Sitting of 21 August 1857

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3° Divorce and Matrimonial Causes; Sale of Obscene Books, &c., Prevention.
OLD STORES AND PUBLIC CONTRACTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NICOLLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if, with the Return ordered for detailed Accounts of the Receipt and Expenditure for Navy, for Army—including Commissariat—and for Ordnance Services for the year, up to the 31st day of March, 1856, there will be any objection to include a detailed account of the nature and value of Public Stores in hand at that date; together with a Statement of the produce of Sales of condemned and surplus Stores during that year? He also wished to know whether
  1972
  the evidence taken before the Public Contracts Committee will be circulated among Members during the recess?
  MR. WILSONsaid, the Return referred to by the hon. Member for Frome had been already prepared and laid upon the Table. A statement of the produce of condemned and surplus Stores appeared under the head of ''Old Stores" in every quarterly finance account. A detailed account of the nature and value of public Stores would be expensive and inconvenient, though certainly not impossible. The Report of the Public Contracts Committee, which was presented, would no doubt be printed and circulated during the recess.

CHAPLAINS FOR THE INDIAN ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary for War what number of Chaplains have been appointed to accompany the military force now proceeding to India?
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, no Chaplains had been sent by the Government to accompany the forces proceeding to India, because it was never the custom to send them. The East India Company provided clergymen when the troops arrived in India; and he believed the stations in that country were amply supplied.

FRENCH REFUGEES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any truth in the rumour that, in compliance with an application from the Government of France, the Government of this country will expel some of the French Refugees who have sought an asylum in this country?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My answer to the hon. Member is, in the first place, that no such application has been received from the Government of France; and, in the next place, something like the excuse of a village for not ringing a peal in the time of Charles II., that they had no bells to ring—that we have no power by law to grant any such application.

EX-BISHOPS' PENSIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRIFFITHsaid, he had given notice of his intention to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government are disposed to make

  1973
  provision for a retiring pension for Dr. Hind, late Bishop of Norwich, now that the retiring pension granted to the late Bishop Blomfield of £6,000 per annum has fallen in. He begged leave to acknowledge the receipt of a letter from a gentleman, connected, he presumed, with the See of London, kindly setting him right as to the fact that the pension of £6,000 per annum to the late Bishop Blomfield was provided out of the revenues of the See, and reverted therefore to the See, and not to the country or the Government. This disposed of that part of his question, and he would only beg the noble Lord therefore to favour the House with the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to any provision for Dr. Hind.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the late Bishop of Norwich had resigned under circumstances peculiarly painful, but at the same time extremely honourable to himself. Finding himself, from physical infirmity, incapable of continuing adequately to discharge the duties of his sacred office, that right rev. Personage, although mentally he was fully competent, determined to resign his See. He did so, however, unconditionally, and without any stipulation for a retiring pension. It had been the intention of the Government to propose during the Session some general arrangement by which provision would be made for Bishops who, from infirmity or other causes, were incapable of continuing to discharge the duties of their office, but circumstances had prevented them from doing so. Next Session, however, he hoped to have the opportunity of introducing a measure on the subject. If Parliament should at any future time assent to any such measure it would of course take care that it should act retrospectively, and should apply to the case of the late Bishop of Norwich. At present, however, the Government had no fund from which it could make any provision for that right rev. Person.

SAVINGS-BANKS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he would beg to inquire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention in the next Session of Parliament to re-introduce the Savings Banks Bill which he has recently withdrawn?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was induced mainly to
  1974
  withdraw the Savings Banks Bill on the ground that he did not see sufficient time for its consideration, and the manner in which their time had been occupied towards the close of the Session fully justified that course. He was also aware that considerable misunderstanding had been produced among the local administrators of Savings Banks, by the proposal which he made, and the arrangement he proposed did not receive the approbation which he conceived its merits justified. Under these circumstances, he did not feel at present justified in entering into any pledge as to whether the Government would reintroduce a similar measure, but he would be prepared next Session, in the event of the House requiring what had been asked for this Session, to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.

THE SLAVE TRADE IN CUBA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he wished to inquire of the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any additional Vessels, including Gun-boats, have been sent to the West India Station for service upon the coast of Cuba?
  SIR CHARLES WOODwas understood to say that as soon as Parliament had voted the necessary number of men he had ordered four gunboats to be got ready for service off the Coast of Cuba, and that two of those vessels would be ready for sea in a few days.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he rose to address a few observations with respect to the Bill and the manner in which it had passed through the House, although he had no intention of opposing the third reading. It would be remembered that when the Bill first came down to that House, at the end of July, he had proposed that it should be postponed until next Session, upon the ground that there would not be sufficient time before the rising of Parliament to consider fully so important a measure. The House, however, determined otherwise, and upon the 30th and 31st of July a discussion took place upon the question of the second reading, which was carried upon the latter evening. The reasons assigned by the Government for pressing

  1975
  on the Bill were, that it made no change in the law, that it merely removed a great blot on our institutions by substituting one Court for the three tribunals—the Ecclesiastical Court, the Court of Common Law, and the House of Lords, to which a person seeking a divorce was obliged to have recourse; that it got rid of a great scandal on our national character in the shape of the action for criminal conversation, and that it would bring divorce, which heretofore had been a privilege within the reach of the rich man only, home to the doors of the humblest classes. They would see in the course of his observations how all these matters had been carried out. He (Mr. Henley) had urged that the Bill was brought in at a period of the Session when it was not possible for it to be fully considered, and he thought he could now show that his predictions had been verified and that the measure had not been brought in in a shape that was at all creditable. Much time had been bestowed upon the Bill. Since the second reading it had been under the consideration of the House in Committee on seven occasions, of which several were morning and evening sittings, and the result of those discussions was that there had been thirteen material changes introduced into the Bill. When they were first invited to consider this Bill they had been told by the Government that it was a perfect measure, and had undergone the fullest discussion in another place by those who were best acquainted with the subject, and that any one who read the Bill might know the intention of the Government. Of the thirteen changes that had been introduced, ten had been made without a division, and with the assent of the Government. Surely that single fact would prove how well the opponents of the Bill were justified in regarding it as an unmatured measure. Two other material changes which had been introduced after division were not proposed by hon. Members hostile to the Government, but by the Government themselves, and only one change had been introduced upon the suggestion of a hon. Member who was hostile to the measure. The country and the House were able from these facts to judge how far the measure was perfect, even in the opinion of the Government, when it was first introduced to them. During the progress of the Bill through Committee there were fifteen divisions, of which seven were upon Amendments proposed by hon. Gentlemen who voted for the second reading;
  1976
  five had been raised by opponents, and three by hon. Members who were not prominent on the one side or the other. Now, what were the changes in the law made by the Bill as originally introduced? A most material but most beneficial change had been made in regard to the status of women separated from their husbands either by judicial separation or divorce. Another material change had taken place in extending the grounds upon which dissolution of marriage could be granted, and also in the provision made for the care and custody of children. All those were most important changes in the law. Then, what were the changes that had been introduced into the Bill during the discussions in that House? The first and most material change was in the constitution of the new tribunal. A long discussion took place, and upon a division the Government carried by a small majority the proposition that the constitution of the Court as contained in the original Bill was sufficient, but afterwards, being pressed no doubt by the arguments which had been offered, they undertook to reconsider the point. It was only fair to the Government to say that they had honestly redeemed that pledge by adding to the members of the new Court the three senior Puisne Judges of the Courts of Common Law. Passing over the lesser change in the Bill, caused by imposing upon the new Court the decision of suits for nullity of marriage, the next important alteration was in reference to the local jurisdiction in matters of divorce. That was a question arising not out of the abolition of the jurisdiction of the House of Lords but of that of the Ecclesiastical Courts. Even that portion of the subject had not been definitely disposed of, for a question had been raised by an hon. Gentleman who bade fair to be a most valuable Member of that House (Mr. Lygon) whether persons residing in India would be able to avail themselves of the benefit of this measure, and that point remainded still unsettled. At the present moment it remained to be seen whether all Her Majesty's subjects who resided beyond the limits of England and Wales were to be left to have recourse to what had been stigmatized as the great blot upon our institutions, or were to be left entirely without remedy; or whether the Government intended to bring in a supplemental Bill next Session. Reverting to the subject of local jurisdiction, he would remind the House of a declaration from the noble

  1977
  Lord at the head of the Government which had caused him (Mr. Henley) no little surprise, considering the noble Lord's station, experience, and ability. The noble Lord had told them that it would be as well to do without local jurisdiction, and that he thought judicial separation should not be encouraged as divorce a vinculo was a better tiling. That was a surprising declaration coming from such a quarter, for it must be remembered that judicial separations were to be granted for other causes than adultery, such as cruelty or desertion; and there could be no reason why parties who had separated for one of those causes, but who had subsequently become reconciled, should not come together again. The Committee, however, did not agree with the Government, and upon a division determined to have local tribunals of some kind. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, to whom the House was much indebted for the great ability he had displayed and the great pains he had taken in regard to this measure, had since brought in a provision which he conceived would meet the wishes of the House. The next important alteration referred to the advantages secured to the wife in case of separation or desertion by her husband. Then came the important question of the conditions on which dissolution of marriage was to take place. When the Bill came down from the House of Lords it contained two grounds on which the wife might obtain a divorce against the husband, additional to those which had previously been recognised, namely, cruelty and desertion. The cases in which the wife might obtain a divorce were four in all—namely, adultery on the part of the husband coupled with bigamy, adultery coupled with cruelty, adultery coupled with desertion, and adultery coupled with incest. To these this House added two others,—adultery committed within the conjugal residence, and rape. There were also added the commission of an unnatural crime and bestiality, not connected with adultery. Here were a number of changes in a Bill on which Government had told them, in the first instance, that their minds had been made up. As the Bill came from the Lords it was provided that where the husband sued for a divorce the adulterer should be made a co-respondent. The Government, without a division, consented that in the case where a wife sued for a divorce the adultress might also be a co-respondent. This again was a very important alteration in the Bill. As the Bill came from the
  1978
  Lords, if a person did not go into Court with clean hands it was held to be an absolute bar to divorce, and the Court were bound to dismiss the petition; but on the Motion of the hon. and learned Attorney General, and on a division, it had been decided that such was not to bean absolute bar to divorce, but that the Court was to have a discretionary power of saying whether it ought to be so or not. The discretionary power of the Court to dismiss suits had also been materially enlarged, for it had now power to dismiss a suit in the case of wilful separation, or wilful neglect or misconduct that was alleged to have conduced to the adultery. He did not say these changes were improper. His sole object in now adverting to them was to show that the greater part of them had been made with the full consent of the Government, and that therefore those who insisted on a full discussion of the measure had not done so in vain. Much might be said as to whether they had been made with due deliberation in those lengthened and exhaustive sittings; but he did not wish to raise that question but merely to record the changes. Having thus called attention to the changes that had taken place in the constitution of the tribunal and the mode of procedure, he would now point out some of the alterations that had taken place in the Bill in its subsequent stages. The first, and not the least material of these, regarded the fine to be imposed on the adulterer. As the Bill came down from the House of Lords it had this strange provision, that it empowered the Court to impose a fine, while there was nothing in it declared to be a crime or an offence. It simply declared that a fine was to be imposed; there was no limit to the amount, and no means provided of escaping from it when imposed. Seeing how objectionable this provision was, the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed an Amendment by which the fine was to be applied as compensation, thus taking it out of the category of fines and putting it in that of damages. On discussion, the whole proposition was found untenable, and by common consent the fine was struck out and the clause was left simply to apply to costs. The hon. and learned Attorney General, had, however, brought up another clause after they had gone through the Bill. One great cause given for bringing in the Bill was, that it would get rid of a public scandal; but it did no such thing, for by this clause the question was still to be tried by a jury.—(Mr.

