the value of the house he inhabits. The difference between the town and country franchise may no doubt make it necessary to go before the revising barrister in the former case, in order to prove residence; but there can be no reason why value should be inquired info. The rule should be "Once a voter always a voter."
  The vesting the appointment of these barristers in the Judges appears to be another fault of the system. All grant of patronage to the judicial body is in my humble opinion to be avoided. It is hurtful to the Judges; it is injurious to the independence of the bar; it is not always calculated to secure good appointments; for the power is exercised by different persons each year from accidental changes in the circuits, so that no real responsibility exists; and we accordingly constantly have complaints made of the choice being dictated by favouritism or by connection rather than by merit. I am bound to add that as far as my own observation has gone, I have never known any ground fur such complaints; their existence, however, in the profession is not to be disregarded; and upon the whole it would be advisable to vest the choice in the Home Department.
  The prospect of alteration in the Committee was held out by me upon the same occasion in reference to a much more important matter, the uniformity of the house hold franchise. The term £10 house
  908
  means things widely different in different towns. In the capital there is scarcely such a house; in many places persons of considerable income inhabit houses of that class; and a circumstance which occurred while the Bill was under preparation will at once illustrate the difference of which I speak. Originally £20 was the sum fixed upon. This appeared much too great, and upon returns being called for, we found that nearly as many close boroughs would be created as were disfranchised by Schedule A. One, I well remember, having upwards of twenty thousand inhabitants, was found to have no more than some half dozen houses which let for £20. There appeared to be no special virtue in an uniformity of qualification; in some respects a variety in franchise, leading to a variety in the constituent body is advantageous, and there seemed no insurmountable objection to the introduction of it. This, therefore, was distinctly stated by me to be a subject for the consideration of the Committee had the second reading been carried.
  I have hitherto stated those defects of the Bill which it was proposed to discuss in order to meet some of the principal objections of our adversaries. But a greater defect, perhaps, than any other was actually introduced into it, and has been unfortunately retained; it was a concession to them, and expected to facilitate, the passing through the other House. I refer to the votes of freemen. Considerable restriction was no doubt added for the purpose of preventing the great abuse of fictitious enfranchisement under the name of honorary burgesses; and the number of hereditary freemen was greatly diminished by restricting the right to such as claimed their freedom by servitude, or through those who had their freedom in May 1831. Nevertheless, the class still exists, and it is in no respect the best, in many respects the worst of the constituency, being more tainted with corruption than any other. There can be no doubt that the abolition of this franchise would be a great improvement.
  I am thus naturally led to consider the most important class of all who are now excluded from the right of voting—the valuable body of artisans, thus named in contradistinction to day labourers; skilled workmen, of whom it is impossible to speak in terms of too great commendation, whether we regard their ability, their acquirements, or their character. Very many of them

  909
  possess considerable scientific knowledge; most of them are of eminent skill; almost all of them are distinguished by independence of mind. They are indeed in a position of independence, being more necessary to their masters than their masters are to them. Accordingly in almost all places where they chance to have votes they are very far from desiring to exercise the franchise in secret, and they, generally speaking, treat the notion of the ballot with contempt. I by no means intend to affirm that there are no places which form an exception to this statement; but I have no hesitation in making it with respect to this most valuable class of men as the general rule. Yet, unhappily, they do not, in the vast majority of instances, possess the franchise. The body of all others in the middle class the most deserving of the right, and the best qualified to exercise it safely for the community, and creditably to themselves, are shut out from the enjoyment of it. In London they are almost always lodgers; in the provinces they rarely occupy £10 houses. I would fain hope that in any plan which may be devised for supplying the defects of the present Act, means may be found of admitting this important class within the pale of the constitution. Different ways suggest themselves; but if it be found impossible to devise any plan of examination, or of certificates from teachers, or from employers, or from trustworthy vouchers, plans the great difficulty of which I am ready to acknowledge, I own that rather than this exclusion should be perpetuated I feel disposed to adopt the expedient, which I grant is a coarse one, of lowering the town qualification generally, supposing always it should be found impossible to lower it in the excepted case of these artisans. Nor let it be imagined that if I speak of a six pound rent which would in all places out of London admit this class, I am departing from the principle I would recommend of avoiding all sweeping measures of change in the existing system. I have as confident an opinion as it would be fit to hold upon an untried matter, and therefore a subject of speculation only, that though there would be a very great increase of the number of voters were the franchise thus lowered, there would be little or no change in the results of elections. All the persons most conversant with this subject, to whose opinions I have resorted, take the same view. I have found hardly any who
  910
  feels persuaded that I am wrong in my conjecture. When you mark the difference between the show of hands and the poll at town elections, were you to infer from thence that the multitude who are so often Found to be the majority at the nomination and the minority at the election, are the six pound householders, you would assuredly commit an egregious error. That multitude are the day labourers, who pay no such rent as between a fourth and a fifth of their earnings. We know that the artisan is shut out because he will not pay a, seventh of his wages for a £10 house; we may thus be quite certain that the common labourer does not pay a fifth of his wages. I therefore continue of the opinion which I held before the introduction of the Bill in 1831, that a low qualification for the towns will not have any tendency towards greater democratic influences in the constitution than it was then deemed expedient to establish by giving representation to the great towns, and a larger increase of borough than of county members. Indeed the plan which was laid before the meeting I have referred to as held before my Motion, while it retained half the nomination scats, gave household suffrage in all the towns. It carefully preserved, however, the property qualification for counties. I can see no objection to what has been frequently proposed, requiring a longer period of residence where the qualification is an occupancy at a lower rent; to require two years, for example, for a £6 house, with one for a £10 house; but also adopting the rule, once a voter always a voter, in this as in the other case. The great advantage of this improvement would be that we should give the franchise to that important and estimable class whom I have mentioned as artisans or skilled workmen.
