Sitting of 8 December 1857

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Mayo, v. George Henry Moore, void election.
AUSTRALIAN MAIL SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. YOUNGsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, What steps have been taken to prevent the interruption of the Steam Mail Service with Australia which is likely to be occasioned by the accident to the ship Emeu; and what provision will be made in future to prevent delay in this service in, case of accidents to one of the steamships engaged in the transmission of the mails between Australia and Suez?
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that as the Emeu was to have taken the outward October mails from Suez to Sydney, and the accident occurred to her only shortly before she was to arrive at the former place, it was not possible for the company at home to take any steps to have that service performed by another vessel; and. unfortunately, there was not at Suez a spare ship belonging to the company.
  354
  The Emeu ought in January next to have brought home the mails from Sydney, but the company could not take any steps to supply the deficiency caused by her absence, nor would the company's agent at Sydney be able to charter a vessel in her place, because the first intimation of the accident would be conveyed to Sydney by the Simla, which ought in due course to arrive at Sydney on the 9th of January, and the homeward mails ought to leave that port on the 14th of January. The loss of two mails would therefore follow from the accident to the Emeu. With respect to any provision to prevent delay in future, the Admiralty had directed their attention to the manner in which the service had been performed. They were aware of the interest with which the speedy and regular transmission of the mails was regarded both in this country and the Australian colonies. There was no doubt that the company in performing the service had experienced some accidents, but the contract had not been altogether carried out to the satisfaction of the Admiralty. In August last a letter was written to the company by the Admiralty, pointing out certain defects in the management of the mail service to Sydney. In reply, the Admiralty received an assurance from the company that a fifth or spare vessel would be placed on that station. Subsequently to that, the company's vessels having taken a longer time in making their voyages than was set forth in the contract, another letter was written to the company by the Admiralty, requesting information relative to the fifth vessel, and generally as to the performance of the service. The company stated in reply that they had chartered a vessel named the Victoria, which had been engaged in carrying out troops to Calcutta, and which was now there. The company hoped that the Emeu would be able to return, after being repaired at Bombay, to Suez, in time to carry out the February mails. The company's new ship Australasia would take her place on the station in exchange for the Simla in February. Another new vessel belonging to the company would be launched next month, the Tasmania, and they hoped that the Oneida, which broke down on her first voyage from Sydney, and which would be refitted with new boilers, would be on the station next summer. Consequently, in May next

  355
  the company would have four vessels of full power and tonnage as required by the contract, together with the Emeu, which, although smaller than the others, was, as he had that day been assured by the Admiralty agent who had sailed in her, a very efficient vessel for carrying the mails. The Emeu would be a spare vessel, and next summer the company would have five vessels engaged in the service. He trusted that the company would fulfil their contract, and that next summer the mail service would be placed on a satisfactory footing, which would no doubt be done if five vessels were placed on the stations between Suez and Sydney.

TROOPS FOR INDIA—QUESTION.
MR. W. VANSITTARTsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Control, Whether, during the tenure of the Governor Generalship of India by the Marquess of Dalhousie, any recommendation was made by, or despatch sent from, the Supreme Government or the Commander in Chief in India to the Court of Directors or to the President of the Board of Control for an increase of European troops, in consequence of the extension of the British territories in the East, by the acquisition of the Punjaub, Pegu, Nagpore, Oude, Sattara, Jhansi, Berar, and other districts assigned to the East India Company by his Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad; if so, what was the date of such recommendation or despatch, and what was the date and the tenor of any reply that may have been sent; was any additional force of Europeans despatched to India in consequence, during the period referred to; and, if so, what number of men were sent?
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that the question of the hon. Gentleman was a very long one. He begged to inform him that there had been no official communication between the President of the Board of Control and the Governor General of India at any time, as all such communications were made through the Court of Directors of the East India Company. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman wished for correct information on the subject to which his question had reference, his best plan would be to move for any despatch, if such there were, to the East India Company.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Presi-
356
dent of the Board of Control the questions of which I have given him notice. First, whether it is intended to include in the papers on Indian affairs promised in Her Majesty's gracious Message a Memorial which has been sent home by certain inhabitants of Calcutta, praying for the recall of the Governor General? The next question of which I have given notice was partly answered by a letter from the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Willcox) which was read in another place last evening. Still, perhaps, I had better put the question, making an addition to it. It is, whether there is any objection to lay upon the table all correspondence which has taken place since the commencement of the Indian revolt between any department of Her Majesty's Government and the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, and I will now add, with any other company, with reference to the conveyance of troops to India by way of Egypt?
MR. VERNON SMITH: Sir, in answer to the first question of the right hon. Baronet I have to state that it is not my intention to include in the papers to be presented to Parliament the Memorial of certain inhabitants of Calcutta forwarded to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Baronet knows from his colonial experience that the usual course in case of such petitions is, that they be forwarded to the Governor General or Governor of the Colony, as the case may be. This has not been done in this instance. The House must be aware that this is an excellent rule, as an answer may be made by the Governor; and as we are informed that in this case the Governor General has prepared a reply, we intend to send the petition back, in order that it may be forwarded through the usual channel—the Governor General. In answer to the second question of the right hon. Baronet, I must say that if he had not asked it, owing to a story being circulated to my disadvantage by persons who acknowledged that they believe the story to be impossible, but who at the same time took no pains to investigate whether it was true or not, I should have myself moved for the whole correspondence to be laid upon the table of the House. The right hon. Baronet has been pleased to say, although a similar measure of generosity has not been shown to me by others, that he is satis-

357
fied with the declaration which was made on my behalf in another place. But the right hon. Gentleman now asks me, whether there was any additional correspondence with any other company. Additional correspondence has taken place on this subject with other companies. With regard to the correspondence which the Peninsular and Oriental Company have had with Her Majesty's Government, I must correct the Return, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes for all the correspondence that has taken place with Her Majesty's Government I have made inquiry of all the other departments of the Government, and they have not any objection to produce the correspondence; but in my own department, the Board of Control, no communications have been made except through the East India Company. I shall be delighted to show all that correspondence to the House, but I would rather not present it myself, but that the right hon. Gentleman should move for it, for I admit I have some zest in seeing a political opponent showing up his own friends. I hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend will take upon himself to move for the correspondence.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I wish, Sir, now to put one or two other questions to the right hon. Gentleman upon the same subject. I assure the House that I ask these questions with a very different and much more important object than has reference to any personal matter. I shall, however, have no objection to move, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, for I see public reasons for doing so, and I suppose I had better include the correspondence with the Court of Directors of the East India Company. I wish now to ask whether it is true that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe telegraphed to the Government in this country that he had obtained a firman from the Sultan for the passage of troops through Egypt, and whether he will have any objection to state the date of the most friendly offers to which the noble Lord at the head of the Government has referred, from the Emperor of the French and from the Viceroy of Egypt, for the passage of any troops which the Government might wish to send through their dominions? I would also be glad to know whether Lord Elphinstone telegraphed to Lord Canning that if such course were desirable he was prepared to
358
send steamboats to Suez to meet the troops? I am aware that I have not given the right hon. Gentleman any notice of these questions; so if he wishes I will repeat them on another day.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, it would be more convenient to defer giving answers to these questions, as the principal part of them referred to the Foreign Office, and it was desirable to verify dates before stating them.
MR. WISEsaid, he wished to know whether he understood the President of the Board of Control correctly, as having said that the inhabitants of Calcutta were precluded from sending any Memorial to Her Majesty without its passing through the hands of the Governor General of India?
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, they were not precluded, because they had actually done it, but it was the practice that they should not do it, and of that they had been informed.