  1979
  AYRTON: The action is no longer essential to a divorce.)—The clause provided that the parties might claim damages either in cases of dissolution of marriage or of judicial separation. The case would then be sent to a jury, and would be tried by the same rules and regulations as an action for crim. con., so that the public scandal which was so much complained of would remain just the same. After going, therefore, through various degrees of squeamishness the House had ended by bringing matters back again exactly to the point where it found them. The next important change was as to the appeal. As the Bill came down from the other House there was no appeal, except to the House of Lords, on points of law; but the Attorney General of his own motion at once inserted a provision in the Bill that there should be a general appeal, and so it now stood. A most important addition also had been made to the Bill, altering very materially the manner in which it would bear upon the clergy. The point was unnoticed in the House of Lords, but the concession of the Government, although not perfectly satisfactory, was a very considerable alteration. So much for the changes which had been made in the Bill, and now for the probable effect which these would have upon its working. It was impossible to say that the question of the local Courts had received sufficient consideration on account of the pressure of time, and the settlement which had been agreed on was very far from carrying out the boast made on the introduction of the Bill, that facilities for divorce would be brought home to the poor man's door. Nobody had been able to say very clearly what would be the expense of obtaining a divorce under the new system, but it was clear that it would not be very small. The Court would have to inquire into the points of collusion, connivance, and so on. All this would take up considerable time, and time in law proceedings was expense. The case would have to be tried by a jury; indeed, it was not very clear whether there would not have to be two trials—one to try the facts on which the divorce was sought, the other to assess the damages. By the skilful union of the Chancery and Common Law Procedure, in the procedure of this Court the suitors would have the advantage of the blessings or curses of both systems. The Court would act upon common law rules in all applications for new trials, bills of exception, and the like, but it would not act, like the Court of
  1980
  Chancery, until its conscience had been satisfied of the facts. Perhaps two of three trials before a jury would be necessary before the conscience of the Court was satisfied. This was not at all unusual in Chancery proceedings, and then the Court would give its decision. If the parties were at all of a litigious disposition there would be an appeal, and the whole matter would have to be tried over again in the House of Lords just as it was now. Where was the gain, then, after all, either as to expense or public scandal in their high-pressure legislation? The preliminary trial in the new Court would be equivalent to the present proceedings before the Ecclesiastical Court and the trial for crim. con., and the appeal would answer to the present proceedings before the House of Lords, just as it was now. So much for litigated cases. Then as to the security against collusion and connivance, there was absolutely less under the present system. If the parties wanted to collude, all they had to do was not to sue for damages. Under the present system there must be three trials, first the action for crim. con., then the torture of the Ecclesiastical Court, and lastly the investigation in the House of Lords, so that it was, in his opinion, quite impossible that collusion should escape detection, a result which would not be attained with equal certainty by the single Court established by this Bill. These were some of the blessings and the disadvantages which would arise from the present measure, and he thought he had shown that those who had discussed it were fully justified in adopting that course. [Cries of "Hear!" in which Sir GEORGE GREY took part.] It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman now to say "Hear, hear!" but he must not forget how the noble Viscount had, more than once, turned the fire-engine of his wrath upon those who raised that discussion. Considering that the great portion of the changes which had been made had been adopted by the Government, more mercy might have been shown to those who discussed the Bill in all its provisions. He should not, however, on that account alone have thought it necessary to make these observations; he did it for the graver and more important reason that he thought that many of these changes had not been fully considered, and that if more time had been allowed a better Bill would have been produced. In addition to the defects which he had pointed out, and which he thought more mature consideration might have

  1981
  removed, he thought that the clergy ought to have had more time to examine the Bill, as it affected their consciences and the discharge of their duties. In his opinion, if the Session was to be prolonged, their time would have been much better occupied in making the Savings Bank Bill—a measure which would have affected thousands and hundreds of thousands of persons—a good measure, than in amending this Bill, which would apply to only an infinitesimal part of the population, and which was even now so imperfect that the changes made by it must be either accepted or rejected wholesale, and it would reflect no credit either upon the Government or the Legislature.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I should certainly wish not to depart from the tone and spirit in which the more recent discussions on this Bill have been conducted, and which has so happily contrasted with the spirit evinced in the earlier discussions in Committee, and I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman has uttered no word inconsistent with that spirit. I think the House is much indebted to him for the speech which he has addressed to us, because it affords the most conclusive answer to the statement made by him on the 20th of July, that there was not time to discuss the details of the measure during the present Session. On that occasion I stated that the Government were of opinion that there was still time for such discussion, and I think that the number of hours which have been devoted to the consideration of this Bill, the number of Amendments of more or less importance—certainly not all of the consequence which the right hon. Gentleman has attributed to them—which have been made in it, and the spirit in which suggestions from both sides of the House have been received by the Government, show that this Bill has been discussed in a manner which is creditable to this House, and that it has received that amount of attention which its importance deserves. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that this Bill was presented as a perfect measure which this House must accept or reject exactly as it came from the House of Lords, and that the Government intimated that no Amendments were to be made in it. So far was that from being the case, however, that in the speech which I addressed to the House upon the second reading of the Bill, while I stated that its principle was an alteration in the tribunal by which questions of divorce were to be considered, which I thought would
  1982
  be of great importance. There were many details open to consideration. I said that with that and two or three other trifling exceptions this Bill proposed no alterations in the law. It is true that many alterations have been made during the progress of the Bill, and I am happy to find that most of those changes have the concurrence of the right hon. Gentleman; and that, satisfied with the discussions which have taken place, the right hon. Gentlemen opposite who offered conscientious objections to this measure are not disposed to press them further, and that this Bill is likely to be read a third time without a division. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that some advantage might have been gained by the postponement of the Bill for six months, in the prospect of Amendments being hereafter required. That must be the case with regard to all Acts dealing with large and important subjects, because such alterations are suggested by subsequent experience. It is, however, a matter of sincere satisfaction to the Government that the right hon. Gentleman, and those who act with him, are not disposed to offer any opposition to the further progress of the Bill, because we felt that we should have incurred a great responsibility if, after the attempts which had been made to pass such a measure, and after this Bill had received the careful attention of the House of Lords, we had postponed its consideration till another Session, and thereby indefinitely delayed a great improvement of the law upon a subject affecting the social and domestic happiness of many families in this country. In addition to this it is impossible for any one to have attended to the discussions upon this Bill without feeling that some of them have been of a very painful character. Had we postponed the consideration of this measure we should have occasioned a repetition of statements and observations which were unavoidable in the discussion of a Bill of this nature, but which for obvious reasons it is desirable should be dwelt upon as little as possible. The Government, therefore, thought it important that this measure should receive the consideration of this House, during the present Session of Parliament, and it has been a source of great satisfaction to us that we have received that decided support which has enabled us to bring the Bill to its present stage. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has attached an undue importance to some of the Amendments which have been made in Committee. I will not now go into those

  1983
  Amendments or revive the discussion which we have had in Committee or on the Report, and I will only touch lightly upon what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman. Now, with regard to the formation of the Court, can the alteration which was made in Committee be considered an important Amendment? Why, what are the facts of the case? As the Bill came down to us from the House of Lords it provided that the new Court should consist of the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Justices of the Superior Courts at Westminster, and the Judge Ordinary. Well, it was stated in Committee that from the duties which devolved upon these learned personages it would be difficult to ensure a full court, and the Government, feeling the force of that objection, said that they would take into consideration the question of enlarging the materials for the construction of the Court; and they made a proposal, which met with the general assent of the House, that the senior Puisne Judge of each of the Courts at Westminster should be added to the Court. Now, surely that was not an important alteration. It was only a matter of detail, and we were obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), for the suggestion. Then, again, with regard to the action for crim. con., I am only repeating the opinions which have been expressed by the highest authorities upon the bench when I say that that action is a scandal and disgrace to the legal system of the country. Now, the important distinction between the law as it at present stands and as it will be if this Bill passes is this:—At present the action for crim. con. is absolutely necessary for procuring a divorce, because the House of Lords will not read a Bill for a divorce unless damages shall have been obtained in an action of that nature, while under this Bill it will no longer be necessary, in order to obtain a divorce, to commence and carry on such an action. Well, then, the right hon. Gentleman says that in abolishing the action for crim. con. we are doing away with one of the securities against collusion. Now, I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Why, there never was a worse security against collusion than the action for crim. con. It is notorious that in many cases the fact was not contested, and judgment was allowed to go by default, in order that damages might be assessed in the Sheriffs' Court as a necessary preliminary to proceedings in the House of Lords. It is equally notorious, or at least it has been often stated by persons eminently
  1984
  qualified to speak upon the subject, that those damages are often paid with one hand and received back with the other, the only object of the action being to enable a man to comply with the Standing Order of the House of Lords. The action for crim. con., therefore, does not effect the object for which the regulation of the House of Lords was drawn up—namely, to prevent collusion, and I think that we must all rejoice that it will be no longer necessary in order to obtain a divorce that that action should be brought. Under the new system the whole question will be tried in one court, and we shall get rid of the repetition of those disgusting details which at present are necessary to prove the case before three tribunals. That will, I think, be of immense advantage. Well, then, the right hon. Gentleman has touched upon the question of local jurisdiction. Now, that no doubt was forced upon the Government, because we were not at the time prepared to establish a local jurisdiction for judicial separations, and we tested the sense of the Committee upon that question by a division. From that division we found that the opinion of the Committee was in favour of establishing local jurisdiction, and, in accordance with what appeared to be the wish of the Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General placed upon the notice paper a proposal with the view of carrying out the opinion which had been expressed by the Committee. Now, the right hon. Gentleman says that that proposal was hastily considered and hastily adopted; but the fact is that the notice of that Amendment was placed upon the paper upon the 10th of August, and the Amendment was not agreed to until the 20th, so that the right hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member of this House had ample time for offering any suggestion upon the subject. They did not do so, however, and substantially that Amendment was agreed to by the Committee as the best mode of carrying into effect the opinion which they had expressed. I do not think, therefore, that there is any reason for regretting that this Bill has not been postponed in order to give time for the consideration of the question of local jurisdiction. I do not pretend to defend this Bill as a perfect Bill. It would be presumptuous in me to do so, because the details of every important measure must to a certain extent be experimental, and experience may teach us how to improve some of the details of the present Bill; but while I make that admission I wish it