  I have adverted to an education franchise. This has been often proposed; and in the last of the Education Bills which I presented to your Lordships, and which were warmly supported by the Government of the day, a right of voting was given to all who should be pupils of schools under public inspection, and had there completed their course of instruction. This assumed that the acquisition of merely elementary knowledge, with the habits formed by school discipline might be a sufficient proof of respectable station and character. But the obstacles found to exist in the way of such a plan, and still more the great advantages

  911
  of a higher kind which may be derived from another of a different description substituted for it, call upon me to give your Lordships the outline of that substitute. It has been proposed to form a body of voters whose qualification shall be a liberal education, as tested by their station in life, professional and other. This class would consist of all the learned bodies, clerical, medical, legal; of persons in orders, whether beneficed or not; of surgeons and apothecaries as well as physicians; and of all the branches of the law. It would comprise officers in the army and navy, directors of chartered companies, teachers of endowed schools, persons having degrees in any university or college, fellows of scientific or literary societies established by charter, or otherwise incorporated. We cannot doubt that this body comprises members of the community who are eminently entitled to a voice in the election of representatives, and above all that their choice, if falling upon those of their own class, and as it probably would upon the more distinguished individuals, would tend very greatly to improve the composition of the representative body. I may state with confidence that this plan is now about to be pressed upon the consideration of the Government by noble friends of mine, and others not members of this House; and that, were I at liberty to mention the names of both classes, the proposal would command your respectful attention independent of its intrinsic merits. But I may safely rely on these, and proceed to observe that, as the expected Bill must without doubt put an end to a considerable number of parliamentary boroughs, those which all are agreed in regarding as left without due consideration in the Act of 1832, it is reckoned that somewhere about seventy seats may thus be left unfilled by choice of the existing body of electors; and it is proposed that these should be appropriated in the different counties and greater towns to those returned by the class whom I have described, the class of scientific, literary, and generally well educated men, exercising the right of voting either with any other qualification which they may happen to have, or without it if they have none. I beg leave to add what is of really very little importance, but to avoid the supposition of my having only stated the opinion of others, that upon a full consideration of the subject, and without disguising
  912
  from myself the objections which it is likely to meet with, I have come to adopt the views of the promoters of the plan, and desire to be regarded as among them, having indeed joined in signing their memorial to the Government.
  About to express my difference with other friends of Reform, and to protest against some changes which they have with great zeal, accompanied by more or less of knowledge, propounded, I may here pause to observe that while I have distinctly deprecated any large and sweeping change in our electoral system, I have, I really think, said enough to show how little I can be accused of unwillingness to revise the errors that have been committed, or of bigoted adherence to what is already established, or of unwillingness to extend the elective rights of the people, where this can be done with safely and advantage. I fear me I may possibly rather be charged with going too far in this direction. But be that as it may, I must now address a few words of warning to my noble Friends regarding measures which I plainly foresee, from what has already passed elsewhere, will surely be pressed upon them. I refer to the plan for breaking down the distinction between County and Borough representation. I regard the maintenance of that distinction inviolate, as absolutely necessary to the constitution of this country; and I cannot well find words to express my astonishment that some friends for whom I have the greatest respect and the warmest affection, should have viewed the late proposal of letting in the £10 voters upon the counties as a matter of minor importance. It is in truth the abolition of the county representation by the extinction, by the overwhelming of proprietary right of voting, and the transfer of the choice of the members from the counties to the towns—from the counties which at present return less than half the number of borough members, and are always influenced by town voters in their return of that half, while county voters can hardly be said to influence borough elections at all. I am quite aware of the argument derived from the apparent hardship of so many persons being deprived of votes, because neither having the county qualification nor inhabiting Parliamentary boroughs, being £10 householders, yet having no votes because residing in counties. But our whole electoral system abounds in such

  913
  inequalities. The maxim relied upon, that representation should go along with taxation, is very plausible, to those who reflect not upon its consequences, and that following out at once lands us in universal suffrage. For why confine the franchise to those who pay direct taxes? Does not every man contribute to the revenue who drinks a cup of tea, or a glass of beer, or takes a pinch of snuff? Nay, why stop at the age of one-and-twenty when you take men of eighteen for your militia, not to mention their use of taxable commodities? Can there, too, be a greater inequality than that one county, Rutland, of 24,000 inhabitants, should return as many members as the West Riding of Yorkshire with fifty-five times as many, or 1,400,000? To get rid of such inequalities it has been once and again proposed that the country should be divided into electoral districts like France.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: That was Lord Durham's plan.