THE TURKISH MEDALS—QUESTION.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for War, When the Turkish medal and order of the Medjidi would be distributed to those officers and men of the army who were entitled to them? He hoped that he should not be thought to be taking up the time of the House improperly when he reminded hon. Members that nearly two years had elapsed since the war ceased, and not a single medal had been distributed.
SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there had been no remissness on the part of the Government. There had been repeated communications between this country and Constantinople, and within the last few days a despatch had been received from Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, stating, with regard to the Medjidi medals, that the delay arose merely from the time necessary for the Sultan's jewellers to prepare so large a number. There was no allusion to the Turkish medals, but he presumed they would be sent at the same time.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to know whether it was true that the medals had been in the possession of our Ambassador for more than one year, if not for nearly two years?
SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, he was not in a position to answer the question.

359
He was not aware whether they were in the possession of the Ambassador.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would now ask whether the hon. Gentleman was able to state to what class of officers the medal would be given?
SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, the Turkish medal would be given, he believed, on the same principle as the Crimean medal, to all the officers and men who served with the Turkish troops in the Crimea. With regard to the Order of the Medjidi, there were five classes, and when the Orders were received a Return would be laid on the Table of the House of the different officers who would be entitled to receive them.

HARBOURS OF REFUGE—QUESTION.
MR. FENWICKsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in consequence of the evidence before the Committee appointed to inquire into the question of Harbours of Refuge last Session, Her Majesty's Government intend to recommend that a Royal Commission be appointed to inquire on the spot into the proper site for such a harbour on the north-east coast?
MR. WILSONsaid, it was not the intention of the Government to appoint a Commission at the present moment. but on the reassembling of Parliament after the Christmas recess the Committee would be reappointed in accordance with the recommendation contained in their Report.

LAW REFORM—QUESTION.
MR. COXsaid, he wished to ask the Attorney General, Whether the Bills for "simplifying and amending the Laws relating to Real Property, and also for consolidating and amending several important branches of the Criminal Law," would be laid on the table before the Christmas recess?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in reply, said, the Bills would not be introduced until after the Christmas recess.

JOINT-STOCK BANKS—UNLIMITED LIABILITY—MOTION.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that, in bringing before the House a Motion with respect to the unlimited liability of shareholders in joint-stock banks, he was not influenced by light or trifling considera-
360
tions or by any mere wish to vindicate a favourite theory, but by the serious object of preventing the recurrence of great national disasters. If he looked on this subject simply as an amendment of a law—if he acted merely for the interest of those who were at present, or might at a future time be interested in joint-stock banks—though he might have made a Motion of this kind in an ordinary Session, yet he would not think the circumstances such as to justify him in bringing it forward at such a peculiar conjuncture as the present, when Parliament was specially summoned to take into its grave consideration a great monetary crisis. The reasons which had induced him to bring forward this question at this particular period were these. He had long entertained a rooted conviction—not arrived at now for the first time, but come to after the panic of 1847, when he had occasion to investigate the causes of the failure of the joint-stock banks which then fell—a conviction strengthened by subsequent observation and confirmed by the events of the recent monetary crisis—that the principle of unlimited liability of shareholders was a chief moving cause of the mismanagement of joint-stock banks; and further than that—that the mismanagement of these banks, by leading on to their ultimate failure, most materially aggravated and precipitated a national crisis such as that we had just passed through. So strong was his conviction upon this head, that he did not hesitate to express his individual opinion that, if he had been successful in the Motion which he made upon this subject in 1849, the recent crisis would have been disarmed of much of its force, and he should not now have had to bewail the wide-spread ruin and disaster that has fallen upon a long list of personal friends and constituents. One additional reason which had induced him to bring forward this Motion at this time was, that it was almost hopeless for a private Member to attract the attention of the House to the subject except at a moment like the present, when the public mind was fully roused in respect to it. In as few words as possible he would now state the nature of the case which he had to bring before the House, and the propositions which he thought he could establish by an appeal to undoubted facts of which they all had cognisance. He contended

361
that in periods of prosperity in trade, when the rate of discount was not high, and there was no undue pressure in the money market, mismanaged joint-stock banks laid the seeds of disease in the commercial system, which, when a period of pressure arose, developed themselves in the most alarming form. There were two modes by which joint-stock banks produced these results. First, by the power they possessed over capital, they were enabled to foster undue speculations, to give rise to enterprises which, though they throve for a time by the false credit which gave them birth, still remained in a condition to be overthrown by the first symptoms of a pressure. Secondly, by the principle of unlimited liability, they were enabled themselves to become indebted to an almost fabulous amount in all quarters of the money market, and thus they were placed in such a condition that it was next to a matter of certainty that when a time of pressure came they themselves should fall. Thus they converted a period, which would otherwise be only one of trifling and temporary inconvenience, into a great national crisis, involving all the evils which the country had just experienced. Whenever the pressure came, whether it were the result of an adverse balance of exchange, a deficient harvest, which imposed upon us the necessity of exporting bullion to pay for the people's food, or monetary disturbances in foreign countries, or any other accidental circumstance, the inflated credit created by the mismanagement of joint-stock banks collapsed, the joint-stock banks themselves fell, and then occurred precisely the circumstances described in the recent letter of the Government to the Bank of England, where they said, "Her Majesty's Government have observed with great concern the serious consequences which have ensued from the recent failure of certain joint-stock banks in England and Scotland, as well as of certain large mercantile firms." The question, then, was, were they prepared to allow the evil to go on without endeavouring to grapple with it. They had done so in 1847, and the result was, that in 1857 exactly the same events had occurred. Having passed over the former period without doing anything to prevent a recurrence of the evil, if they pursued the same course now, there was no reason to justify them in supposing that a similar course of events
362
might not occur again and again in a constantly recurring cycle. He would now endeavour a little more fully to explain the particular modes in which a joint-stock bank was able to produce the effects he had just stated. A joint-stock bank possessed from its very nature an almost unbounded control over capital. At its foundation enormous sums, sometimes a million or more, were paid into its coffers in the shape of calls upon shares; by the modem system of paying high interest on deposits it was enabled to draw to itself all the capital of the surrounding district; and in consequence of the law of unlimited liability it had a further power of an infinitely mischievous nature to which he wished particularly to direct the attention of the House. A joint-stock bank, by the present law, possesses the power of mortgaging the real and personal property to the last farthing of every one of its shareholders. This was the very root of the evil. However notorious it might be that the original capital had long ago been wasted, however flagrant mismanagement might have been, and however widely it might be known that the assets were locked up in reckless speculation and worthless investments, yet still a joint-stock bank was able to keep up its head in the money market, and to borrow money, from the power which it possessed of pledging the credit of its shareholders. To make the case more intelligible he would illustrate it in this form:—Suppose that the shareholders in a joint-stock bank were to do individually that which they were enabled, under the existing law, to do conjointly, and were to pledge the whole of their fortunes in the money market, in order to raise as large a sum as possible to apply in promoting speculative enterprises. Suppose any individual thus to pledge his whole fortune and raise what he could in the money market to apply in speculation, there is little doubt but what such a course would lead to ruin, but such a course, fatal though it might be to the person pursuing it, would of course not deserve the name of a national disaster; but if, in place of one or two persons so acting, four or five hundred were to pursue such a career, then no doubt it would be admitted that that which was comparatively innocuous in one individual might well become a subject of serious concern. The mischief, however,