  1985
  to be distinctly understood that I do not imply that the Bill is an instalment of further legislation with respect to the law of divorce. I consider that substantially this Bill settles the question, but it may be necessary to come to Parliament at some future period and propose Amendments to some of its details, but that leaves us in a position very different to that which we should have occupied if we had postponed the measure with the view of beginning the whole subject de novo. With regard to another topic which has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, I can only say that I think that it will be admitted on all sides that the Government have shown every disposition, as far as they reasonably could, to consider the conscientious scruples of the clergy; and when I am told by the right hon. Gentleman that we have not gone far enough, let me remind him of what took place upon the second reading of the Bill. Upon that occasion I said that the claims of the clergy had not been fairly stated to the House. It bad been put to the House that the sole claim of the clergy was to be exempted from performing the marriage service over persons who had been divorced upon the ground of adultery, and I said that that was not the question which had been raised in another place, and that I understood the claim of the clergy to go to a far greater length. I understood it to be that, as they believed marriage to be indissoluble, they ought to be exempted from performing it in any case where a marriage had been dissolved, whether of a guilty or innocent person; and I believe that the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Wigram), understood the claim of the clergy in the same way. Well, Sir, on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman got up and expressed astonishment that I should have attributed any such view to the clergy, and that I was not justified in doing so. Well, Sir, I took the right hon. Gentleman to be a better exponent of the views of the clergy than myself, and the Government conceded the question to the extent which the right hon. Gentleman said was asked for, and yet he now turns upon us and says, "you have not done that which the clergy wished you to do." We have, as far as we could, assented to the claim of the clergy, and I trust that the cases will be so few in which conscientious objections may arise, that we shall never hear anything more of these claims. The course which we have adopted is, I think, a course well
  1986
  adapted to remove all causes of complaint, for, while we give to the layman the right of being married in his parish church, we do not compel any clergyman to perform the marriage service over persons who have been divorced upon the ground of their adultery. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman through the other alterations in the Bill to which he has referred, but I will only say that I am glad to hear the admission, that the Bill and the suggestions which have been made with regard to it have received the careful consideration of the Government, and that we have been willing to accede to Amendments when we have been satisfied, after hearing the arguments in favour of them, that they would be likely to prove of advantage. I myself think that the Amendments which have been made have much improved the Bill; and I trust that it will very soon become law, and remove those scandals which have hitherto shocked the feelings of the right-minded portion of society, and which have been an opprobrium to that branch of our law which relates to marriage and divorce.
  SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was not quite justified in assuming that, because hon. Members upon his (Sir W. Heathcote's) side of the House were not prepared to insist upon a division, they were perfectly satisfied with all the provisions of the Bill as it stood. The fact was that, so far as he himself was concerned—and he might make a similar statement on behalf of many of his hon. Friends near him—he was by no means disposed to regard the measure with satisfaction; and if he refrained from calling for a division with respect to it upon that occasion it was simply because he did not wish to put the House, which was reduced to a mere skeleton, to the trouble of going through a ceremony, the result of which—owing to the fact that the greater number of hon. Members present were in some way connected with the Administration—he was well aware must be favourable to the Government. They deserved no other credit from the promoters of the Bill than that of not being anxious to give them more trouble than necessary. Having said thus much in reference to the reasons which induced him to abstain from calling for a division, he might be allowed to observe, with respect to what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department upon the subject of the action for criminal conversation, that his right hon.

  1987
  Friend was not warranted in saying that the operation of the Bill, as it stood, would be to get rid of that scandal. Under the existing law there was one circumstance which protected a man against being subjected to any unkind remark because of his having brought an action of that description, and that circumstance was that the action constituted a necessary preliminary to the obtaining of a divorce. If the Bill before the House were to receive the sanction of the Legislature, however, the husband, in resorting to any proceeding against the adulterer for damages, would take that course voluntarily which now he was compelled to adopt; and how, under these circumstances, the scandal to which his right hon. Friend had alluded would be done away with he, for one, was at a loss to apprehend. In regard to another observation which had fallen from his right hon. Friend, to the effect that Members upon his (Sir W. Heathcote's) side of the House had acquiesced in the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in connection with the subject of local jurisdiction, he could only say that if they had not commented upon it more freely than they had done, it was because it was impossible, sitting as they had been so continuously, morning and night, to consider, as it ought to have been considered, a clause so important as that in which the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman had been embodied. There was also another provision of the Bill—that which related to the clergy—to which he was anxious briefly to advert. From the operation of that provision, he, for one, did not expect those happy results which his right hon. Friend seemed to anticipate. He was of opinion that the concession which had been made to the conscientious scruples of the clergy had not been conceived in a proper spirit. It had been clogged by a very objectionable condition, and, while it was not his intention at that stage of the Bill to re-enter upon the discussion of its principle, he could not refrain from observing that marriage, which was in almost all countries a civil contract, was a ceremonial which in this country received in addition, in almost every case, a religious sanction, and that while he did not dispute the right of the State to say, "those parties are to be considered as unmarried," he felt bound to protest against its stepping in and telling the members of any religious community, "You must consider that religious sanction which you deem to be necessary
  1988
  as destroyed by our civil proceeding, and give a religious sanction to a new union, although you do not think the old one has been severed." To adopt that course was to act in a spirit which was not, he must contend, in accordance with the principles of religious toleration. The exemption ought to have been extended to all clergymen whatever their views, and irrespective of the guilt of the parties. The question did not turn on their guilt or innocence, but on the opinion of the clergy as to a religious duty; and the Bill did not remove the difficulty. It was clear, therefore, that they had not got at the end of these discussions, and that questions would in the future be re-opened which otherwise would have slumbered. He would not hastily commit himself to what he would do in another Session of Parliament; but he thought it was probable that some hon. Member or other would apply his mind to the state of the law which would grow out of the Bill, with the view of seeing by what mode more freedom of action could be given to the Church. The expectations which the right hon. Gentleman entertained as to the contentment to be produced by this ill-advised and ill-digested measure would be grievously disappointed. It was fraught with great social evils, and would tend to increase these offences to a most frightful extent; and viewing it in every aspect he conceived it would be attended with great danger and difficulty to the country.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, it could not be expected that this Bill would be regarded with favour by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but that it was some consolation to think that, so far as it went, it was a measure, notwithstanding the difficulty of dealing with its very complicated details, which was calculated to give considerable satisfaction to hon. Members on his side of the House and to the country. He was glad that the Government had not pertinaciously adhered to the Bill as it came down from the other House, because he felt that elsewhere the interests of the poorer classes had not received the consideration to which they were entitled, and which they would expect to receive from this branch of the Legislature. He rejoiced to find that clauses had been introduced which gave to every portion of the community legal sanction for a position hitherto the subject of imperfect private arrangements, and which protected wives in the pitiful condition in which they were placed when their husbands failed in their

  1989
  duty, and did not respect the responsibility which they had undertaken. He was afraid that many hon. Members had not brought their minds to the full conviction that facility to dissolve marriage was quite as advantageous for the poorer as for the higher classes. There was a passage in the blue-book which explained the reason of the Scotch being more moral than the English—that in Scotland the law of divorce was temperately administered according to the precepts of the Gospel, while in England there was no relief for the poor man, no punishment for his guilty wife, in consequence of which the husband submitted to his fate, found a new companion, and often committed bigamy. A friend of his, a large employer of labour, to whom complaint was made of a workman having been guilty of that offence, inquired more particularly into the morals of the community, and was astonished to find that, not being rich enough to go to the House of Lords, the poor took the law into their own hands, and ceased to regard bigamy as an offence even against the law of propriety. He gave a remarkable reason for the result—namely, that it was not so much for the satisfaction of the man as of the woman that bigamy was frequently committed, as she was enabled whenever there was occasion to fulfil the conditions of charitable institutions, to produce her marriage lines, and she considered that if she obtained the sanction of the Church she was duly married, and it was no affair of hers that her husband was not able to obtain a divorce from his first wife. He regretted that the provisions which had been introduced to facilitate separation between the poor were not extended so as to afford equal facilities for dissolution of marriage, and he hoped the noble Lord would use his influence to have the rules, under the powers given to the Judges, so framed as to enable suitors to avail themselves of the Act by the most cheap and simple procedure possible. He doubted whether it could be effected to the same extent as if clauses had been introduced, but he thought it important to have such a code of procedure as would enable the largest possible number of persons to avail themselves of the door now open for obtaining the dissolution of marriage. Judging by the returns of income-tax, there could not be more than 30,000 families in a position to avail themselves of the present state of the law, and when they considered the small proportion that number must bear to the whole population they would easily understand why
  1990
  the divorces in the House of Lords had not exceeded six a year. The criticism that the Bill did not apply to India was almost ridiculous. The title of the Bill declared that it was intended to alter the law of divorce in England and Wales, and it seemed to him naturally to follow that it was not intended to extend the Bill to Ireland or India, or any other part of Her Majesty's dominions. Though it might be said to be a great boon, this must be regarded as only the first step. [Lord J. MANNERS: Hear, hear!] They were proceeding to legislate upon this as upon many other matters; first making a law applicable to England, and then, if it worked well, it could be made applicable to Ireland and other parts of the empire. It was quite obvious that it would not have been very wise or expedient to make it applicable at once to every part of Her Majesty's dominions; nor could it be so extended whilst it only dealt with the Ecclesiastical Courts of England. When a similar Bill was brought in for Ireland, it would, no doubt, deal with the Ecclesiastical Courts of that country. The Government had very wisely adopted the same course with respect to this Bill as with respect to the Probates Bill, which was of precisely an analogous character; and considering the discussion which had arisen from hon. Gentlemen representing places in England, it would have been scarcely desirable to import the much larger amount of discussion which would have resulted from the Members for Ireland thinking it their duty to address the House. If the Bill conferred the advantages which those who strenuously supported it hoped it would, Irish Members in a future Session might be satisfied with the experience gained, rather than reproduce the speculative debates which, upon this subject, had occupied so much time. With respect to such of the Colonies as enjoyed the advantages of representative Government, the question must be left to be dealt with by their local legislatures. With regard to the action of crim. con., there was no doubt that it often exercised a deterring influence, and all its objectionable features, and the scandal which arose from it were, in his opinion, removed by the substitution which had been made for it, because it was no longer an action of the husband for his own advantage, but an action against the delinquent, the penalty which he was to pay to be appropriated at the discretion of the Judge. He could not conceive how the clergy could be dissatisfied with the provision