  LORD BROUGHAM: My noble Friend is quite right, but not the plan that my lamented Friend ever made the least allusion to in the Debates on the Reform Bill, or, as I believe, in the Sub-Committee which prepared it. The plan was adopted in the Bill which he introduced ten years before in the other House; and such a division, I need hardly add, must give the return of all county Members to the towns within each district as it does in France, I should rather say as it did while France had really a Parliamentary constitution. But the whole system in that country, even with a real representative body, was entirely different from ours, because there existed no order between the Crown and the people. The transfer of all county elections to the towns here will eventually produce the same constitution, and some may prefer it to our own; I am not of the number of these. But I stop not to compare the relative merits of the two. I will not argue with those who think the proposed change would be for the better; it is enough to say, that it would not be the same but an entirely different frame of government, and must rest upon wholly different principles.
  At one time, when the extent of borough corruption was so universally complained of, and the means taken to extirpate it were supposed to have failed, I listened to the proposition of those who suggested as a remedy a general measure for throwing
  914
  corrupt boroughs into the hundreds, when it was deemed inexpedient to visit them with disfranchisement. We had at that moment been disappointed in the hopes entertained of trying the experiment of the Evidence Bill, to which I had the satisfaction of obtaining the assent of your Lordships in 1851. It is, however, most gratifying to find that our apprehensions have proved groundless. I am informed, by those best acquainted with the late proceedings in the other House, that the provisions of the Act for the Examination of Parties have had the most salutary effect; that Election Agents have in general been afraid of their inevitable detection; that Candidates have in like manner been deterred from the course previously pursued, being compelled to keep a strict watch over all in their employ by the prospect of a searching investigation before the Committee; that there never was any former election in which so few cases of general corruption were found to exist; and, indeed, that in no preceding instance were there so few Members unseated for bribery. The Act to which I have referred has been generally referred to as at least one main cause of this fortunate result; the Act respecting Election Expenses introduced by Sir F. Kelly also greatly contributed to it.
  Depend upon it, my Lords, the principal objection to universal suffrage itself is not the evil effects which it might produce in Borough elections, though these would be very great, but its destruction of the County representation, by depriving property of all its influence, and thus destroying the balance of the constitution. Nor is the aversion to it confined to this House, and to reflecting men in this country. Our neighbours on the other side of the Channel hold it in supreme reprobation, those, I mean, who desire to have a constitutional government. A respected Friend of the noble Marquess and mine (Lord Lansdowne) not long ago warned me very unnecessarily against it, holding that the liberties of France lie prostrate before Universal Suffrage. While I admit that, the very worst form of it is its application to the choice of a ruler or other office-bearer, or a measure, and that it can thus work nothing but mischief very much greater than if only used in the selection of men to consult for the public, or by the worse course of an intermediate election of persons to choose such men—

  915
  I yet was bound to give my answer, that constitutional government in France lies prostrate not before Universal Suffrage, but before the recollection of 1793 and 1794—the recollection of those dreadful scenes which no one can name without shuddering, when Paris, and through Paris France, was ruled by the mob, that worst of tyrants, everywhere present, nameless, and irresponsible, having all the bad propensities, the evil desires, the cruel nature of the individual tyrant, with all his insane caprices—alike dangerous when elevated not soothed by hope, or depressed not tamed by fear, nor more to be dreaded in the intoxication of success than in the paroxysms of alarm; for the mob, like the single scourge, is not inaccessible to fear, the appointed punishment of tyrants—
  Qui terret, plus ipse timet; sors ista tyrannis Convenit.