363
which these persons could do, in pledging separately their respective fortunes, was not so great as that which they could effect when they were united by the bond of a joint-stock bank, while it was impossible that they could spend the funds which they separately raised more recklessly or improvidently than joint-stock banks expended the funds which they raised upon their conjoint security. He had stated that joint-stock banks became indebted in large sums of money under the action of this principle of unlimited liability. How precisely was this accomplished? In the letter of the Directors of the Bank of England to the Government this paragraph occurred:—
"In the following week a great shock of credit, and a consequent demand on the Bank of England for discounts, arose from the failure of the Liverpool Borough Bank, whose re discounted bills were largely held by the bill-brokers and others in London."
He had no reason to suppose that the practice of re discounting, which had clearly prevailed at the Liverpool Borough Bank, had not also been acted upon by the other joint-stock banks which had failed; and, indeed, in former years he knew that it had prevailed in such banks as had failed. The profit of a bank in the case of the re-discount of bills consisted, of course, in the difference between the rate charged by the bank in the first instance, and the rate at which it procured the bills to be re-discounted in the money market, and therefore the higher the rate of discount charged by the bank to its customer the higher the profit. The consequence was, that the bank had a direct interest in discounting bills of a speculative character on which a high rate of discount could be charged, the, bank itself procuring the re-discount of the bill at a lower rate on the faith of the liability of the shareholders, whose names it put on the back of the bill. What was that but selling in the money market from time to time the security of its shareholders? The practical result was, that a bank acting upon this system was continually indebted in a large sum in the money market. Such was the state of the Liverpool Borough Bank at the period of its suspension, and such the state of the other banks which had failed. Now, although he (Mr. Headlam) did not pretend to have any intimate knowledge of banking, he was sure that the House
364
must agree with him that a bank so circumstanced was in a thoroughly false position. It was the imperative duty of a bank which received deposits, not only not to be in debt, but to have a considerable reserve at all times available in order to meet any extraordinary demands which might be made upon it; and a bank which had not such a reserve was constantly liable to have its advances stopped, when the only course for it to pursue would be to suspend its operations. He might add that it was within his own knowledge that the joint-stock banks in London were not in that position; that they were not largely indebted in the money market; but that, on the contrary, they had large balances at the Bank of England. With respect to them, therefore, all he could say was, that the law of unlimited liability conferred upon them a power of a most mischievous description, which, however, practically, they did not make use of. He had stated that the great and serious difficulties which arose in the period of a monetary crisis were greatly enhanced by the failure of joint-stock banks. He confessed he thought it not necessary on this part of his subject to press much on the attention of the House, but if any confirmation of his view were required, he might refer at once to the Speech of Her Majesty delivered at the opening of the Session, in which the failure of joint-stock banks was stated as the first aggravating cause of the present crisis. He might appeal also to the events of 1847, when again the failure of joint-stock banks aggravated most materially the circumstances of the panic. Or he might refer to the speech with which Sir Robert Peel, in 1844, introduced his Bill for the Regulation of the Currency, when the right hon. Baronet stated that one of the things which he wished to guard against the recurrence of was the failure of joint-stock banks,—an object which the Act, whatever might be its other merits or defects, certainly had failed to accomplish. He would now proceed to state some of the reasons why he thought that the principle of unlimited liability tended directly to render the mismanagement of joint-stock banks not only possible, but probable. It would be found by reference to the history of these cases that when a great failure occurred in the case of a joint-stock bank, it almost invariably arose from the paid-up capital in the first instance being

365
wasted and squandered; and he was sorry to add that in cases where the paid-up capital had been so wasted it was generally attributable to mismanagement, amounting to something worse than a mere error in judgment on the part of those who had originated the bank in question. When a bank lost its paid-up capital, the law, if it were good and sound, would either compel it to be wound up at once, the shareholders submitting to the comparatively small loss which they had already incurred, or would render it incumbent upon them, if they chose to carry it on, to replace the capital which had been lost, to alter the form of management, and to place the establishment upon a safe foundation for the future. Instead of this, however, the operation of the existing law was such that, after the paid-up capital was lost, it was perfectly easy for a bank to continue its career of mismanagement. It could still obtain unbounded credit in the money market; it could continue its business for years, although its failure might be from the first almost a matter of mathematical certainty, and owing to the credit which it obtained through the unlimited liability of its shareholders, it was enabled to continue its downward career over a lengthened period. When its capital was thus lost it was almost a matter of certainty that it must go on for years getting into a worse and worse condition. It was compelled to pay large dividends upon the capital it had lost in order to give some compensation to its shareholders for the risks thus run, and in various modes it was obliged to carry on its business in a less economical manner than a solvent bank. It went on during the period of prosperity getting deeper in debt, and year by year the number of its bills for re-discount became larger, till at length the time came when its failure was immediately in sight and could only be delayed for a short time; and even then how did this law of unlimited liability work? It assured the wealthy shareholder and mismanaging director that if they could only contrive to carry on their mismanaged bank for a little longer they might dispose of their shares and the liability attaching thereto. It also assured them that should they attempt to bring exposure upon the fragile state of their bank, they would be the first victims of the crash, and would in all probability be ruined. When the law ex-
366
posed men to temptations like these—when it held out to them such advantages and such means of escape if they pursued a wrong course, and such evils if they pursued a right course—was it wonderful that they should pursue that course which would lead to certain failure, and that they should endeavour to carry on a bank after it had in fact failed, in order to protect their own interests from the ruin? The result was that they went on until a pressure came on the money market, and then a bank in that position fell with a crash, which affected an entire district, and then it was that the shareholders were at length involved in entire ruin, that the trade of the whole district became paralyzed, and so continued till, by the gradual growth of capital in the district, trade again slowly revived. The daily records of the Court of Bankruptcy told of failures of this kind. The unlimited liability of the shareholders in a joint-stock bank rendered mismanagement probable, easy, and possible, and led to the fatal consequences to which he had alluded. He would now state to the House what was the origin of this law of unlimited liability, because he verily believed that a large proportion of its Members seriously thought that this law was prescribed in the first instance for the security of the public by providing for the good management of joint-stock banks. He believed that they imagined that joint-stock banks constituted the exception to the general law, because there was something in the principle of unlimited liability specially applicable to those banks. Now, so far from that being the case, he could assure the House that the truth was diametrically the contrary. So far from the Government of the time at which that principle was applied to joint-stock banks thinking that unlimited liability was beneficial to the public, they were of the reverse opinion, and that, instead of strengthening, it weakened joint-stock banks, and it was only because they were forced to do so that they applied that principle to them. That principle was, in fact, forced upon the Government by the Bank of England with the view of rendering joint-stock banks less formidable rivals than they otherwise would be to the Bank of England. Previously to the year 1826 joint-stock banks were not lawful in this country. The Bank of England alone, at that time, possessed the privileges of a

367
corporation governed by the principle of limited liability. With that single exception, all the banks throughout the country were carried on upon the principle of unlimited liability, and it was also a part of the law that they should not have more than six partners. A large proportion of those private banks failed in 1825, and then it was that the Government sought to establish joint-stock banks for the purpose of giving greater security to the public. The Earl of Liverpool and Mr. Huskisson, who then presided over the financial affairs of this country, took a view of the matter, which was a singular proof of their prescience and their sagacity, because at that time the country had not had the benefit, which we of these days have, of experience as to the principles of limited and unlimited liability. The Earl of Liverpool and Mr. Huskisson proposed that the principle of limited liability should be applied to the joint-stock banks then about to be established; but the opposition on the part of the Bank of England was so great that they consented to the principle of unlimited liability being applied to them. Again in the year 1833 the same thing occurred when the charter of the Bank of England came to an end. Lord Althorp was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he adopted precisely the same view as that entertained by the Earl of Liverpool and Mr. Huskisson with regard to joint-stock banks. Lord Althorp, in fact, in that year, proposed to the House of Commons that the principle of limited liability should be applied to joint-stock banks on the occasion of the renewal of the Bank Charter. He proposed that in the case of joint-stock banks not issuing their own notes, one-fourth of the capital should be paid up and vested in securities, that the shares should not exceed £ 100 each, and that the partners should only be liable to the amount of their shares; the opposition of the Bank of England was again fatal to the proposition. But having observed the conduct of the Directors of the Bank of England for some time, he (Mr. Headlam) had not the slightest fear that the Bank would at this day attempt to oppose the principle by which itself was governed being applied to joint-stock banks generally; and if the present Government held the same opinion as the Earl of Liverpool, Mr. Huskisson, and Lord Althorp on this
368
question, he had every reason to hope that he should succeed in his attempt to gain for the country the great advantage of having joint-stock banks governed by the principle of limited liability. He was glad upon this occasion to bear witness to the large and sound principles which they had now adopted. He would now refer to the direct evidence afforded by experience. None of those evils which resulted in this country from the mismanagement of joint-stock banks had attended the management of those chartered banks which had been established in the Colonies. Take the case with regard to Scotland. In that country there was one bank which certainly was based upon the principle of limited liability, and there were two others with regard to which some doubt existed as to their liability, but the liability in the Bank of Scotland was certainly limited. Now, the Western Bank of Scotland and the City banks were both founded upon the principle of unlimited liability, and so far as experience went the results were in favour of the principle of limited liability; for while the two banks to which he had referred as having unlimited liability were compelled to suspend, the Bank of Scotland not only was able to tide through the difficulty, but also was able to avert disaster from her sister banks. When he had brought forward the question in the year 1849 the argument upon his side was much more difficult than it at present was, because at that time the principle of unlimited liability was the general principle of the law, and, therefore, no doubt, it was a difficult task to ask that House to alter the general principle in one particular case. At the present day, however, the principle of limited liability had been admitted with regard to other companies, and he believed still, as he had believed in 1849, that the case for the limitation of liability was stronger with regard to banks than with regard to any other commercial bodies. At present the case of joint-stock banks was the only exception, and even Lord Over-stone, who was a strong opponent of the principle of limited liability, had stated in his evidence that if the principle were admitted he did not see any necessity for the exception. The question was one of great magnitude, and one which ought not to be delayed, and it was most desirable that the House