  1991
  which affected them, because it respected their conscientious scruples, and they were not entitled to ask more. He did not think that the time which had been spent upon the Bill had been unprofitably employed. The result was, upon the whole satisfactory, and, although it might be necessary to alter some of the details of the Bill in another Session, especially to give further facilities to the great mass of the people to enable them to obtain the full benefit of its provisions, yet he was convinced it would in the end place the law of marriage and divorce upon a sure and proper foundation, calculated to promote the real happiness of the people.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to explain that when, upon the Second Reading, he referred to the wishes of the clergy, he confined his remarks to the statements contained in the printed memorial.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was anxious to express his deep sense of the eminent services rendered to the House during these debates by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire Mr. Henley). If it had not been for his perseverance, ability, firmness, and moderation, the Bill would not have been so well guarded as it appeared to be now. There was too much reason to fear that the advantages to be derived from the measure would be counterbalanced by its evils; the House was none the less deeply indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the great sagacity and legal acumen which had enabled him, while leading a minority at the close of a protracted Session, by pure force of reasoning, to introduce important alterations and Amendments. The legal Members of the House were also entitled to thanks of the Community for the manner in which they had lent their valuable aid in removing some of the objectionable portions of the measure. It was to be regretted that the Government had qualified their concession to the clergy by that unhappy provision with respect to the use of the parish church—a provision which would create a great deal of discontent among the clergy, and which was directly contrary to the constitution of the Church re-established at the Reformation. According to that constitution each parish was a Church in itself, the constitution of the Church was federal. He feared that the infraction of that principle, which the Bill established, would prove deeply inimical to the freedom of the Church. The measure as at first introduced, was a most immature one, but he admitted that it had
  1992
  been improved by the untiring exertions of hon. Friends on his side of the House. If undue warmth had been exhibited during a portion of the discussion, allowance ought to be made for the difficulties of a minority, and on account of the character of the measure, which, as introduced to the House, was opposed to the feelings of a large section of its Members, and he believed to those of a large mass of the people out of doors.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished before the question was put to the House, to enter a last protest against the principle on which the measure was founded, many of the provisions it contained, and the manner in which it had been submitted—he could not say to the consideration, but to the acceptance of the House. He objected to the principle of the Bill, inasmuch as it imported for the first time into the statute law of England the dissolubility of marriage by human laws, gave a fresh sanction to the inequality of the sexes in the eye of the law, and not only encouraged the idea that adultery was a venial offence to be condoned by the payment of a pecuniary fine, but actually authorized the notion that it was almost a virtue to be rewarded at the expense of the settled ecclesiastical law, custom, and usage of the country. He objected to many of the provisions of the Bill, inasmuch as they failed to carry out the two leading principles for the sake of which the measure had been recommended to the favourable consideration of the House, because, as far as Ireland, India, and the Colonies were concerned, those who wished to be divorced must still have recourse to the Legislature for special Acts, and because the action of crim. con. had been abolished not in reality but in name merely. He objected to the Bill because it broke up the old settled ecclesiastical polity of the country, and because in the thinnest of Houses, by a bare majority of Members independent of the Government, a provision had been inserted giving encouragement to the idea that, in the opinion of the Legislature, adultery was so respectable an offence, if an offence at all, that the rights of conscience must be violated in order to save the delicate susceptibilities of adulterers and adultresses. He objected further to the mode and manner in which the Bill, so anomalous and inconsistent in its provisions and so objectionable in its principle, had been forced through a jaded House of Commons. The provision

  1993
  which violated the ecclesiastical polity of the country, and worked a complete revolution in the relations between Church and State, was carried by a majority numbering less than one-eighth of the whole assembled House, and of that one-eighth nearly a half consisted of Members of the Government. He maintained, therefore, that the manner in which the Bill had been forced through the House was in itself a source of deep regret to all who wished grave, delicate, and important questions to be fairly and deliberately discussed. He would make no reference to anything of a personal nature which might have occurred during these debates. They were all liable to err in that respect, and no one could be more conscious than himself that in these matters.
  "Veniam petimusque damusque vicissim."
  He could not, however, permit the present opportunity to pass without uttering his protest against the conduct of business by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, under which they were all suffering and against which they had all a right to complain. He did not remember to have heard, during the time he had occupied a scat in that House, from gentlemen of mark and weight, and unconnected with the political party to which he himself belonged, such complaints against the conduct of public business as he had heard within the last three years against the conduct of business by the noble Viscount. No such complaints were made against the conduct of business by the late Sir Robert Peel, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell), or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). It should not not be forgotten that the noble Viscount was not merely the leader of a great political party and the head of Her Majesty's Government, but that by his position he was emphatically the leader and conductor of the debates and proceedings in that House. It was therefore a matter of public concern that every hon. Member, if he saw in the conduct of business elements which were fatal to the due consideration of important public measures, and which tended to narrow and impair the freedom of discussion, should make his opinion known. For his own part, he could not refrain from giving utterance to his opinion that the way in which this Bill had been forced through, at a time when it was physically and morally impossible for its great principles and its numerous and important
  1994
  details to be fairly and fully discussed, had a tendency to shake that confidence in the conduct of public business by the noble Viscount which it was of the utmost importance should be entertained by every section in that House. He made these observations with regret and pain, but he made them because he thought it was a solemn duty that those who remembered how important debates in stormy and tumultuous times had heretofore been conducted, and how measures of not greater interest than the present had been submitted to the consideration of the House by former leaders, should express their opinion upon the course pursued by the noble Viscount. His hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir William Heathcote) had already given an adequate reply to the observation of the Home Secretary, that when this Bill received the Royal assent it would settle and conclude all the important questions with which it dealt. Let not the right hon. Baronet or the noble Viscount believe that those great questions would be settled by this anomalous and inconsistent measure, but let them be prepared to see that important question which affected the consciences of the clergy re-opened in another Session, and let them then endeavour to conclude it upon a basis which should be at once just and consistent. The settlement, as it was called, which was now arrived at could not be regarded as a settlement based upon reason or justice, and when he reflected that it was agreed to in a House numbering some hundred Members, and carried by a majority,—if there was a majority—the barest that could be imagined, of Gentlemen unconnected with the Government—considering, likewise, the excitement which it had created, and the direct violation which it involved of the settled law of the country—he thought that everybody must expect the question to be reopened in another Session. He took leave of this ill-omened, this anomalous, this inconsistent Bill, with again raising what he knew was a vain, but what was, at any rate, a most earnest and sincere protest against it, on account of the principles which it embodied, on account of the provisions by which those principles were to be carried into operation, and on account of the mode and manner in which it had been forced through a jaded and reluctant House of Commons.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I shall detain the House for but a very few minutes

  1995
  while I make sonic observations on the course which has been adopted with regard to this Bill. I must say, then, that I think the course which hon. Gentlemen opposite intend to take upon the present occasion is creditable to themselves and respectful to the House. The matter has been fully discussed, and while they maintain their own opinions and have taken advantage of this opportunity to repeat many of their arguments which, in its progress, they have used against the Bill, they feel that it is neither necessary nor desirable for them to take the more formal step of dividing the House. The noble Lord who has just sat down began with a bill of indictment against me, saying that the manner in which, as the leader of the House, I have conducted public business has called down upon me not only his censure but also that of all the most experienced and respectable Members of the House. I waited with some curiosity and considerable anxiety for the explanation which the noble Lord proposed to make of this very criminal proceeding on my part, dating, as the noble Lord stated, from the moment I occupied the position which I have now the honour to hold; but greatly to my relief, and somewhat to my surprise, I found that the whole of his charge reduced itself to the course pursued by the Government with regard to this particular Bill. The noble Lord thinks that the Government have pressed the Bill with undue and improper haste. Now, with respect to that assertion, as well as to some observations made by other hon. Gentlemen on the same side of the House, I beg leave to say that neither I nor any of my colleagues ever held the doctrine that this Bill was to be hurried through the House without full discussion, or that the House ought to adopt it just as it came down from the House of Lords without amendment or alteration. We have never said anything approaching to such a declaration. What was the state of the case? When this Bill came down from the House of Lords the town ran with declarations and announcements that those who were opposed to it would never allow it to pass, that by prolonging the discussion day after day, and night after night, they would render it impossible for us to carry the Bill through this Session. I am one who do not like to quote private or casual conversations which may pass between hon. Members of this House, but perhaps I may be allowed to state that one prominent opposer of the
  1996
  Bill said to me on one occasion, "You never shall pass this Bill." I replied, "Won't we!" Again, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) said something about the Greek Kalends, which he afterwards explained, but which undoubtedly at the moment I thought had more reference to the passing of this Bill than to the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) on the subject of education. What was the language we held with reference to those threats of impeding and thwarting the Bill, not by argument and fair discussion, but by seizing every pretext for delay? My answer was, "We are able and ready to discuss the measure as long as anybody chooses to sit here; we will sit till September if it be necessary; we are in no hurry, and will with pleasure hear anything that any hon. Member has to say in favour of any alteration he may have to propose in the Bill." Therefore it is an unjust and unfounded accusation which the noble Lord brings against myself and my colleagues, when he says that we are open to the censure of departing from the ordinary and proper practice which is usually adopted with respect to passing measures of this description. I maintain the opinion which I have always entertained, that this measure is a great improvement in the state of the law with regard to divorce. When we were asked what the intentions of the Government were regarding this question, our reply was that our intentions were in the Bill; but it did not at all follow that those intentions might not be improved by argument and discussion. No set of men can so frame a measure as that the first draught of it shall be perfect. All measures introduced to Parliament are necessarily liable to improvement by discussion, and the intention of those who introduce them must always be to listen favourably to the objections and opinions which they may hear urged in debate. There are two or three points in the Bill now before the House that have been particularly adverted to. The principal one regards the exemption given to clergymen who may object to celebrate the remarriage of persons whose marriage has been dissolved by reason of their own offence. The noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) argues that that exemption is not sufficient, and I understand the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir William Heathcote) to say that we did not go far enough

  1997
  because we have not admitted the objection founded on the indissolubility of marriage. Now, I can truly say I never gave a more reluctant consent to anything than I did to the concession made in this matter. I did it solely in deference to the feelings of a large body of clergymen, whose feelings, even though wrong, were in my opinion entitled to respect. With regard to the question of the indissolubility of marriage, it was impossible for the Government to admit that plea. I deny that there is anything in the teaching of the Church of England to justify the opinion that marriage is indissoluble. If we look to the 25th article of the Church, which every clergyman is bound to subscribe, we find that the contrary is distinctly affirmed. It is there affirmed that matrimony is a state of life allowed in the Scriptures, but having nothing in common with the nature of a sacrament "for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." It is therefore impossible that any man who subscribes to this article can maintain that marriage, is on religious grounds, a tie that cannot be dissolved. It was simply, then, on the ground of their conscientious objection to marry persons who had been guilty of a great moral offence, that I consented to the concession on behalf of the clergy. I concur in every argument which my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General used against the principle on which their objection is founded. I trust the clergy will understand the views and feelings that have induced the Government to agree to that concession, and that they will not look upon it as an admission of a principle which, if carried into practice, would, I fear, be highly detrimental to the interests of the Church of England. The Church of England has stood hitherto on ground very different in some respects from that of Churches in other countries. It has never assumed to itself the right of being an ecclesiastical inquisition. The clergymen of that Church have contented themselves with being the guides, the instructors, and the friends of the laity. They have set an example of purity of life which has recommended to the laity the precepts that have come from their lips; but if they should think that this concession entitles them to assume to themselves that authoritative interference in the affairs of private life which is too frequently assumed by the clergymen of other countries, I am afraid they will do the greatest possible injury to the Church by creating
  1998
  in the minds of the laity feelings towards that Church very different from those which hitherto have prevailed. A few years ago I was talking to a very distinguished person belonging to one of the central States of Italy, and I was urging upon him the absurdity and wrongfulness of the interference of Government to prevent converts from the Catholic to the Protestant faith, when his reply was that if they did not make it a punishable offence the whole people would become Protestants. "What!" I said, "do you mean to say that their religious opinions hang so loosely about them, and that their minds are so predisposed to Protestantism, that, they would immediately, if let alone, alter their religion?" "Oh," said he, "you misunderstand me; it is not from religious conviction that they would become Protestants, but they would become Protestants to withdraw themselves from the tyranny and oppression of the priests." I say, then, that if the clergy of the Church of England were to depart from that course they have hitherto pursued, they would inspire in the minds of the laity very different feelings from those which happily now prevail. Coming to the provisions of the Bill, I think it is unnecessary to enter any further into a consideration of those provisions. I think the Bill has been improved in its progress through this House, and I trust that, when it goes back to the other House of Parliament, those learned persons who have already discussed it at great length will see reason to adopt the Amendments that have been introduced, many of which have been made with the full consent even of those who opposed the Bill on principle. It cannot be said that this Bill has been discussed by insufficient numbers. The first Motion made was for delaying the Bill for a month, and that was done in a House of 347 Members—a very considerable and sufficient number of Members to discuss a measure of any importance whatever; and in every subsequent stage of the Bill the attendance has been considerable. This I may also add, that on every division those who affirmed the principle of the Bill were at least two to one. I should hardly have thought it necessary to make these remarks had I not wished to take this opportunity, perhaps the last that may present itself, to direct the attention of the House, and, through the House, the attention of the country, to the course that this House of Commons has pursued since the last general election, because I think