  The memory of the horrors perpetrated by the populace in the fury of those times, the darkest page in the history of France, has formed the strength of all the usurpations, the foundation of all the despotisms, which have succeeded one another, from the Directory to the Consulship, the Empire, the Restoration; and the constitutional government which for a while was enjoyed, fell a sacrifice to the events somewhat less sanguinary, but little less disgraceful, which followed the downfall of the Monarchy and accompanied the mock Republic, until an attempt to carry on Parliamentary Government once more showed how little our gallant and amiable neighbours are capable of conducting a system whose virtue and, indeed its safety, consists in balances and checks. But with so enlightened, so ingenious, so painstaking a people, a people so accomplished in all the sciences that demand the most profound inquiry, the deepest reflection— why exists there this difference between the two nations in the conduct of their political affairs? First, because it is characteristic of the Englishman's nature always to respect, to love, and to hold by that which is established, by the institutions handed down from other ages, the result of gradual amendments and bearing the fruits of long and varied experience. This feeling of repugnance to innovation, of reluctance even to moderate improvement, because involving change, is oftentimes carried to excess, and I and other reformers have not seldom had to complain that the country is slow to admit
  916
  things to be wrong and tardy in affording the application of a remedy. But across the Channel it is enough that anything is established, any institution has been what is called inaugurated, for all voices to be raised against it; and while we have for our motto, "Whatever is, is right"— theirs would seem to be, "Whatever is, is wrong." One cannot really say that after so many efforts, and such terrible sacrifices to obtain freedom, they have any great love of liberty, at least in practice; equality they highly prize; they can bear no superior; they would lower all above them, without much caring to bring those below them up to their own level. It was a pleasantry of one of their most famous wits, that whatever faults he might have, and how far inferior he might be to other men, he certainly had one quality peculiar to himself; he was the only man in France that did not believe he ought to be the King of the country. These of course are great exaggerations, and even in the more moderate estimate of the national character, I am very far indeed from speaking of the nation at large; but that a very great body of the people, and of those who possess important influence on the destinies of the nation, are open to the remarks thus so often made, no doubt can be entertained. But this national habit of discontent with existing institutions, and proneness to admit any change of them is not the only cause of the diversity in political circumstances, nor is it unfortunately a cause easily to be removed. There is another much more within the possibility of being changed, and to which may be moreover ascribed their never having obtained a stable constitution; and I wish I could make my voice heard by them, while I exhort them to take a leaf out of our book, as I wish we might take one out of theirs, for instance, the noble example set by them of public gratitude, as when an eminent personage like my Friend General Carnot happened to lose his election to the Council of Five Hundred, and was forthwith chosen by fourteen or fifteen other places, which I fear never would have happened in England. But I allude to that which maintains our system, and which in France is wholly wanting—the spirit of compromise arising out of the attachment to established things, that I have noted as a characteristic of Englishmen. With us the contest of parties, the most animated,

  917
  even the most rancorous never goes beyond a certain length—never is suffered to put the existence of our Government in jeopardy. The ignorance or irreflection is inconceivable of those who deride all notion of checks and balances as absurd, because, say they, either one predominates over the other, or all movement is stopped and the machine stands still. It would be so in France; in England the reverse takes place. The opposing forces act at an angle, and not directly against each other; so that the machine is neither stopped nor torn asunder, but its motion is continued in the diagonal between the two lines of force. Each party yields a little to the other, rather than that irreparable mischief should be done, or all action be suspended. In many instances the joint action is even beneficial, and a better result is obtained for all, than if either party had everything its own way; but above all, the peril of collision, the disruption of the system, is effectually prevented. The Government proceeds without a revolution. In France it is far otherwise. The forces are in direct antagonism; there is no mutual concession; compromise, the science which has been called the science of Government itself, is unknown; in each struggle contending parties conflict with desperation, and care not how they may destroy the constitution itself. It is never that a force in one line acts at an angle to a force in another, but two forces are diametrically opposed and the result is either the suspension of all motion, or the destruction of one faction and the supremacy, the despotism of the other; and, in many cases, the disruption of the whole machine; so that the conflict of parties is pushed to extremities, and ends, not as with us— witness Emancipation, Free Trade, Reform itself, perhaps the Currency too—in compromise, the system being preserved, though modified; but in revolt, in revolution, often, as at the end of the last century, preceded by anarchy that convulsed the country, or massacre under the profaned name of judicial proceedings, that stamped upon it a stigma never to be effaced. Even of later years somewhat of a similar catastrophe, though in an exceedingly mitigated form, has been known. The same grievous defects in the conduct of Parliamentary proceedings, of party measures, have been seen to exercise a most inauspicious influence upon the fortunes of France, and, combined with the
  918
  necessity of arresting at all hazards, and at the cost of any sacrifice, the swift progress downward to Socialism, and its legitimate offspring confusion, have brought about the erection of an absolute monarchy upon the ruins of representative and party government; the establishment of a power wielded with a strong hand, guided by eminent capacity, pointed by a firm purpose to the maintenance of order at home, and peace abroad, and commanding the good wishes of all who prize those inestimable blessings. My purpose this day has been to mark the diversity between the political conduct held in the two countries, both as showing how our course must needs be followed by our neighbours if they really desire to obtain a constitutional government, or preserve it when acquired; and as illustrating the doctrines of moderation, gradual amendment, and wise concession, which I have recommended as essential to guide us in the administration of our happy system, our mixed and balanced constitution. Against these doctrines he will grievously sin who shall patonize any scheme that, under the name of Reform, should break in upon the fundamental principles sanctioned a quarter of a century ago by the united voice of the Parliament and the country. Abiding by those principles I protest against whatever change would substitute for our limited monarchy or democracy, to end, as elsewhere, in a monarchy without any limits at all; although I have to-day proved to your Lordships that there exists no warmer friend to whatever extension of popular rights can be granted with safety to that monarchy, and in accordance with those principles.