369
should come to a decision with regard to it, for to leave any question relating to banking in a state of uncertainty was almost as great an evil as the adoption of a wrong principle. If his arguments were wrong, and his experience unfounded, let the House reject his proposition; but he felt confident that the Resolution which he proposed was well worthy of being agreed to by the House. They had a precedent of the House adopting a Resolution in favour of limited liability, and upon that occasion the Government which was presided over by the noble Lord still at the head of the Government, and who for his firmness in carrying out the principle expressed in that Resolution was worthy of great credit, brought in a Bill to carry the Resolution of the House into effect. Should the House agree to the present Resolution, he trusted that the noble Lord would follow that precedent, and bring in a Bill founded upon it, containing such safeguards as he might think to be expedient. He could say, for himself, that he was so convinced of the propriety of the Resolution as to believe that if it were made the foundation of legislation, this short Session of 1857 would not have been passed over in vain; nay, he would go further, and say, that, although there had been great losses and distress occasioned by the recent crisis, still, if the House adopted the principle contained in his Resolution, they would have the satisfaction of thinking that we as a nation had at least gathered wisdom from our misfortunes.
MR. EWARTseconded the Resolution.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Unlimited Liability of Shareholders in Joint Stock Banks gives rise to a species of credit injurious to the interests of the public; and that the present Law enforcing the adoption of this principle requires alteration."
MR. COWANsaid, that it was very seldom that he had the misfortune to differ from his hon. and learned Friend, or to oppose his proposals in that House, but he hoped that the House would allow him, as the representative of the ancient metropolis of Scotland, and the seat of several of the most valuable institutions in the country, some indulgence in expressing his views upon a subject which was well worthy of the serious attention of the House. For his own part, he could only say that he had been entirely unconvinced by the argu-
370
ments which his hon. and learned Friend had employed in order to induce the House to consent to the Resolution which he had placed on the paper. He would ask his hon. and learned Friend to suppose the case of a fleet of merchantmen accompanied by a convoy caught in a hurricane, and some of them driven ashore, with a great destruction of property, and he would ask him whether, under such circumstances, he would introduce a new theory as regarded navigation, or the rigging of ships, especially if it appeared that on board the wrecked ships no proper look-out had been kept, that too much canvass had been carried, or that there had been too little ballast on board? There was no need to explain the metaphor; in fact, perhaps an apology rather than an explanation was due to the House for using a figure with regard to a subject of such gravity and solemnity. His hon. and learned Friend had stumbled upon an argument which was not a very happy one, when he assumed that because the Bank of Scotland was founded upon the principle of limited liability, and that the Glasgow banks had unlimited liability, and that as the Glasgow banks succumbed when the Bank of Scotland did not, therefore the sound effects of the principle of limited liability had been illustrated in contradistinction to the mischievous results of unlimited liability. He would beg to inform his hon. and learned Friend that, with the exception of one or two doubtful instances, all the banks of Scotland were banks of unlimited liability, and by all of them were their obligations met with as much readiness as by the Bank of Scotland. Now with regard to the Glasgow banks, no doubt some of the shareholders had suffered severely, but he believed that all the obligations of those banks would be met in the course of time, and he thought that the great body of public creditors or depositors had not suffered one farthing's loss. He himself was most unwilling to accede to any Motion which would militate against the security of the creditor, unless some equally good security were provided. He had always thought it his duty to vote against limited liability, except in the case of companies formed for carrying out railways and other undertakings of such a magnitude as to be beyond the reach of private individuals, for he

371
thought that it was a principle fraught with danger to commercial credit. It was a sound principle, and one held by the best commercial lawyers of Scotland, as well as by that eminent authority Mr. Marshall, Lord Curriehill, that a man who shared the profits of any business was equally bound to bear the losses. Various taunts and insinuations had been thrown out by hon. Members of that House and by the public prints—and not the least, by the great Jupiter Tonans of Printing house Square, against the Scotch system of banking—taunts displaying an amount of ignorance which was only equalled by the intense and unworthy prejudice they indicated. There were two classes of institutions to which Scotland owed her prodigious advancement, if not her pre-eminence in many respects; namely, her banking system and her parochial schools, which had done more to elevate the moral and intellectual character and to develope the national resources of Scotland than any institutions that could be found in any age or country. He thought this discussion was ill-timed, and that they ought to wait until they got into smooth water again, but he would observe that the unlimited liability of the partners of joint-stock banks gave a valuable security to the poorer class of depositors which it would be most unwise to destroy. It was shown by the balance-sheet lately submitted to the partners of the Western Bank of Scotland that upwards of 26,000 of the depositors in that institution had sums below £50, and averaging only £19 12 s. 6d. each. The position of these humble depositors, who had entrusted their hard-earned savings to this bank, which was, unfortunately, in a state of suspended animation, would be greatly deteriorated under a system of mere limited liability. Emphatic testimony had been borne by a Government Department in favour of the principle of unlimited liability as a security for the payment of all the obligations of a joint-stock bank, because not only had distinguished noblemen and gentlemen in Scotland offered to take the dishonoured notes of the two Scottish banks which had suspended in payment of their rents, under the conviction that every one of those notes would eventually be honoured, but the officers of the Inland Revenue Department had also issued a notice in which they represented themselves ready to ac-
372
cept them in payment of the public taxes; and this was a circumstance he wished particularly to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as proving the confidence which was felt in the existing principle, and he might add that nothing had contributed more to the abatement of the panic. He had intended to meet the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend with a proposal for inquiry, which he now found to be informal; he trusted, however, that the House would allow him to state the reasons why an inquiry ought to be instituted. He thought his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Headlam) had mistaken the causes of the late calamities. Malpractices, however, demanding a searching inquiry before that House had unhappily been rife. Was the case of the Great Northern Railway, which enjoyed limited liability, a favourable illustration of the advantages of that principle? The disasters which had occurred in connexion with joint-stock banks arose from gross mismanagement, breach of trust, and the neglect of a proper supervision of the officers. Moreover, there was reason to believe that for a series of years, in some one or other of these establishments, which he forbore to name, dividends two or three times as high as the sum fairly earned had been paid, merely because rival banks declared large dividends, and therefore it was necessary to keep up appearances without reference to the balance sheet. Again, if they were to believe the public prints, the entire available means of some of these institutions had been diverted from their legitimate object, and intrusted to two or three individuals, who used them for large trading or rather speculative purposes fraught with the greatest danger. Another mischievous practice which had much prevailed of late was the circulation of spurious bills of exchange called bills of accommodation, which purported to represent value interchanged between the parties, though no such value had really been interchanged. He did not wish to prevent one person becoming security for another, but the issue of these documents was something akin to forgery, and should be made an indictable offence. He hoped the Government would feel it to be their duty to carry out the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, and consent to an inquiry into the causes of the commercial calamities that had