  1999
  that course has been highly creditable to Parliament, and calculated to inspire the country with confidence in those who have been sent here by the various constituencies to represent them. First of all I should say that which is well known, that though the present House of Commons was elected in a period of great political excitement, and when questions were discussed that greatly agitated the public mind, there never was a general election in regard to which there were so few acts of irregularity, none in which so few cases either of bribery or intimidation were alleged or proved. Therefore, I think the House may justly feel that in its constitution it has a right to stand well in public favour. Then as regards the Session, it has been very short—but three months; but I believe there never was a Session in which the Members of the House devoted themselves so actively, so perseveringly, and so successfully to the consideration of the business before it. The House has transacted a large amount of private business, involving close personal attendance on the part of hon. Members, and it has disposed of all the election petitions brought before it, many of them embracing questions of great difficulty and delicacy. When first these election petitions were presented, many of the Members thought it would be impossible to get through them during the present Session; but, nevertheless, they have been all disposed of, though they and the private business of the House have made necessary many morning sittings in Committee. Then in regard to public business, this House has never grudged its time and attention to the Measures proposed by the Government or by private Members. We have often sat to a late hour in the morning, and frequently we have also passed several hours here in the forenoon and afternoon, and I must say the patience, with which the discussions have been listened to, has been exceedingly creditable to the Members of this House. These are things that perhaps do not strike the public out of doors as they may strike us, but I am sure the House will excuse me for having taken this opportunity of drawing attention to its own good conduct, and of having in this way recorded before the country my belief that the Members sent to represent them in Parliament have not been inefficient representatives, and that they have not been neglectful of the duties intrusted to them by their constituents.
  Bill read 3°, and passed.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION CON- TINUANCE BILL.

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that in moving that the Lords' Amendments be considered and agreed to, he wished to explain that as the Bill had reached the other House so late as to come within the rule which their Lordships had laid down not to read any Bill a second time after a certain day, their Lordships had not entered into a consideration of it, but had struck out all the new clauses, and had reduced it to a mere continuance Bill. There were some points in these new clauses to which it was perhaps not altogether inexpedient that further consideration should be given, such, for instance, as to the provision fixing the incomes of the Bishops by assigning them lands, and that relating to the mode in which the accounts of deans and chapters were to be made out. The provision relating to terms of enfranchisement only gave a legislative sanction to that which was now the actual practice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It was founded on the recommendation of the Select Committee, and the Commissioners had ever since felt it their duty to act upon that recommendation. It would, perhaps, however, be more satisfactory to the lessees if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) would state that it was the intention to continue to act upon that rule.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that as the right hon. Baronet had appealed to him, he would repeat what he had stated before, that the Commissioners had felt it their duty to act upon the recommendation of the Select Committee in regard to the terms of enfranchisement, and would continue to do so. He hoped the lessees would rest satisfied with that assurance. He extremely regretted that the measure which had been sent up to the other House had not passed into law. It was of great importance that Parliament should settle the manner in which the incomes of the Bishops should be permanently paid, and also that it should settle the form in which the accounts of the deans and chapters should be drawn up. He should adhere to the principles contained in the Bill from a conviction that they were calculated to put the question of Church property upon the best footing.
  MR. RIDLEYsaid, he must also express his great regret that the Bill, as sent up to the other House, had not passed into law.

  2001
  The declaration just made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was calculated to give great satisfaction to the parties interested.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he too regretted that the Bill had not passed in its integrity, but this regret was much lessened by the fact that the clause introduced into the Bill by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was among the clauses struck out by the other House.
  Lords' Amendments agreed to.
  On Motion, "That the House at its rising do adjourn to Monday next.

MEDAL FOR THE PERSIAN EXPEDITION.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESasked the President of the Board of Control whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to confer upon the officers of the Persian expedition the customary testimonials of approval of successful military operations in brevets, honours, and a medal. Expeditions by sea were always more trying to the temper, to the physical constitution, and to the comfort of troops than were those by land, and they were more than commonly trying to the Sepoys, who, if they were all of good caste, were, during the whole voyage, compelled to live upon a dry vegetable diet, as they could not cook food while they were on board ship. It was no doubt to be regretted that such a thing as caste existed amongst the Hindoos; but then it was a great fact, and we could not help it; so it was to be regretted that antagonistic religions existed in the world; but there they were, and we could not help it. Caste entailed personal sufferings and sacrifices upon the Sepoy while he was on board ship, and therefore gave him a greater claim to consideration than if his services were rendered by land. The House would admit that the expedition to Persia had been managed with unexampled success, that the officer who commanded it had not failed to accomplish any of its objects, but had conducted it to an end which was creditable to the troops and to himself. Under these circumstances, and considering the present state of affairs in India, it was highly desirable that those honours and rewards, which were so dear to soldiers, should be conferred with as little delay as possible.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that the
  2002
  hon. and gallant Gentleman and the House must be aware of the high honour and estimation in which Her Majesty's Government held the gallantry, the courage and skill which were displayed by the officers and men of the troops engaged in the Persian expedition. Whether their services had been such as to bring them within the rules observed in the granting of the honours and rewards referred to, and whether the success of the expedition was such as to justify the striking of a medal for the occasion, must be questions for future consideration. The course pursued on these occasions, as the hon. and gallant Member well knew, was that the Governor General should specify the officers whom he recommended for honours to the Court of Directors, and that the Court should forward these recommendations to Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, if the hon. and gallant Member was anxious to expedite the conferring of these honours, instead of asking him (Mr. Vernon Smith) for information, his best course would be to urge the question upon the Court of Directors, of which he himself was a Member.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he had not put this question as a Director of the East India Company.

ALTERATION OF AMENDMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether, when an important Amendment placed upon the Notice Paper is subsequently altered in its leading principle, it will not be desirable that some note of such change should be appended to it? His reason for asking this question was that, during the discussion upon the Divorce Bill some Amendments, and particularly one moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) in the 53rd clause, were altered from the form in which Notice was originally given of them in such a manner as might have been productive of much inconvenience.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the terms of the hon. Gentleman's question as to the mode of treating an important Amendment gave rise immediately to one difficulty. Who was to determine what was an important Amendment, and what not? It was the privilege of every Member of the House to give notice of any Amendment, at the same time it was extremely proper and useful that he should have the

  2003
  power of altering the terms of his Amendment in order to make it conform with the Bill in its progress. It did not appear to him to be too much to expect of hon. Members that they should look at the Notice Paper of the day to see what Amendments were to be proposed. He did not think that it would be desirable to make any change in the system which at present existed.
  House adjourned at half-past Three o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Mersey Conservancy and Docks (No. 2).
3a Mersey Conservancy and Docks (No. 2); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Dunbar Harbour Loan; Metropolitan Police Stations, &c.; Militia Pay; Revising Barristers (Dublin); Probates and Letters of Administration (Ireland); Mutiny (East India); Joint-Stock Companies; Act (1856) Amendment; Parochial Schoolmasters (Scotland) (No. 2); Customs and Excise; Customs; Pimlico Improvement.

SALE OF OBSCENE BOOKS, &c., PREVEN- TION BILL.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he was happy to find that their Lordships had just received an intimation that the House of Commons had agreed to the Bill for more effectually preventing the sale of obscene books and prints, with certain Amendments; and he should move on Monday that their Lordships do agree to those Amendments, lie thought the tendency of those Amendments was to guard against any abuse that might arise from the power which this Bill conferred. It was required, for instance, that there should be evidence given of some sale or exhibition for sale of such obscene books or prints before the warrant was granted, and there was an appeal given to the Quarter Sessions against the decision of the magistrates, with the view of ascertaining whether the books or articles were of the description stated in the warrant. He did not believe those Amendments were necessary, but as they were in entire conformity with the spirit of the Bill he should advise their Lordships to agree to them. There was another Amendment—namely, that this Bill should not extend to Scotland. With respect to that Amendment, the Lord Advocate had informed him that the Bill was wholly unnecessary in that part of the kingdom, for by the common law of Scotland they had powers more stringent for putting down nuisances of the kind in question than it was proposed to confer by this Bill, and those powers, he was informed, were exercised. He might be permitted to say that, perhaps the existence of those powers had contributed to the greater morality which was allowed to exist in the northern part of the kingdom.
THE INDIAN ARMY.—ENLISTMENT.

  PAPER MOVED FOR.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I beg, my Lords, to move for the production
  1950
  of a paper of very great importance at the present moment. I allude to a document which has appeared in one of the evening papers, containing a circular Order of Sir Henry Somerset, the General Commander in Chief at Bombay, in which he prescribes certain rules for enlistment, and says,—
  "That he does not wish to touch particularly on the Subject of 'Caste;'—muscular, well-built young Men are what are required in the Native Army, and these must be obtained apart from such Considerations; yet it seems unadvisable, where others can be obtained, to replenish our ranks with low caste Men, who are from ill Feeding, rarely equal in Stamina to their better-caste Neighbours, and who are generally deficient in that Pride and soldier-like Feeling which it is our Duty to inculcate as essential to the well-being of the Native Army."
  I should say that this order was issued some days before the general outbreak, and that as soon as it was issued it was cancelled by the local Government. I think it very desirable that a copy of that document should be laid on the table of this House, in order that we may see what has been the course of conduct of the regimental officers and the commanding officers with reference to that which lies at the root of the mutiny in the Bengal army. I believe that all persons acquainted with India would admit that nothing has tended more to laxity of conduct and discipline, to foster a spirit of mutiny in the Bengal army, and to make the troops proud, conceited, arrogant, and resistant to the proper labour and duty imposed on all other soldiers, than this homage that has been paid to Brahminical caste. I must say the disclosures made in the papers lately laid before this House are sufficient to warn us of the evils of pandering to the vanities and bigotry and religious prejudices of the Hindoos. I may state to your Lordships that when General Hearsey disbanded the 19th Regiment, he found 419 high caste men in that regiment alone. I believe that nothing has tended more to foster the prejudices of the Natives and to encourage among them self-conceit, and the idea of possessing exclusive rights and privileges, than the apparent homage paid to caste by the officers and the European authorities. I must say this is a principle wholly inconsistent with the position which we occupy in India. It is certainly inconsistent with our political position and with our position as a Christian country. I for one would desire to see Christianity disseminated in India; but in order to aid that object, I would not enter into any Quixotic