  The noble Lord concluded by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Return of the number of Electors in every County and division of a County, City, and Borough of the United Kingdom."
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he had no objection to the production of the Returns moved for by his noble and learned Friend; and, whilst expressing the interest with which their Lordships must always listen to the views of his noble and learned Friend upon a subject with which he was so fully conversant, he would simply express his concurrence in the statement that these views, as expressed that evening, were taken without communication with, her Majesty's Government, and were not to be considered as in any manner binding upon them.
  Motion agreed to.

POSTAL COMMUNICATION WITH AUSTRALIA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE, in rising to call the attention of the House to the contract for carrying the Australian mail, said the subject was one which had been brought under his notice by various Gentlemen who represented the interests of those great colonies in this country. He had, therefore, deemed it to be his duty to submit the subject to their Lordships' consideration. In doing so, he should shortly state that the arrangements for carrying out the postal service with Australia, which had been entered into previous to the war with Russia, had been thrown overboard on the breaking out of hostilities with that country, and that sailing vessels had, in consequence, been resorted to for the performance of that service. As soon, however, as the war had been brought to a close, the attention of the Government had been directed to the inadequacy of that mode of intercommunication. But, before adverting to the steps which had, in consequence, been taken, he might, perhaps, be permitted to present to their Lordships a few details connected with the financial view of the question. The first year after the war the cost of the conveyance of mails to Australia had been upwards of £572,000, while during the past year it had amounted to £785,356, a very large drain upon the public purse. Now he would lay before their Lordships, very shortly, the facts of the case. The Government advertised for tenders for the conveyance of these mails, and, as was usual, announced that they did not bind themselves to take the lowest tender. Nor did they; for, on the contrary, they took the highest tender, and that from a company who had at their disposal the worst possible means of performing the service; and not only that, but, when they found that the company was unable to carry out the contract, instead of annulling it, and entering into one with competent parties, they had endeavoured to patch up the matter. There were two companies which had offered to convey the mails—the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company and the Australian Mail Packet Company. Now, as their Lordships were aware, the Peninsular and Oriental Company was a very successful company, and possessed some of the finest ships in the world, ships as well known by name as the finest ships
  920
  in Her Majesty's navy. That company offered to undertake to perform the service of carrying the mails, and for that service they proffered such ships as the Simla, the Pera, the Bengal, and others of a similar class. They had also the advantage of having, at that time, three of those vessels at the other side of the Cape of Good Hope, and of, consequently, being prepared to carry the mails at the shortest notice, by merely establishing a communication between Marseilles and Alexandria; and that company offered to convey the mails for £135,000 a year if Melbourne was to be the point of disembarkation, and for £140,000 if Sidney were selected for that purpose. It was true that the directors of that company declined to enter into any covenant for penalties for non-performance of the contract; they thought that the reputation of their ships, and the fact that there would be on board an officer in charge of the mails was, of itself, a sufficient guarantee; but, while they declined to enter into any contract for penalties for non-performance, they, at the same time, refused any premium for a more speedy performance of the service, than that guaranteed; and they had, at a subsequent period, offered, under ordinary circumstances, to bind themselves by a penalty of £100 a day for every day beyond a specified time. He wished their Lordships particularly to bear in mind that that company had offered to perform the contract for £135,000 a year. Now, what was the proposal of the Australian Mail Packet Company? Why, they offered to perform the same service for £185,000 a year, and they proposed to place at the service of the Government vessels of a size and tonnage equal to those which had been offered by the Peninsular and Oriental Company, such as the Oneida, the Melbourne, the Sydney, &c.; but, the fact was, that at the time, some of those vessels were not even built; and none of them were on the other side of the water. The Oneida, a vessel exceeding 2,000 tons, was reported by that company to be ready to be surveyed on the 1st of August, 1856, and there was a little history connected with that survey which he wished to narrate to their Lordships. The ship was reported ready for surveying on the 1st of August, but she was not actually surveyed until the 20th of October, and, owing to circumstances which had arisen upon that occasion, a question had been put to the first Lord of the Admiralty upon the subject,

  921