373
fallen upon the country. He had refrained from saying whether the inquiry which he now asked for should be by a Committee of that House or by a Commission appointed by the Crown; but he felt strongly that they would fail in their duty if they ignored the circumstances that had led to such frightful evils as he had described, and he trusted that even this short Session would not terminate without something being done to justify the expectations of their constituents on that head. Instead of moving the Resolution which he had placed on the paper, he should meet with a direct negative the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle.
MR. COLLIERsaid, that having in a previous Session moved a Resolution in favour of the principle of limited liability, a Resolution which had been carried, and had formed the basis of subsequent legislation, he would not shrink from carrying out that principle to its utmost limits; he would consent that all mercantile firms, including bankers, should be permitted to contract with the public either on the ground of limited or unlimited liability, the public having full notice of the terms of the contract, and exercising their discretion whether to trust them or not. This principle was based on the assumption that the mercantile classes were better judges of their own interests than either that House or the Government; and if the Resolution of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Headlam) had been confined to the assertion of that principle he should have felt bound to give it his support, but it went much further, and committed the House to the expression of an opinion that unlimited liability was the cause of a great number of disasters, and that banking carried on upon the principle of limited liability was better than banking conducted with unlimited liability. Now, he thought it would be extremely unadvisable for the House to give an opinion upon this subject. It was not for the House to say that one mode of banking was better than another; it was enough for them to say that they would not interfere, but that hankers and the public should be left free to choose for themselves. If, however, an opinion was to be expressed, he thought it should be just the reverse of that asked for by his hon. and learned Friend, for though he would allow banks to be established
374
on the principle either of limited or unlimited liability, he thought that of the two an unlimited bank was better than a limited one. He would not prevent other people putting trust in a limited liability bank, but he would not do so himself. Of the two classes of persons whose interests were at stake—the shareholders and the public—he thought that if either were to be protected the interests of the public deserved more consideration than those of the shareholders. In the first place the shareholders were a very limited class as compared with the public; and again they had some cognizance of, and had, or ought to have some control over the conduct of their directors, while the public were altogether ignorant of their proceedings and innocent of their misdeeds. Take the case of the Royal British Bank, in which the greatest possible mismanagement, not to say fraud, had taken place. Even in that case the public had not suffered very much, for they would receive 16 s. in the pound, and but for the grievous law expenses, which were referable only to a state of the law that was wholly indefensible, they would have been paid to the last farthing. His hon. and learned Friend said that unlimited liability encouraged speculation, while limited liability discouraged it; but that statement was at variance with all the arguments that had hitherto been urged upon the subject. It seemed to him to ignore all the experience we had of human nature to suppose that the man who had nothing to lose was not more likely to speculate rashly than the man who was liable to lose all that he had. Surely, the fear of loss must always be a great check upon the desire of gain. The arguments hitherto employed against unlimited liability were, that it checked commercial enterprise, and, on the other hand, it was contended that limited liability had a tendency to promote enterprise, to expand our commercial energies, and to some extent to encourage speculation; but now his hon. and learned Friend had discovered for the first time that all these arguments were fallacious, and that the tendencies of limited and unlimited liability were exactly the reverse of what everybody had hitherto supposed. He would not retain the House further than to say that for the reasons he had stated he could not support the Resolution of his

375
hon. and learned Friend as it then stood.
MR. JAMES EWARTsaid, he could see no reason why, as the House had adopted the principle of limited liability for other joint-stock partnerships, it should not be extended to joint-stock banks. The great objection he had to unlimited liability in banks was, that it induced persons to deposite large sums of money in them, and bill-brokers to discount to a great extent, which they would not do but for the reliance they placed upon the private fortunes of the shareholder. Hon. Members would remember the failure of a bank in South Wales some years ago. The bills upon the bank showed on the face of them a most wild and extravagant system of banking operations. At that time he was extensively engaged in trade, and discounted bills for them, and having obtained a list of all the shareholders in the concern he did not hesitate to go on discounting. At length he got somewhat alarmed and stopped the facilities which he had offered to them. The consequence was, that as other parties followed his example, the bank stopped, to the ruin not only of the unfortunate shareholders, but of very many persons in the district. He would give his cordial support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle.
MR. WYLDsaid, it seemed to be assumed by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier), that on the failure of a bank which traded on the principle of unlimited liability the public were not sufferers, but the truth was that in every such instance the public were severe sufferers. In the case of the Royal British Bank only 8s. in the pound had been declared, and it was supposed that 18 s. 6d. would be paid after exhausting the whole shareholders, but this arrangement had not yet been carried out. In unlimited liability banks they had few of the wealthy and respectable portion of the community. The shareholders were usually people of small means. In the Royal British Bank many of the shareholders were governesses, shopmen, and clerks, &c. Though at first sight unlimited liability held out the prospect of obtaining means enough to meet all claims, yet in reality it was not so. Those who were in good circumstances left the country, and those who were compelled to remain had to pay as they could. He knew from
376
his investigation into the affairs of the Royal British Bank that if the principle of limited liability had been adopted the whole sum due to the creditors would have been paid. If the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Headlam) did not succeed in carrying his Motion, he trusted that the Government would allow the subject to form part of the investigation entrusted to the Committee to be appointed.
MR. LOCKE KINGremarked, that he thought it important that one great distinction between banking and other trades should be kept in mind. Other traders employed their own capital, but bankers traded with the capital of other parties. If the principle of limited liability had been applied to banks he believed that there would have been far more distress than had actually occurred during the last few months.
MR. WEGUELINsaid, he was unable to vote for the Resolution as it stood. To limit the liability of banks to their paid-up capital would be, in his opinion, not only prejudicial to the banks themselves, but also to the public interest. He agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down, that bankers dealt with the capital of other people, and in that respect there was a marked distinction between banks and other trading establishments with the exception of insurance offices. But if Parliament limited the liabilities of a bank it would also limit its credit, and the credit of a bank was its sole and true capital. Its credit was that on which it traded and which induced people to deposit their money. It was for the public interest that banks should be stable, sound, and of undoubted character, in order not only that the depositors should be protected, but that in time of pressure there should be no question about the stability of the banks, and no difficulty as to their circulation. It was true that in former years the Bank of England opposed the establishment of joint-stock banks. He did not remember the grounds upon which that opposition was founded, but he was satisfied that it was based upon public grounds. The Bank of England did not either then or now desire to see an unsound system of banking introduced into this country, for no establishment was more prejudiced than the Bank of England the moment commercial credit was shaken. It was most desirable in the interest of