  1951
  crusade against the habits and feelings of the people. I would leave all that to the silent operation of the Christian missionaries. But if we, as a Government, ought to abstain from forcing Christianity on the Natives of India, we as a Government ought equally to abstain from fostering religious bigotry and Pagan idolatry. I do not know that any one single thing has done more mischief throughout India than the homage that has been paid to the system of idolatry, by declaring that the Brahmins were to be selected and preferred above all others for service in the Native army. I want, therefore, to know from some member of Her Majesty's Government whether the principle of selection to which I have alluded is to be recognized in future. For myself, I believe, if the principle were laid down that our soldiers should be indiscriminately chosen, and that men of the lowest caste, such as Pariahs, Sudras, and Chandals, should be permitted to stand in the same rank as men of the highest caste without anything in the nature of exclusion, you would go further to put down Brahminism than by any other mode of action to which you could possibly have recourse. I must say I think the principle laid down by General Jacob in a phamplet he has recently published is the correct one—that in making levies the consideration should be, not who are the best Hindoos, but who would make the most true, obedient, and loyal soldiers. I hope my noble Friend (Earl Granville) will relieve the public mind by giving an assurance that in future the levies of the Bengal army will be raised on the principle adopted in Madras and Bombay, and that no preference whatever will be given to the Brahmins on account of their caste. The noble Earl then moved for copy of circular letter, of the 14th of January, 1857, on the subject of enlistment in the Native Indian army, signed by Major Glasse, Acting Deputy Assistant General.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I shall not object to the production of the General Order to which the noble Earl refers, and any other papers which may be necessary for its explanation shall also be laid on the table at the same time. There is a very natural disposition on the part of the military authorities in India to enlist men of the higher castes, on account of their supposed nobler qualities and greater courage. The noble Earl has expresed his belief that a great deal of the mischief which has arisen is attributable to the pampering
  1952
  and respect paid to the religious prejudices of the Hindoos. I have no doubt, that in some instances, mistakes of this kind may have been made, but it is quite clear that mistakes have also been made in the opposite direction; and I think, both for the maintenance of our power in India, and for the interest of the Christian religion, it is the duty of the Government to remain as neutral as possible with regard to religious questions. The noble Earl has asked me to give an assurance as to the mode in which the Bengal army shall in future be levied; but, whatever may be my opinions on the subject, I think it would be presumptuous on my part, after the direful experience we have had of the necessity of looking at the question in every light, to give any distinct pledge as to the manner in which the Indian armies shall in future be organized.
  Ordered to be laid before the House.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

  THIRD READING. SAVINGS BANKS. THE NATIONAL DEBT.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he wished to take this opportunity of calling their Lordships' attention to two or three points of some importance. He was sure their Lordships would be entirely agreed that, considering the troubles which unfortunately prevailed in different parts of the East, every possible effort ought to be made to support the authority of Great Britain, and that with such an object in view no niggardly feeling with regard to expenditure ought to be entertained. Although he hoped that a satisfactory and permanent European peace had been concluded, it was clearly impossible for this country to cease all expenditure for warlike purposes at the first close of the war. This country had made prodigious efforts during the war, and considering the results, we might look back to those efforts, even in a financial point of view, with great satisfaction. The people had borne, with a generous confidence unexampled in history, the heavy amount of taxation which it had been necessary to impose. So far were the commercial and manufacturing interests of the country from having suffered, they had proved, so far as the taxation was concerned, that they were never

  1953
  in a more satisfactory condition. He trusted, however, that the admiration they must all feel at the manner in which the people had borne their burdens would not be limited to vague expressions of grateful confidence only, but that Government would at all times strive to give practical effect to whatever measures might be conducive to the well-being of the people. He was led to make these observations by a consideration of the steps which were required to be taken for the reform of our Savings Banks. In the absence of any one more competent for the task, he had proposed to have himself called their Lordships' attention during the present Session to the subject. At an early period of the Session a Bill had been introduced to amend the law respecting Savings Banks, which was considered likely to come before their Lordships' House, long before the present time. He did not think it would have been respectful to trouble their Lordships with any observations relating to the matter, when probably by that Bill many of the objections he entertained to the present system might have been removed, or if not removed, when in the progress of the Bill he might have had an opportunity of introducing his Amendments. That Bill had, however, been withdrawn, and he now felt it his duty to call their Lordships' attention to the question—not as our Savings Banks were accustomed to be viewed, merely as charitable institutions, intended to improve the condition of the working classes and to give them new motives for industry and content, and with those new motives to establish a most important and useful link between the middle classes and the public credit of the country, teaching the former practically the great lesson that with respect to the prosperity of all classes there was no distinction between the high and the low, the rich and the poor, but that the public credit of England was an essential element in the prosperity of all its inhabitants, and that there was no one in the moneyed world, whether bearing the name of a Rothschild or a Baring, more deeply interested in the maintenance of credit, than the humblest classes—but as our system of Savings Banks was now unfortunately applied as the means of carrying out objects which were not originally connected with the institution of Savings Banks. Our Savings Banks were intended for the relief of the humble and industrious; they are now used in aid of the Exchequer. The institution of Savings Banks originated
  1954
  in this country, and had since been adopted by almost every nation of the civilized world. But at the time when the Savings Banks were originally founded by benevolent individuals the last thing that could then have been contemplated or desired, but which their Lordships were now compelled to contemplate, and as he thought were bound to condemn and to regret, was that the Savings Banks, institutions of charity and benevolence, had unfortunately been connected but too closely with the speculative financial interests of the State. If it had been suggested at the time of their foundation that the Savings Banks were ever likely to be converted into institutions to support public credit, to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer in measures of finance, and give support to speculation on the Stock Exchange, the originators of the Savings Banks would have shuddered at such an idea. Indeed, it would not have been thought possible, for it could not have been anticipated that the accumulations invested in these institutions by the industrious classes would have reached so enormous a sum as £35,000,000. The Government were compelled reluctantly to become connected with the Savings Banks on their first establishment; but the interposition of the Government in their management was intended but for one purpose—namely, to give the depositors confidence in the safety of the investment, and to give to the institutions the advantage of Government countenance. The Savings Banks' securities of this country were nominally placed in the hands of a body of trustees composed of persons filling high official positions, and had thereby been made ex officio trustees; in reality the control of that vast sum was placed in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, in this, as in other cases, Parliament had greatly erred in casting a great weight upon official persons, who had important direct duties of their own to discharge, in them most unwisely ex officio members of an unreasonable number of boards, the active duties of which their own primary duties render them unable to discharge. Of this the ex officio members of the Board of Control, the India Board, and the Council of Education, were sufficient examples. But independently of this objection the Savings Banks of this country had outgrown their original establishment, and their control ought to be placed in hands more directly before the world made responsible for the management.

  1955
  It was all in vain to think of sending round London to find a Secretary of State, a Governor of the Bank, or a Master of the Rolls, in order to make up a quorum of the Trustees of Savings Banks, who, when assembled, were perfectly useless for the purposes of deliberation or of action, the effective control being in the hands of the Finance Minister. But this was a small part of the matter, for he was about to show that the present system, though it might be administered with invariable purity, contained within itself a great liability to jobbing of the most dangerous character. It gave to the Government of the day, as represented by the Finance Minister, a power over public credit and the price of the public securities which it was improper to place in the hands of any one single person, however beyond reproach or suspicion. He rejoiced that whilst making these observations, a right hon. Friend of his own filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose character and integrity rendered it utterly impossible for any one to suppose that his remarks, affecting an abstract question, could in the slightest degree apply to that able and eminent individual; but he availed himself of this advantage by discussing the question all the more freely, and endeavouring to show that the system which now existed by law was a system impossible to be defended, even when placed under the most unsuspected control. The whole amount of those £35,000,000 which he had described as the enormous capital of the Savings Banks might be sold, bought, exchanged, or invested in Exchequer bills, or in stock, at the will or pleasure of the Finance Minister; and consequently the Chancellor of the Exchequer was enabled, if he thought fit, to influence the money-market to an extent which no individual or combination of capitalists could possibly either equal or counteract. As far as this arose out of the necessary effect of buying and selling securities required for the purpose of the Savings Banks, he had no objections to make, but the Savings Bank securities were now employed for purposes going very far beyond the necessities of the Savings Banks. They were employed for purposes which directly affected the value of the public securities and were intended to influence the Stock Market. Suppose a Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that at a particular time he was about to alter the interest of Exchequer bills, or that he was about to fund, or to
  1956
  make a loan, if he went into the market to deal in such securities with a knowledge of such intention, of course he dealt in that market at an enormous advantage as compred with all other persons. It had been said, much to his surprise, that because government lost by the Savings Banks paying in interest to the depositors a larger sum than the sum deposited actually earned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at liberty to recoup the sum so overpaid by making profits in speculating upon the purchase and sale of the public securities in the way to which he had objected. That was altogether a new and formidable doctrine, and to illustrate its mischievous tendencies he would mention a circumstance which took place during the past year. At a particular time there occurred a considerable depression in the unfunded debt, and £2,000,000 was laid out in Exchequer bills, not by the investment of sums invested by depositors, but by the arbitrary sale of one description of security in order to apply the price received for the purpose of raising the credit of another. This case may be stated more clearly still. In June or July the time approached, when according to usage Exchequer bills would be exchangeable. It happened that at that time they were at a discount, and purchases were made by the Commissioners for the national debt, in order to raise that discount to a premium. Those operations were carried on until the time for exchanging came, and in the meantime parties finding a premium upon the bills created by the artificial means just described, which was sufficient to encourage them to hold, retained them until the time of the exchange was passed. Immediately after the exchange, however, the purchases of the Government ceased, the premium was necessarily converted into a discount, and those who had been induced to hold by the act of the Government became the sufferers. That ought not to be. There ought to be no such thing permitted as this buying and selling the public securities by the Queen's Minister, for the purpose of gaining on the speculation. It was no justification to say that the profit went to the public credit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other trustees were trustees for the benefit of the Savings Banks only, and there could be no justification for such a proceeding though intended to make a profit for the Treasury. He did not say that this was contrary to any law, however contrary to principle. His objection was to the law itself, and he

  1957
  repeated that no such facilities ought to be given. The events of late years fully justified the anticipations which he had ventured to make on this subject some time since. He protested altogether against the new doctrine that it was justifiable to buy and sell in order to make a profit on the Stock Exchange for losses sustained in Downing Street, and thus to indemnify the country against losses winch the trustees sustained in the rate of interest paid. The consequence of these proceedings was, that no faith could be placed in the price of these public securities while the unfunded debt was dealt with in a manner so indefensible. A great State should jealously preserve its public credit; if that were diminished or lost the consequence would be the sacrifice of those resources in which such State had the greatest advantages over all other Powers; In order to preserve that public credit, it must never be tampered with or employed unjustly. What had been the result of the course he complained of? For two or three years, unexampled in the history of this country, the whole of the un-funded debt had been so frequently at a discount, and thereby so discredited in the market that if similar circumstances could have happened to any one merchant in London he must have been in the Gazette twenty times over. Many of those things, which he regarded as objectionable, might be justified by the acts of some of the predecessors of his right hon. Friend who now filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Some, though not involving the same principle, had even been done by himself. He wholly condemned the practice when carried to the extent of selling, and therefore lowering one public security with the view of buying and then raising the value of another. There was another point to which he wished to direct their Lordships' attention. Although the law did not forbid it in terms, Parliamentary usage, and the privileges claimed by the House of Commons did not allow their Lordships to deal unreservedly with the taxation of the country—that was to say, they could not impose a tax—and, perhaps, that was the last privilege which ought to be entrusted to them, or their Lordships would wish to possess. But as Legislators they were continually brought into contact with the finances of the country; indeed, the statute law required the annual financial accounts to be brought under their consideration.
  1958
  Those accounts were annually presented and their Lordships were bound to exercise their judgment upon every Bill, of whatever nature, that came before them. In connection with this subject he wished to call attention to an alteration in the form of that important quarterly account, known as the Public Income and Expenditure Balance sheet—an alteration which, in his opinion, ought never to have been made, and certainly not made without notice and Parliamentary authority. One of the duties of Parliament was to apply any surplus of income over expenditure to pay off a portion of the debt; many expedients had been adopted for this end at different times, but they had all proved fallacious, till the enactment of the present law by which a bona-fide Sinking Fund was established, and the Government were compelled by Act of Parliament to apply the redemption of debt quarterly to one-fourth of the surplus of income received in the year preceding. He held in his hand the last of three quarterly accounts, of which he thought the public and Parliament were entitled to complain as fallacious if not deceptive. This account consisted of two parts, one showing the Income and Expenditure, and the other showing the amount of Balances and of the Public debt. Now in the former of these accounts, under the head of Expenditure, there appeared for the first time an item of no less than £2,000,000 of the public money which had been applied to pay off Exchequer bonds. Payments of this description had hitherto uniformly been included in the second of these accounts, which showed the progress or diminution of the public debt. The result of the alteration, however, was to increase the Expenditure by £2,000,000, and thus to diminish in a proportionate degree the surplus applicable by law to the payment of the national debt. There was another point, and one of a very material character, to which he also desired permission to call attention. In the course of the last year there had been not only two Sessions, but two Parliaments, and consequently there had been two Appropriation Bills. Now, in the Act before their Lordships, of which the third reading was now proposed, a constitutional principle of the greatest possible importance had been departed from. He was willing to suppose that it had been violated through misapprehension or by mistake, but he thought the point was one which Parliament