  to which the right hon. Gentleman had replied, that the Oneida had been surveyed and found unfit for service, and he did not know how it was that she had sailed, and, a few days afterwards, Mr. Wilson, in reply to a similar question, stated that the survey of the Oneida took place on the 18th of October, that the ship had sailed on the 19th, and that the Admiralty had received the report on the 20th. It was extraordinary conduct on the part of the Government that the ship should have been allowed to go to sea on the day after it was surveyed, seeing that it was now found totally unfit for sailing, and was so reported to the Government. She sailed with the mails to take her chance, and the Government appeared to have been ignorant of that fact. She proved unfit, breaking down in that portion of her machinery which was the foundation of her engines. Her machinery had, some time before, been injured and patched up again, and when a strain came to be put on the vessel, that portion he had just alluded to gave way. She found her way, at last, to Melbourne, under canvas, and again sailed, and again broke down. This company was so inefficient they were obliged to go to the Peninsular Company to borrow a ship—the Simla—to enable them to carry out the contract, for which they had obtained an amount larger by £45.000 than the other company had demanded. No doubt the margin which had been left them in the contract was the cause of this Australian Mail Company undertaking that which they knew they could ill perform. But the company were wanting in money as well as vessels, and applied to Canard a line to know whether that company would buy their ships and contract, and, receiving a refusal, they next applied to the Oriental Steam Packet Company, who stated their reasons why they would not venture to join them. All this time the Australian mails were failing, and, in the time in which five mails should go only three went. This broken-down company at last hit upon a bright plan, which he believed was not yet sanctioned, and it was in the hope of preventing it being successfully carried out that he now mentioned the subject. This miserable company, if he might call it so by way of distinction from other companies, hit upon a plan of propping up their broken fortunes, and proposed to the West Indian Mail Packet Company to unite with them, and form one great company. The Australian Steam Packet
  922
  Company proposed to hand over to that company their ships and property, and to amalgamate and carry on the Government business. Altogether, they considered there would be a capital of about £600,000. But the West India Mail Company were not satisfied, got something more, and suggested, as he gathered from the printed papers, that they would be most happy to accede to the proposal if two years could be got tacked on to the period of their contract. The terms were agreed to, upon the condition that Government should grant an extension of two years' time to the present contracts of the two companies, subject to such modifications as might be deemed necessary. It appeared to him that this was a proper matter to notice publicly, seeing the condition in which the taxpayers of this country would be placed if this scheme were permitted to be carried out. The contract with the West India Steam Packet Company was made in 1851 for eleven years; and he remembered, when he was at the Post Office, thinking it might have been well to have paid the forfeit of £60,000, and formed new contracts for carrying the mails to the West Indies, seeing that so large a sum as £270,000 a year was, at present, paid for that object. It was now proposed that the two companies should unite, if the Government would concede two years' additional time for the contracts; so that, in effect, the country would have to pay an annual sum of £445,000 for the service of the mails to Australia and the West Indies, and the payment for the two years additional would be equivalent to a bonus of £900,000. Some years ago, a Parliamentary Committee sat to inquire into the state of these contracts, and that Committee reported, among other things, that, as the existing contracts expired, it would be desirable to subject them to a strict revision before renewal, and they discouraged the adoption of contracts for any lengthened period, as the Government would thereby be prevented from benefiting by improvements in steam navigation. He believed that now, in consequence of improvements in steam navigation, the Government would have plenty of offers for the West India mail service, for £100,000 or £125,000 a year, instead of £270,000. Therefore, if the Government had permitted any of their officers to sanction the agreement between the companies by which those companies would receive £445,000 a year for two years additional,

  923
  they would necessarily suffer in the opinion of the public for having done what he thought one of the greatest jobs ever perpetrated—the more particularly as the Government had had it in their power to settle the business without any difficulty, as this Australian Steam Packet Company had failed in the performance of their duties. The Government, therefore, might have got rid of the contract, and formed a new one. The only additional comment he would make was, that when contracts were offered to the public they should be open and bonâ fide, and conducted without the semblance of a job of any kind in favour of the parties, either on one side or the other. There should be also a clear understanding that, on failure in the performance of the contract, there should be a dismissal with full power to form a new contract, and with no patching up of agreements and bargains with companies in an unintelligible manner by agents and underlings in public departments. The case he had endeavoured to explain resolved itself into this simple matter, that a company contracting with the Government had been unable to perform its obligations. Under these circumstances, the duty of the Government was clear. They ought to dismiss the company, and enter into the market for new contracts. Instead of this being done, the company, according to the printed documents, was to be propped up by a union with another company, and an extension of the term of contract for two years. He mentioned the circumstance for the purpose, he hoped, of effectually stopping any further progress in the matter; and he trusted the Government would deal with the Australian Steam Packet Company firmly and decidedly.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, his noble Friend had, towards the close of his speech, stated that a proposal had been made for amalgamating the Australian and the West India Mail Companies, and that the latter company had consented to the amalgamation, provided its own contract were extended for two years. He could assure his noble Friend, however, that no such proposition had been referred to the Post Office authorities; and, moreover, that if such a proposition were made to them he believed the officers connected with that department would not accede to it, unless some new conditions were inserted in the contract. But the main part of his noble Friend's speech was directed to the question whether the Admiralty and the Treasury
  924