377
the Bank of England that none but sound and stable banks should be established. Mismanagement had not been confined either to banks of limited or unlimited liability, and when it was stated that prudent men would not join in any bank of unlimited liability he could assert that he knew many wealthy and most respectable men in London who were members of joint-stock banks. The same also might be said of joint-stock banks in Manchester and Liverpool. He would admit that as far as prudence was concerned he should not like to be a shareholder in a bank of unlimited liability, unless the capital of the bank were so large that no doubt could be entertained that the capital would be sufficient under any circumstances of mismanagement. An argument had been used in favour of limited liability which certainly in his opinion had some weight. In the event of mismanagement occurring the shareholders who might be cognizant of that mismanagement knew that if they exposed the affairs of the bank they might stop it, and thus bring its liabilities upon themselves, and this rendered them timid and unwilling to expose that mismanagement. It was supposed that if their liability were limited they would no longer feel this timidity, and that the mismanagement would not go so far. There was force in that argument, and when he said that he could not support the Motion as it stood on the paper he meant that if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Headlam) would propose that there should be a large reserve of liability behind the paid-up capital, as in the colonial banks, where it was doubled or trebled, he should be happy to support the hon. and learned Gentleman. One objection to the proposal was, that the public could not very well take into consideration the difference between limited and unlimited liability in banks. Besides, it must be considered that the public are not exactly free agents in their transactions with banks. If a trader did not wish to place himself under a disadvantage with other traders he must take the notes of the banks in his neighbourhood, whether they were banks of limited or unlimited liability. There was therefore an objection to mixing up sound with unsound banks in the same neighbourhoods. The argument had been used that unlimited liability had not been sufficient for the protection of
378
those who had trusted joint-stock banks. That argument had astonished him, because, although ever since joint-stock banks had been established there had been many deplorable failures and to immense amounts, he could only recollect two instances in the last twenty-five years in which the depositors had not been paid in full—the one being the Glamorgan Bank, which paid 18s. or 19s. in the pound, and the other being the composition paid by the Royal British Bank. That was a very strong argument, as far as the public were concerned, in favour of unlimited liability. The difficulty of obtaining prudent managers was the same in both cases. It was well known that the circumstance which had prevented the increase of joint-stock banks in London was the difficulty of obtaining safe and prudent managers. It was easy enough to get ornamental and aristocratic directors, and to obtain good commercial names, but the great difficulty was to get a good manager. That difficulty would remain whether banks were established with limited or unlimited liability. He recollected that a few years ago there was a great desire to establish joint-stock banks in London in consequence of the large dividends paid by some of these banks, which were very well managed so far as he knew. Great difficulty was then found in obtaining persons who could be prudently trusted with the management. One or two applications were made to clerks in the Bank of England to undertake these concerns. Some accepted the offer, and he felt it as a great compliment to the way in which the business of the Bank of England had been conducted that these offers should be made. He thought, too, he might add that the prudent management of the London joint-stock banks was in great part owing to the excellent traditions of the Bank of England and to the Lombard Street style of banking; but it could not be expected that those principles would be carried out if banks were extended all over the country; but you would have weak and ill-managed banks, and in periods of pressure like that which had just occurred, instead of one or two joint-stock banks failing, they would go down by the dozen. For these reasons he was desirous of seeing the proposition modified, so that there should not only be a large paid-up capital, but a large reserve of liability.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I quite concur in the observation made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) with respect to the form in which my hon. Friend who has made this Motion has expressed it. The Motion is in the form of an abstract Resolution—which is a. form to which the House is always somewhat cautious in acceding—"that the unlimited liability of shareholders in joint-stock banks gives rise to a species of credit injurious to the interests of the public, and that the present law enforcing the adoption of this principle requires alteration." Now, if he had expressed his Motion "that the present law, which enforces on shareholders of banks unlimited liability and leaves them no option, is inexpedient and requires revision," the House might, perhaps, have been willing to entertain that proposition. But I must profess my unwillingness to be bound down to a formula of this sort, "that we think that the unlimited liability of shareholders in joint-stock banks gives rise to a species of credit injurious to the interests of the public." The inference which I understand naturally follows from these words is, that we ought to prohibit unlimited liability, and make it imperative on all shareholders in banks to have limited liability. If unlimited liability lead to dangerous consequences, surely it may be argued that we ought to set about enforcing limited liability. That is a conclusion to which I, for one, object to being bound without further investigation, and therefore, agreeing with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth, I cannot vote for this Resolution. But the question is one of importance, particularly at the present moment, and perhaps the House will allow me briefly to express some opinions upon it. There is one distinction which I think has not been sufficiently adverted to in the course of this debate. The functions of banks are two. One function is the issue of notes, and the other is the receipt of deposits. There seems to me to be a considerable difference in the question of the unlimited liability of shareholders with respect to those two functions. When a country bank issues notes, although those notes are not, according to our law, a legal tender, as are the notes of the Bank of England, nevertheless they
380
do in the district pass current. They practically discharge the office of money, and no person in the ordinary course of business has an option about accepting them. Therefore the note of a country bank passes, not on the credit of the person who pays it, but on the credit of the bank which issues it. A tradesman in a country town to whom a country bank-note is offered in payment of a debt practically is unable to refuse it, although he does not take it on the credit of the person who asks him to receive it, but on the credit of the bank whose name it bears. He can hardly be said to be a voluntary agent, like the depositor who selects the bank for the deposit of his money; and it appears to me that unless you require the deposit of securities for the issue of notes,—unless you require notes to be issued against bullion in the custody of public functionaries,—unless you take some precaution of that kind, it will be unreasonable to deprive the holder of notes of the security from the unlimited liability of the shareholders. With regard to that part of the functions of a bank I must altogether dissent from the doctrine of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has moved the Resolution, "that the unlimited liability of shareholders in joint-stock banks gives rise to a species of credit injurious to the interests of the public." On the contrary, it seems to me that with respect to the issue of notes it gives rise to a species of security to which the public are entitled, and of which it would be most unjust to deprive them. My hon. and learned Friend's arguments, however, did not apply to that class of obligations. They applied altogether to the deposit business of banks. There is no doubt that many of the joint stock banks may be considered to a great extent as mercantile firms, and that when we have applied to other mercantile associations the principle of limited liability—when we have by statute given to those associations the option of having limited or unlimited liability, reasons may be fairly alleged against preventing banks, with regard to the deposit portion of their business, from conducting their business on the principle of limited liability. But I will call the attention of the House to the manner in which limited liability came into our legislation. We began by introducing it by special Acts with regard to large works

381
and projects, involving great expense, such, for instance, as canals and railways. The argument which prevailed in Select Committees of this House, and which was accepted as authorising the establishment of special Acts derogating from the general law, was, that it was expedient to encourage enterprise, that persons would not go into great and uncertain undertakings with unlimited liability, and that it was desirable, therefore, to limit their liability. That was the way in which the principle was introduced into our legislation. It was first engrafted into local Acts, and then embodied in a general statute, applicable to mercantile associations, and I have always understood that one of the main arguments relied upon for applying it to mercantile associations was, that it promoted mercantile enterprise. That argument, let me observe, does not apply to banks. There is no object in promoting enterprise in banks. In fact, one of the objects which you would seek to attain with regard to banks, is rather to check their credit and any tendency to speculation incident thereto than to increase it. And I must admit that I believe one of the effects of the limited liability of banks would be, as has been remarked in the course of this debate, that it would in some degree repress undue credit, inasmuch that at present the knowledge that various wealthy persons with large possessions are among the shareholders of a bank induces discounters to look to the name of the bank only on the back of a bill, to be indifferent to the bill itself, and not inquire into its character. I think it is not an unfair argument to urge that if the liability of the shareholders were limited, and the credit of the bank were therefore less comprehensive, bill-discounters would look rather to the character of the bill itself than to the single credit of the bank, and that it might introduce wholesome caution among commercial men with respect to such transactions. That argument, however, is accompanied by other considerations, and I confess that, looking to the fact stated by the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Weguelin), who spoke with so much ability on this subject, that the great majority of joint-stock banks which have failed have ultimately proved solvent and discharged all their obligations, it is strongly in favour of maintaining the present law, and not abridging the security which depositors are certainly entitled to, if they
382
can obtain it. The suggestion, therefore, which I shall make to the House will be, that if they should agree to the Motion which I shall submit on Friday night for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the question of banking, the question of limited or unlimited liability with respect to joint-stock and other banks be considered by that Committee. It will properly fall within the scope of their inquiries. It will certainly involve other questions, such, for instance, as to the security which may be taken for note issues. It can hardly be considered by itself on the general ground of the limited liability of mercantile associations, and in that manner the House will be more likely to come to a satisfactory conclusion on the subject than if they accede to the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend. I therefore must be under the necessity of voting against the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend.
MR. MALINSsaid, he agreed in thinking with the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Weguelin) that the joint stock banks of the metropolis had been conducted in a more satisfactory manner than those in the country, but at the same time no one could look at the recent failures of the Royal British Bank and the London and Eastern Banking Corporation without coming to the conclusion that the present system of unlimited liability was not based upon a safe, sound, and sensible principle. There were advantages, no doubt, in the unlimited principle, but there were also disadvantages which brought discredit on the country and ruin on shareholders, and it therefore became incumbent that the House should take some steps to prevent their recurrence. The principle of unlimited liability allowed joint-stock banks to obtain a greater degree of credit than they could otherwise command. It had been stated that without it acceptances of the Glamorganshire Bank would not have been discounted, and in that event, the public would to a certain extent have been benefited when the bank failed. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King) argued that there ought to be an exception made with respect to banks, because they traded with the capital of others, but surely the man who traded with goods entrusted to him on credit, traded just as much on other people's capital as the banker who traded with the bank-