  1959
  ought not wholly to pass over. The vital principle of this Bill had always been comprised in a clause of appropriation, limiting the public expenditure to the extent and distribution of the Votes of Parliament. From the time of William III. up to the present day there had been inserted in the Appropriation Bill a clause which was drawn up by no less an authority than Lord Somers, and which was to this effect:—
  "The said aids and supplies provided as aforesaid shall not be issued or applied to any use, intent, or purpose whatsoever other than the uses, intents, and purposes before mentioned, or for the other payments, appropriation, or application directed to be made or satisfied thereout."
  In the Bill now on their Lordships' table, however, this clause was omitted, and something totally different was enacted. By Clause 27 it was provided:—
  "So much of the 20th of Vict. c. 20, as limits or restricts the issue or application of the several sums granted to Her Majesty to the services voted in that Session of Parliament, shall be, and the same is, hereby repealed; and the sums granted by the said Act and those granted by this Act shall and may be issued and applied generally to any use, intent, or purpose mentioned in or to defray any payment directed to be satisfied by this Act."
  The difficulty intended to be remedied had arisen no doubt from the necessity of passing two Appropriation Bills in the one year and the object was to apply indiscrim inately each distinct Vote of the one Session to the similar and corresponding Vote in the other—to make the Army Votes taken on the two occasions applicable to the Army generally throughout the year; and so with the Navy, Ordnance, and all other Votes. But the Bill was framed as if it was meant to allow the whole of the money issued to be applied generally to any use whatever contained in either of these Acts, thereby not limiting the amount expended to the amount of each separate Vote, as the ordinary Appropriation Bill would have done. The words were such as might be construed so as to apply generally instead of uniting the two Votes of the same character. He was perfectly satisfied that it could never have been the intention of the Government to have made such a change. He believed the course taken to have been the result of an inadvertency, but he thought it most unfortunate that the Bill should have passed the other House in a way which their Lord ships could not rectify. In the observations which he had made he hoped it would not be supposed that he was casting any reflection upon his right hon. Friend who held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer;
  1960
  but the points he had raised were, he believed, of importance in a constitutional view, and deserved the careful consideration both of the Government and the House. It was with this view that he had brought them under the special notice of the House.
  EARL GRANVILLEthanked his noble Friend for the eloquent manner in which he had impressed upon the House and the country the necessity, at all times of national difficulty, that the national resources should be made applicable for the solution of those difficulties. He agreed with his noble Friend that the energy which the country had displayed during the last war, and the state of the country after the heavy expenses it had borne, were subjects of much congratulation; and this afforded him some consolation after the remark of his noble Friend, that some of our financial operations were such as would bring many merchants into the Gazette. He accepted the noble Lord's assurance that, in his remarks respecting Savings Banks, he had not been making a personal attack upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer; at the same time, he had passed some criticism upon the acts of his right hon. Friend, and he (Earl Granville) would, therefore, go over two or three of the points which had been alluded to. In the first place, his noble Friend had spoken at some length on the subject of the Savings Banks. Every one must admit the immense importance of these institutions, and the expediency that the depositors should feel convinced of their solvency. The only objection to this part of his noble Friend's speech was, that the manner in which he had handled the subject might, possibly, excite unnecessary alarm on the part of some of the depositors. The noble Lord did not approve of the power of dealing with these funds possessed by the Government, but he left entirely unnoticed the question of legality. Now, he (Earl Granville) might state, on behalf of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, that his right hon. Friend was one of the first to refrain from following the example set by some of his predecessors in office (including, he believed, the noble Lord himself) as to one mode of dealing with savings-bank funds—namely, in exercising the power of funding Exchequer Bills. But his noble Friend objected to the mode in which something like £2,000,000 of money, belonging to the Commissioners of Savings Banks were applied for the benefit of the State, in the

  1961
  course of the last year. If, however, the course adopted was strictly legal, and, at the same time, possessed the collateral advantages of being beneficial to the funds of the Savings Banks, and of relieving the public from paying a high rate for the money they borrowed, he thought it was the absolute duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to operate in that manner. This was so in the present case, and he could only repeat that, so long as the existing law continued, it being both legal and nationally advantageous to employ these funds in a certain way, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound so to act. His noble Friend had quoted the opinion of some eminent city authority as to the effect of some of these operations. In reply, he (Earl Granville) would refer (though it was, perhaps, a little irregular to do so) to a report which he remembered seeing of something which occurred in another place, when two of the highest authorities on monetary matters—one being a late Governor of the Bank of England, and the other connected with an eminent firm of private bankers in the metropolis—both agreed that the course taken was most advantageous to the public, though one objected to and the other approved of the system. As to the law on the subject, this did not depend upon any recent legislative enactment; and he could not help thinking that if his noble Friend so strongly disapproved of the present system, he ought, when in office himself, to have taken some steps to alter the law. Be this as it might, however, he believed it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Committee upon Savings Banks next year, and it was, therefore, of no great practical advantage for him now to argue whether it was desirable that the existing system should or should not continue. The power was, certainly, a great one to intrust to a public officer; but, probably, it would be found productive of some disadvantage to the public if that power were taken away. With regard to the next point—namely, the balances—his noble Friend, so far as he was acquainted with the matter, had stated the facts accurately. His noble Friend was technically right in what he had said as to the manner in which the surplus of £2,000,000 ought to have been dealt with; nevertheless, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was also right, substantially. Had not the sum been charged, as it was, under the head of expenditure, there would have been a discrepancy between the receipts
  1962
  and the expenditure, which would have made it appear as though there had been an actual surplus to that amount; and the consequence would have been that according to the Act referred to by his noble Friend, they would have had to carry one fourth of the amount to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; and so, having paid off £2,000,000 of debt, they would have had to pay off £500,000 more from the same fund. With regard to the clause of the Appropriation Bill, objected to by his noble Friend, he believed the same question arose, formerly, under Sir Robert Peel's Government, in 1841. When Sir Robert Peel was in office, there were two Parliaments, and two Appropriation Bills. The first Appropriation Bill was passed at the close of the first Session; and at the close of the year a second Bill was passed. In the titles of those Acts, the sums were stated to be voted for the service of the year 1841, but, in the bodies of the Acts, the Ways and Means were applied to the public service during the particular Session in which each Bill was passed. But the inconvenience of having two distinct sets of Ways and Means and two Appropriation Bills being felt, at the commencement of the following Session a Bill was drawn up and passed, after some discussion, which remedied the evil, and this clause had been adopted on the present occasion.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3° accordingly.
  EARL GRANVILLE EARL GRANVILLE moved that the House do now adjourn.

THE DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.

  LORD REDESDALE'S NOTICE.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, a Bill with Amendments of very great importance had that day been returned from the other House of Parliament, and the noble Earl had moved the adjournment of the House without proposing any day for their consideration. He begged to remind their Lordships that he gave notice last evening that when that Bill came back to their Lordships' House, he should move that the Amendments made therein by the other House of Parliament be taken into consideration that day six months. He (Lord Redesdale) thought that the question as to the consideration of the Commons' Amendments in the Bill should now be determined by their Lordships.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill has come up from the other House of Parliament with a great quantity of very important Amendments, which your Lordships have not had an opportunity of reading or seeing. It has been reported that the noble Lord, availing himself of the position in which he has placed himself, is now about to move that these Amendments be taken into consideration this day six months. My Lords, in what position would that put your Lordships' House with the country? Here is a Bill involving a most important question, debated and deliberated upon for a month in your Lordships' House, and for six weeks in the other House of Parliament, and is an attempt now to be made to get rid of it by—[the rest of the sentence was interrupted by cheers]. Every one in the House knows that there is a misunderstanding of the notice given. I trust that the noble Lord the Chairman of your Lordships' Committees will not put your Lordships in such an invidious and discreditable position in the eyes of the public as his Motion would place your Lordships.
  LORD REDESDALE: The noble and learned Lord is extremely irate and indignant at what he conceives to be my conduct in this matter. I rose when the adjournment of the House was moved to speak upon the Bill in question, because no Motion had been made that the Bill should be taken into consideration on any particular day, and I thought it was not right that we should leave the House without anything having been said as to the course which the Government intended to pursue with regard to the Bill. Being a Government measure, I could not, of course, venture to move that it be considered on any particular day—it must be left to the Government to fix that; but when any noble Lord moves that a Bill be taken into consideration on a particular day, it is open to any other noble Lord to move that it be taken into consideration on any other day, and I did most distinctly give notice to the noble Earl (Earl Granville) that when the Bill in question did come up I should move that the Commons' Amendments on it should be taken into consideration that day six months. I thought it was improper that your Lordships should be asked to consider the important Amendments made in that Bill on the day before the prorogation of Parliament, and it was on that ground that I
  1964
  gave notice of my Amendment, in order that all parties might know that it was my intention to move that the Commons' Amendments be taken into consideration this day six months.
  LORD CAMPBELL: When was your Amendment to be moved?
  LORD REDESDALE: The words that I used last night when giving notice of it were these:—
  "I expect that the Divorce Bill will be brought up from the other House to-morrow, and I give notice that when that Bill comes up to this House I shall move that the Commons' Amendments be taken into consideration this day six months."
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Is your notice inserted in the notice-book?
  LORD REDESDALE: It could not be entered on the notice-book, because the Bill was not then before the House. ["Oh, oh!"] He asserted that the course which he had adopted was perfectly regular. It was open to any noble Lord on a Motion that a Bill be taken into consideration on a particular day to move that it be considered on some other day, and when he gave notice that he should take the latter course with regard to the Divorce Bill, he acted quite fairly and courteously towards the House. It was no ground for raising an objection to his proceeding that it was inconvenient to the Government, for every one knew that if things were to be done precisely as suited the Government and they were allowed, without being subject to the control of the House, to fix important questions for the end of the Session, when there was no time for consideration, and for days only on which their adherents were specially summoned, their Lordships might just as well give up all opposition and all attempts to improve a measure. Such a proceeding was contrary to, and would amount to an absolute restriction on the freedom of their Lordships' deliberations. He maintained that he had given full notice of the course he intended to take, and that he was strictly in order.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think this is a matter in which the character of the House is at stake, and it is therefore to be hoped that your Lordships will calmly consider your decision. In this assembly we are, perhaps, not always so strictly regular in our conduct of business as the other House; but what I have remarked in this House during the short time I have had a seat in it—and I appeal to the noble Marquess