  were justified in their original contract with the company which had now the carriage of the Australian mails committed to them; and here—although he did not, of course, intend to state the case unfairly—he had made some material lapses. He was correct in stating that there were four tenders, and that practically the question lay between two of them —the Peninsular and Oriental Company and the Australian and European Company, which was now enjoying the contract; but he passed over very lightly the important matter of penalties. He was correct, also, in stating that these contracts were not made by the Post Office— they were, in fact, made by the Admiralty and the Treasury with regard to most of their details. But upon the question of penalties the Post Office had expressed a strong opinion, and had stated that they infinitely preferred that the system of penalties should be an absolute one, and operate in the way of insurance of punctuality. The mode in which it operated was to put a premium upon regularity, and in some cases a very high premium, for it was most desirable that the arrivals and departures should be punctual; and he was quite euro that the public would rather pay a larger sum for the conveyance of mails if punctuality were insured, than a smaller sum without punctuality. At the time the contract in this case was being made the Australian colonies were in a state of the greatest excitement upon the subject. Deputations came here professing to represent the colonies. Some did and some did not. In fact, the colonies appeared to be in a high fever, and it was essential that the Government should as speedily as possible arrive at the settlement of the question. In accordance with the opinion expressed by the Post Office, the following clause was stipulated as a condition of tender:—
  "A penalty of £100 to be incurred when the contractors fail in providing a vessel in accordance with their agreement, ready to put to sea at the appointed hour, and also the sum of £100 for every successive day which shall elapse until such steam vessel shall actually proceed to sea; and also (from whatever cause arising) £50 for the first day, and a sum increasing by £50 per day for every succeeding day; that is to say, £50 for the first day, £100 for the second day, £150 for the third day, and so on increasing by £50 for every day for any time consumed on the voyage beyond the maximum number of days allowed; but so that the full amount of such penalties on any one voyage shall never exceed the proportion of the subsidy applicable to such voyage, and

  925
  which penalties shall in no case whatever be relinquished."
  The answer given to this condition by the Peninsular and Oriental Company was that they declined to be responsible for failures in respect of the length of the voyage, or for any other failures arising out of causes which were beyond their control, and they therefore respectfully rejected the stipulations. They ended by giving the terms by which they were willing to bind themselves under ordinary circumstances, but than this nothing could have been more vague or unsatisfactory. In the fifth paragraph of their tender they said,—
  "The time of the commencement of the proposed service must depend on the release from the transport service of the company's ships now employed in it; and after their discharge from it several months will be required to overhaul and refit them for postal and passenger service, and to place them on their respective stations in the Eastern seas."
  His noble Friend had spoken strongly with regard to the character of the company to which preference was given; but he had omitted altogether from his consideration this important element in the tender—that the company which obtained the contract offered to perform the whole service between England and Australia, and not between Suez and Australia only. He must say also, that his noble Friend had not very fairly represented the degree of success which had attended the efforts of the company. He was not exactly aware under what circumstances the Oneida, which carried the first mail, left the country; but it was true that she broke down, and that thereby such delay was occasioned that the company had incurred a penalty of £7,700—exceeding the whole of the subsidy; but apart from that circumstance, they had been, upon the whole, extremely punctual. The time occupied by the second mail was 1,246 hours, being twenty-two hours only over the time allowed by the contract (1,224 hours), and the delay not amounting to an entire day there was no penalty. The time occupied by the third mail was 1,257 hours, including stoppages, being thirty-nine hours under the time allowed by the contract, namely, 1,296 hours, including stoppages. The company, therefore, received a premium of £30. The time occupied for the conveyance of the fourth mail from Sydney was 1,430 hours, or 117 hours over the period allowed by the contract; consequently, a penalty of £500 had been exacted from the company. Impressed
  926
  with the great importance of securing punctuality in the service, which they thought could hardly be obtained without a system of absolute penalties, the Government had accepted the tender of a company which had assented to that principle; but if the Government had accepted the tender of the Peninsular Company, they would not have been able to claim these penalties; for it was perfectly possible that the company might have represented even the break down of the Oneida as an unavoidable disaster. At all events, there might have been continual disputes between the company and the Government. Upon the whole, then, he thought the Government were right in agreeing to the contract. The sum agreed upon was no doubt large, but one-half of the amount was borne by the Australian colonies, and he was quite sure that both the Home and the colonial Governments would consider that they had done well in paying that amount in case it secured punctuality in the performance of the service. With regard to the company itself, all he could say was that it was not more than nine months since the contract came into operation, and he did not think his hon. Friend was justified in saying, from anything which had taken place during that period, that they had broken down or were likely to break down.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that where the Government had to deal with companies of known ability, experience, and capital, it was a very doubtful policy whether they ought to insist upon the strict enforcement of penalties under all circumstances. It was clear that in such cases the company would charge an additional sum, more than sufficient to cover them against the risk of penalties; and in the present instance the additional sum so charged was something like £40,000 or £50,000 a year. His noble Friend (the Earl of Hardwicke) had stated that at the time the contract was entered into the Australian and European Company had but one or two vessels in their possession; whereas the Peninsular and Oriental Company were ready to enter upon the service forthwith. But the noble Duke would have their Lordships believe that this was not the fact. True, they were not prepared to commence the service with vessels of the tonnage stipulated, because those vessels were at that moment engaged in the service of the Government for other purposes; what they stated, however, was that they