383
notes and sovereigns deposited with him. The two cases were exactly the same, and the principle of limited liability applied equally to both. The hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Weguelin) had confessed that he should be very unwilling to be a shareholder in an unlimited joint-stock bank, and after recent experience that opinion probably would be shared by a majority of men of capital, experience, prudence, and far-seeing sagacity. But these were exactly the sort of men wanted to conduct the banking operations of the country, and who were prevented from engaging in that kind of business by the evils of the present system. It was most desirable that the proprietary should consist of such men, instead of shareholders, not one in ten of whom could meet their liability, when the occasion arose, and whose connection with a bank of unlimited liability was calculated to deceive the country. It seemed to him that the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend was not put in a tangible shape. He was not for enacting a compulsory limited liability, but would tender the option to joint-stock banks of conducting their business on either principle. If the principle of limited liability were chosen, of course the usual notices would have to be given, the public would know exactly the limit of the liability, and every man could choose for himself whether he would do business with the limited or unlimited banks; and if the limited principle did not find favour the banks conducted on it would soon have to shut their doors, and no harm would be done. At any rate the adoption of the limited principle would teach caution, and would never involve shareholders in the ruin and misery which had been produced by the unlimited banks. It would induce men of capital and experience to join these concerns, it would improve the condition of the banking interest, and confer a great been on the country at large. He rejoiced to find so strong a feeling in that House against the compulsory principle of unlimited liability, and he was well pleased that two such authorities as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member for Southampton had ranked themselves among the antagonists of such a principle. Every one must allow that the present state of things was most unsatisfactory, and could not be
384
allowed to go on without some attempt at amendment.
MR. T. HANKEYsaid, that if he supposed the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle was intended to recommend the compulsory adoption of limited liability by all joint-stock banks he should not vote for it; but all that he understood him to propose was that it should be left optional, just as it was with every other joint-stock undertaking. His wish was to see the law which applied to other joint-stock undertakings extended to joint-stock banks; nor had he heard any argument to convince him that such an extension would have any other effect than to give greater confidence to the public, and induce persons of capital to embark their money in that species of trade, which under the uncertainties of the present system they were deterred from doing. With these convictions, and with the view of rendering the meaning of the Resolution upon this point clearer, he should move as an Amendment the substitution of the following words:—
"That the present law enforcing the unlimited liability of the shareholders in joint-stock banks requires alteration."
MR. PULLERseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "the present Law enforcing the principle of the Unlimited Liability of their Share-holders on Joint Stock Banks, requires alteration,"—instead thereof.
MR. BUCHANANobserved, that he thought, as the subject involved questions of great importance, with respect to which much difference of opinion prevailed, that the best course would be to adopt the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and refer the whole matter to a Committee.
MR. HEADLAM,in reply, urged that the Motion was one which ought not to be got rid of by special pleading. Nor did he see any reason for altering its terms, as it expressed no opinion that banks on the principle of unlimited liability should not be permitted to exist; all that it declared being that the present law enforcing the adoption of unlimited liability required alteration, and he had certainly heard no valid objection to such a Resolution. As to referring the

385
subject to a Committee, the effect would be wholly nugatory. Twenty gentlemen could be as readily found to give evidence in support of one principle as the other; and when all was over the Committee could do no more than count the number of witnesses on either side and allow the public to balance the weight of testimony as they might think fit. Under the circumstances he would not accept the offer of the Government, therefore, to refer the subject to a Committee, but he had no objection to adopt the Amendment if the House should prefer it to the Resolution which he had proposed. The subject was of such a nature, however, that he was anxious to take the opinion of the House upon it.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
Question put,
"That the words 'the present Law enforcing the principle of the Unlimited Liability of their Shareholders on Joint Stock Banks, requires alteration,' be added, instead thereof."
The House divided:—Ayes 47;Noes 111: Majority 71.

BEVERLEY ELECTION.

  PROSECUTION ORDERED.
  Resolution (3rd August last) reported from the Select Committee on the Beverley Election Petition read:
  Ordered,
  "That Mr. Attorney General be directed to prosecute Edward Auchmuty Glover, esquire, in respect of the Declarations made and signed by him, under the Act 1 and 2 Victoria, c. 48."
  Ordered,
  "That the proper Officers of the House, and the Shorthand Writer attending this House, have leave to attend and give evidence, and to produce such Papers and Documents as may be required, on the trial of the said Edward Auchmuty Glover, esquire."

MAYO WRIT.
COLONEL FRENCH COLONEL FRENCH moved:
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a new Writ for the electing a knight of the shire to serve in the present Parliament for the county of Mayo, in the room of George Henry Moore, Esq., whose election has been determined to be void."
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he rose to oppose the Motion on the ground that the Committee that tried the petition, and of which he was a Member, thought that the writ should not be issued until the
386
result of the trial ordered by the House with reference to the last election was known. The inquiry lasted nearly five weeks, and during its progress circumstances of such a nature were made known to the Committee as to induce them to recommend the House to suspend the issue of the writ until the trial of those priests, against whom a prosecution had been commenced in pursuance of a Resolution of the House, and the result of which trial would shortly be known. He therefore begged to move that the issue of the writ be suspended until then.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he would remind the House that when this question was brought before them last Session they resolved that the writ should be suspended during that Session; and he called upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government to put a stop to the attempt of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to overrule the privileges of the electors of Mayo.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: When this question was last brought before the House I certainly concurred in the opinion of those who thought that the writ should not issue, and that it be suspended until a certain prosecution was terminated, believing at that time that that prosecution would take place in the course of the autumn, and that before Parliament met again the House would be in a condition to order the issue of the writ. It is perfectly unnecessary to explain the reason why that result has not taken place. The prosecution is still postponed, and I confess, under these circumstances, it appears to me doubtful whether it is right and proper that we should continue to oppose the issue of the writ. I am bound to say that the objection which was urged against its issue last Session is no longer tenable, and as far as I am concerned, I have no objection whatever to urge against the Motion of the hon. Member for Eos-common.
Motion agreed to.

THE QUEEN'S MESSAGE— PENSION TO SIR HENRY HAVELOCK.