  1965
  (the Marquess of Lansdowne), the highest authority among us, to confirm what I am stating—is that your Lordships have invariably observed it almost as a religious principle not to take petty advantages that might be gained by a surprise, but to take the most fair and straightforward steps to bring any matter before the House. The noble Lord says, he gave notice yesterday of the course he intended to take, and I do not doubt that the words as quoted by the noble Lord were the words he used. But I venture to ask every Peer who was present at the time it was given, whether the noble Lord's notice, applying as it did to a contingency, would admit of his proceeding regularly with his Amendment tonight? I feel quite confident, that if the noble Lord himself only reflects for a moment, and puts aside the strong feeling he entertains in regard to this Bill, he will see that the course he has himself proposed is not one that he would have approved on the part of another Peer. It is perfectly monstrous that we should be asked to reject the Commons' Amendments before they have been printed and submitted to our examination; and I cannot think that my noble Friend, to whom, from his official position, we usually look up for guidance on questions affecting the regularity of our proceedings, will persist in the intention he has indicated. At all events, I hope that this House will not subject itself in the eyes of the country to the imputation of seeking by a mere trick to get rid of an important measure.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he certainly did not understand that the Amendments were to be considered that evening. He regretted the heat that had been shown, and the use of expressions that were seldom introduced into their Lordships' debates. Noble Lords opposite had also cheered with unusual vehemence some expressions of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack—a circumstance calculated to excite a corresponding warmth of feeling on that side of the House. His noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) had given notice that when the Divorce Bill came up from the other House he would move that the Commons' Amendments be considered that day six months; but nothing, he was persuaded, could have been further from his intention than to take their Lordships by surprise. Indeed, he was sure that his noble Friend was incapable of anything of that kind. Let the
  1966
  House calmly and deliberately consider this question, and let the Government distinctly state whether they meant to afford full time for the consideration of the numerous and important Amendments which had been made by the Commons. But if it was true that Parliament was to be prorogued on Tuesday, and they were to have no other opportunity than Monday, to discuss and decide upon the many important Amendments which had been introduced into the measure elsewhere, he should be compelled, however unwillingly, to vote with his noble Friend against such a proceeding. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would fairly inform their Lordships when this subject would be brought forward, and would also give an assurance that there would be no attempt to prevent a full and free discussion.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHconfessed that he had not the slightest notion that anything of the kind was coming on to-day, and, indeed, until he came down to the House, he was in total ignorance of the fact that the Bill had been brought up. He hoped that his noble Friend would not persevere in the Amendment of which he had given notice, even though it might be strictly in accordance with the rules of the House, for he thought it would have a very mischievous effect.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, he thought the consideration of the Bill should be postponed till next Session. It was of so important a character that they were bound to demand the most satisfactory explanations upon every point that was required, and he was sure they had not time to discuss it with the Session just upon the point of closing.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he should support the Motion for the adjournment of the House. Upon his solemn word and honour his opinion was, that the proposal of the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) was irregular, and contrary to the practice of the House. He understood, and he believed their Lordships all likewise understood, the noble Lord to have stated that he should bring forward his Motion when the discussion upon the Commons' Amendments came on. That would be a perfectly legitimate course, and the understanding on both sides of the House, with the exception of a few who were in the secret was, that the discussion would be taken on Monday, and not sooner. He could not believe his cars when he understood the noble Lord to say that he meant to take the discussion when

  1967
  the Bill came up to the House, and not when the time came for their consideration of the Amendments. He thought it must be a hoax, for he could not imagine the noble Lord would do anything inconsistent with his station and reputation.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONprotested against the Government giving only a single day for a discussion upon a Bill so important, to which the country was adverse, and which would, in his opinion, be fraught with mischief. Material Amendments had been made in the Bill, and it was impossible to consider the measure adequately on Monday, when so few Peers were in town, and when the right rev. Prelates were detained in the country upon the business of their dioceses. Their Lordships would stand in a false and invidious light before the country if a measure of this kind were smuggled through the House without due deliberation. His noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) had given regular notice that on the Bill being brought up from the other House, he would move that the Amendments be considered on that day six months.
  LORD WYNFORDsaid, he fully expected that the Government would have brought on the discussion on the Amendments that night on the bringing up of the Bill,—he certainly understood his noble Friend's (Lord Redesdale) Amendment to refer to the bringing up of the Bill, and he had therefore acted in a perfectly fair and legitimate manner. He thought it would have been upon the Minutes, and was certainly surprised that the noble Earl would not fix a day for its discussion. He regretted extremely that these Amendments would have to be considered next week, when the Bishops would be absent on their pastoral duties. The Bill was on their Lordships' table—why not proceed with it now?
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHalso expressed his conviction that the notice was, that when the Bill came up to their Lordships' House the noble Lord would move that the consideration of the Amendments be deferred for six months. Some observations had been made about unfairness, and taking Her Majesty's Government by surprise—he should like to know whether Her Majesty's Government were not taking those noble Lords by surprise, who, on the faith of the clause giving to the wife the power to sue for a divorce on the ground of adultery on the part of the husband being omitted from the Bill, had given it
  1968
  their support? That clause, however, had been reinserted in the Commons, and therefore the pretence that the Bill was not an alteration of the law, but only the constitution of a new court, was no longer of avail, and if the Bill passed, as amended, the votes of those noble Lords now in the country, who had given their support on that ground, would have been improperly obtained. It was scarcely fair, he contended, upon the part of the Government, at a moment when they had entire command over the House, to endeavour to force a clause, which had been introduced into the Bill in the House of Commons, upon their Lordships, particularly when it was taken into consideration that the absence of that clause the success of the Bill in their Lordships' House was to a great extent to be attributed.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEwas understood to say,—My Lords, the noble Marquess who has just sat down seems to have based his observations upon the assumption that Her Majesty's Ministers now possess entire command over this House. But what is it, let me ask, which has given to them that command? Why, my Lords, it can be nothing else than the non-attendance of noble Lords opposite, whose duty it is to be in their places as much as it is the duty of any other Peers, and to whom the same means of being present at our deliberations are open as are within the reach of Her Majesty's Ministers. To state, therefore, that the Government have the command of this House is to take a course which it is, in my opinion, almost unconstitutional in the case of a Peer of England to adopt. Her Majesty's Ministers never have had the control of this House, and I trust the noble Marquess will never see the day when such a state of things shall exist. With respect to the course proposed to be taken by the noble Baron (Lord Redesdale) I think that any proceeding which would take the conduct of this Bill out of the hands of Government would introduce a new and ingenious practice. I cannot deem it right that a Bill of great importance such as that under discussion, in which material alterations have been made in the other House of Parliament, should be pressed upon your Lordships' attention without due notice of the nature of those Amendments being afforded. If, my Lords, a contrary course were to be sanctioned, and if Her Majesty's Government—what they have an unquestionable right to do,

  1969
  though they do not possess that authority over this House for which the noble Marquess opposite seems to give them credit—were to resort to the practice of having measures of great moment brought up from the other House and passed without notice, I ask whether such a system would not be open to grave objection. It undoubtedly would, and yet such is the course which the noble Baron opposite asks us now to pursue. I have unfortunately had a longer experience of the proceedings of your Lordships' House than the noble Marquess who has just addressed us—an experience extending over a period of forty years—but I am not aware that in the course of the whole of that time the noble Baron would be able to show him a single instance in which, without a notice upon the book, a Bill has been taken up by a Peer who was not the author, and not the mover of the Bill, for the purpose of discussing it, without any notification being given to the mover of the Bill that such was his intention. I hold it to be the wisest course for a person intending to proceed with the discussion of a Bill to give notice of his intention by entering it in the book, for the purpose of preventing any misconception. I think that an unceasing source of misapprehension and ill-blood would arise from any omission of this well-established and salutary rule.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSasked for an answer to the questions he had put.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that if his noble Friend had not taken the course he had it was his intention to have fixed the consideration of the Amendments for Monday. With respect to the other question, the Government had by no means come to the determination that the prorogation of Parliament should take place on Tuesday; and he might add further that the prorogation depended entirely upon the state of the public business.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he could not have supposed that the course he had taken would have given rise to the tone which had been adopted by the noble Lords opposite. In what did his offence consist? The noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) gave a private intimation to several Peers that he intended to proceed with the consideration of the Amendments on Monday. He (Lord Redesdale), on the contrary, had given public notice that when the Bill came up—those were his very words—he should move that the consideration of the Amendments should take
  1970
  place that day six months. He did not see what else he could have done in the way of notice, or that he had pursued an irregular course at all; he defied anybody to say that it was. He never attempted to take the conduct of the Bill out of the hands of the Government, and the noble Earl in moving the adjournment without having given the customary notice as to the day for the consideration of the Amendments, appeared to admit that he (Lord Redesdale) would be justified, in accordance with the notice he had given, in moving "this day six months," as an Amendment to the Motion that they should be considered on Monday. With respect to the observations which had been made about surprise and unfairness, he, for one, was not the man to take any undue advantage, and he was not going to do so now; though he was perfectly convinced that as far as order and regularity were concerned it was perfectly legitimate for him to make the Amendment of which he had given notice. That notice was that he should move a certain Resolution on a particular day—namely, the day on which the Bill came up. For that he had been assailed in the most extraordinary manner. Surprise had been expressed that he should have taken such a course, and his conduct had been stigmatised as something discreditable. He certainly did not expect such observations from the noble Lords opposite. He, however, did not blame them for being a little irritable on the subject, because they, no doubt, felt that if he were to press the Motion, of which he had given notice, to a division, they would be left in a minority. Noble Lords, however, appealed to him in a way that touched him strongly—namely, whether his proceeding would be perfectly fair to the House. He felt himself placed in a great difficulty, for if he were to forego pressing his Motion, he might allow an opportunity to pass of defeating a measure which he conscientiously believed to be fraught with the most mischievous consequences to society. After the appeal made to him by noble Lords opposite, he felt there was a difficulty in pursuing the course of which he had given notice. But, when he stated that he would not persist with that Motion he trusted that noble Lords were prepared to give more than ordinary consideration to the Amendments in question, all of which were of importance, and some of them a dangerous innovation on the law and usage of the country. In making this

  1971
  concession, almost against his conscience, and in allowing the Bill to go forward, he did so in the hope that the Government would not press the Amendments through the House with precipitation. He could not say that he willingly withdrew the notice which he had given, but he did not object to withdraw it on the ground stated by the noble Lord opposite, and out of deference to what appeared to be the wish of the House.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, his noble Friend near him (the Marquess of Lansdowne) and himself entirely acquitted his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) of any intention to take the House by surprise, and they were the more desirous of doing so after the handsome manner in which his noble Friend had withdrawn his Motion. It only remained for him (Earl Granville) to say he would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment, in order that his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack might give notice of his intention to move that the Commons' Amendments to the Bill be taken into consideration on Monday.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Then on the Motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, it was ordered that the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill be printed, with the Amendments, and said Amendments to be considered on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, half-past Four o'clock.