  927
  were ready to commence with vessels of 1,200 tons, and that, although they were not prepared to bring into the service those particular vessels which were actually employed by the Government, they should be brought in as soon as they were released by the Government. He would not pretend to say in what light the company which obtained the contract should be regarded; but clearly their beginnings had not been very promising ones; for whereas under the contract they ought by this time to have brought five mails from Australia to this country, only three had yet arrived. The noble Duke said that he did not know under what particular circumstances the Oneida had left this country. He thought, however, that as the noble Duke had undertaken to speak for his colleague, he ought to have made himself acquainted with the fads. A vessel was contracted for which was to sail upon a particular day, and she was reported ready for survey. Accordingly she was surveyed, and an officer of the Admiralty reported her unfit for service. Nevertheless she sailed on the day appointed, without the Government knowing anything about it, or being able to stop the sailing of this inefficient vessel, which broke down on her outward voyage. Yet the Government knew nothing about this gross case of what he might almost call fraud on the part of the Company! Now, in his opinion, it would have been bettor had the Government abandoned the contract altogether than permitted a vessel to go to sea which their own officer had reported, and which experience had proved, to be unfit for service; and he thought it ought to be explained why a vessel which was not seaworthy was allowed to go out on this voyage. The noble Duke said that the company had fulfilled their engagements, but he (the Earl of Derby) believed this fact was not to be disputed—that the company were desirous of selling their contract. In the first place they applied to one of their unsuccessful rivals, who did perform their contract, and borrowed a vessel from them. They next proposed to transfer their contract to another company, which was already under contract with the Government, and that other company considered the circumstances of this company to be such, that they refused to have anything to do with their vessels, or to enter into partnership with them, unless they obtained from the Government an extension for two years of their own very lucrative and he must say, so far as the Government
  928
  were concerned, extravagant contract. The Secretary to the Treasury, it was true, had stated that at present no official communication of such a proposition had come before that department of the Government, but that when it did come before them, it would be considered with a due regard to the public interests. That was one way of evading the question; but he wished the noble Duke could have spoken with more confidence when he said that the Government would not be parties to extending, without due consideration, the very lucrative contract into which the West India Mail Company had entered, for the purpose of patching up that which appeared upon the very face of it a most inefficient concern. For his (the Earl of Derby's) part he did not think that any such agreement ought to be permitted or have the sanction or authority of the Government; and they knew from the West India Mail Company's own declaration, that unless that agreement was made with the sanction and authority of the Government, they would not consent to take the Australian Company's vessels and contract into their hands. The case was a very simple one. There had been a complete violation of contract, and the Government were absolutely free. There was no necessity to enter into negotiations upon the subject; but they might go into the market at once and make their own arrangements, and those arrangements, he thought, they could make on more advantageous terms than those which had been agreed to. He saw no particular advantage in permitting the amalgamation of two great companies for the purpose of carrying out one contract; and he was of opinion that the Government would be deeply responsible if, with the view of patching up a particular company, they gave undue advantages to another company, which was at this moment already in possession of & very lucrative and extravagant contract
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that if he had been at all aware that it was the intention of his noble Friend (the Earl of Hardwicke) to enter into nautical details with respect to the Oneida, he would have endeavoured to make himself familiar with the subject; but he certainlv gathered from the terms of the notice his noble Friend had kindly given him, that his question was to have reference simply to the prudence of the conduct adopted by the Treasury in framing the original contract, and the manner in which the contract had been fulfilled

  929
  by the company. All he knew with regard to the oneida was, that she had broken down between Australia and England, not from England to Australia.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: She broke down both ways.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: As to the details of the survey of the Oneida by an officer of the Admiralty, he had not made himself acquainted with them, never expecting that they would have formed any portion of his noble Friend's remarks. There was, however, one point to which he desired to draw their Lordships' attention, and that was the difference of time between the tenders of the two companies. The tender which had been accepted was for thirty-five days outward, and thirty-five days homeward between Suez and Melbourne; whereas the tender of the Peninsular and Oriental Company was for forty-five days outward, and forty-three homewand.
  House adjourned at a quarter to Eight o'clock, till To-morrow Half-past Ten o'clock.