  RESOLUTION.
  HER MAJESTY'S Message considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  HER MAJESTY'S Message read, as follows:—
  "VICTORIA R.
  "Her Majesty being desirous of conferring a signal mark of Her favour and approbation on Major General Sir Henry Havelock, Baronet, K.C.B., for the eminent and distinguished services rendered by him in command of a body of British and Native Troops in India, and particularly in the gallant and successful operations undertaken for the relief of the Garrison of Lucknow, recommends it to the House of Commons to enable Her Majesty to make provision for securing to Sir Henry Havelock a pension of One Thousand Pounds per annum, for the term of his natural life.
  "V. R."
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I rise, Sir, to perform a duty which is most gratifying to myself, and which I trust, nay, I am sure, will he equally gratifying to the House,—that is, to propose a Resolution in accordance with that intimation of the wish of the Sovereign which has just been read from the Chair. It is almost unnecessary, I am persuaded, that I should say a single word in order to recommend a Motion to the House in favour of which I am convinced every hon. Member will be only too glad to vote. It was said by Mr. Canning that India is a land fertile in heroes, but the fact is that India is a land fertile in those events which give to British subjects the opportunity of displaying those great and heroic qualities which abound so much among the inhabitants of the nation to which we have the happiness to belong; and among those who have of late had an opportunity of distinguishing themselves, few have been more fortunate than Sir Henry Havelock, and none have better availed themselves of that fortune. Sir Henry Havelock is not a soldier of yesterday. He has served with great distinction in almost all the operations which of late years have been carried on in India. He served with distinction during the operations in Burmah, and with equal distinction in Affghanistan. Wherever, in short, British troops have been called upon to act for the honour, dignity, and interests of their-country in India, there Sir Henry Havelock has been known to hold a prominent
  388
  and distinguished position. As regards the late operations in India, to which the Resolution which I am about to propose more particularly relates, Sir Henry Havelock has had the good fortune in the short space of two months to gain nine victories over a force numerically very superior to his own, and in the course of those brilliant operations not only has he defeated the enemy nine or ten times, but he has taken, I behave, seventy pieces of cannon. The two men who in the late operations in India have gained the greatest and most signal military successes are Sir Henry Havelock and Sir Archdale Wilson. Of these two Sir Henry Havelock belongs to the Queen's Service, and it was therefore for Her Majesty to recommend to this House to take into consideration what grant should be bestowed as an acknowledgment for his services. General Wilson, on the other hand, belongs to the service of the East India Company, and the East India Company claim as a right to themselves the privilege of doing for Sir Archdale Wilson, as a reward for the capture of Delhi, that which Her Majesty recommends this House to do for Sir Henry Havelock, who is an officer in her own service, in reward for his distinguished services at Cawnpore and Lucknow. Her Majesty has conferred upon both of these distinguished officers the dignity of a baronet, and she has also conferred upon them that other distinction which I believe is dearer to a soldier than any title he can receive—I mean that military order which is an object of the utmost desire and ambition, and the greatest stimulus to exertion to every soldier. It is, however, usual in cases of this description for the Sovereign to invite Parliament to partake in a duty which is most agreeable to the Sovereign, and which can be no less agreeable to Parliament—I mean that of acknowledging and rewarding the distinguished services of her officers. I must also add that, although Sir Henry Havelock and Sir Archdale Wilson have so greatly distinguished themselves, we must not forget, while we are commemorating their actions and rewarding their services, that there are others who. although they have not perhaps had the same good fortune of having the opportunity afforded them of performing such specific actions as have fallen to the fate of those two officers, are

  389
  still well worthy of having their services recorded. In recording the exertions of Sir Henry Havelock we must not forget the chivalrous conduct of Sir James Outram. That gallant officer, when he joined the force under Sir Henry Havelock, might, from his superior military rank, have assumed the command, but, with that delicacy of feeling which is ever the concomitant of true courage, he nobly abstained from doing so, and placed himself as a volunteer under the orders of General Havelock, because he thought that the man who had gone through such difficulties and dangers, and who had made such great exertions to relieve Lucknow, ought not to be deprived by the arrival of a superior officer of an atom of glory, but that he ought to be left to finish that which he had so well begun. The list of those who have gained distinction in this unfortunate and calamitous war is a numerous one:—Wilson, Havelock, Greathed, Eyre, Salkeld, Home, the last two of whom we can only deeply regret, for as they lived so they nobly died in the service of their country; Nicholson and Neill, two officers whose loss the country must most deeply deplore. Then, again, we have Sir John Lawrence, who, although not engaged in active military service in the field, yet by his energy, by his powers of administration, by the manner in which he developed and organized the civil and military resources of a province, which was supposed by those who at one time professed to be authorities upon the subject to be our weak point, but which has turned out to be our strong point, has performed great services to his country, and those services will no doubt be done justice to when the time arrives for taking a general review of the career of all those engaged in the conduct of operations in the East. Then, again, we have General Wheeler, who also, placed in a position of the utmost difficulty and danger, nobly did his duty, but lost his life in the service; Chamberlain, Cotton, Edwardes I might add to this list;—in fact, there is hardly a single officer who has not been called upon in the course of these events to perform any duty who has not acted in a manner which would entitle his services to be enrolled in the annals which record the military fame of his country. At present, however, my duty is to confine myself to the case of Sir Henry Havelock, and therefore I will not trespass longer upon the attention of the Committee, but
  390
  will at once, Sir, place this Resolution in your hands.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That the annual sum of One Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to be settled upon Major General Sir Henry Havelock, baronet, K.C.B., for the term of his natural life, to commence from the 7th day of December, 1857."
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I hope I may be allowed the great satisfaction of seconding the Resolution which has been proposed in terms so just and so appropriate by the noble Lord. I most entirely concur with the noble Lord in the belief that there can be no difference of opinion as to the propriety of the step which is now proposed. I think, on the contrary, that upon all sides and among all parties in this House there can be but one unanimous feeling of cordial concurrence in the proposal of the noble Lord. If there be, indeed, any Member of this House who feels any doubt as to the proposal of the Government, I think that that doubt will be as to whether the present proposal is sufficient to meet the desire of the public and the feelings of the House with regard to the acknowledgment due to those distinguished officers. I heard with great pleasure the manner in which the noble Lord coupled the names of Havelock and Wilson. The distinction drawn by the Government as to the pensions to those officers is of course, under the circumstances, perfectly correct; but there is no distinction, I will venture to say, in the gratitude we owe, and which, in common with all the public, we feel to those distinguished men. I think that, considering the climate, the time of year, the number of battles fought, and the distance marched, the march of General Havelock with his devoted band of heroes deserves to be recorded among the most brilliant achievements that shed lustre on our military annals. Nor less conspicuous, although of a different character, were the services of General Wilson and his heroic force before Delhi. Placed upon the heights before that town, he had to contend not only against the dangers and difficulties of the climate, but also against incessant, almost daily, attacks of an enemy greatly superior in number. We should bear in mind also one circumstance which the noble Lord omitted to refer to. The enemy with whom General Wilson had to contend were not only superior in number to the

  391
  force under his command, but they had also the advantage of that discipline which we had taught them, and they were armed with the very weapons which we had put into their hands; and although the relative superiority, man to man,—and a wonderful circumstance it is—of the European over the Native appears to be as great as it was in former times, before they had been disciplined by us, we must recollect that throughout this combat the Natives opposed to us have exhibited great skill and power in that important arm, artillery. If the authority of the Crown be shortly restored in India, as we must all hope it may be, I think we must look to the heroic valour of those gallant bands under Wilson and Have-lock as having been the primary cause of that result, for while those large reinforcements which the Government have sent out from this country to the East were lying becalmed upon the Equator or tossing about round the Cape of Good Hope, those two little bands, opposed to a force numerically stronger, succeeded in stemming that torrent by which the British power in India seemed in danger of being overwhelmed. I am glad that the noble Lord has done justice to the great and generous conduct of Sir James Outram. There never was an incident more honourable to a British officer or more clearly showing that generosity which so much becomes the soldier, than the order of the day issued by that distinguished man which we have lately had the pleasure of reading. When Sir James Outram arrived at General Havelock's position he had, as senior officer, a right to claim the command, but he did not wish that General Havelock should be interrupted in his heroic career, and therefore he relinquished the command of the force which relieved Lucknow. Let it be our earnest hope and prayer that the next intelligence we receive from India may confirm our expectation of the safety of that gallant band, and inform us that General Havelock has entirely succeeded in his great object, and that the garrison of Lucknow is entirely relieved from the imminent dangers which at present seem to surround it. Sir, while we pay just honour to the commanding officers, let us not forget the heroic gallantry of the troops who served under them. Nothing could exceed the difficulties and dangers encountered by the forces under General "Wilson and General Havelock, except the
  392
  distinguished bravery by which those difficulties and dangers were met; and I hope that I shall not be thought to encroach unduly upon the proper province of Her Majesty's Government if I throw out a hope that, considering how diminished by the fortune of war and the effects of the climate those two little bands now are—considering how few men still survive who have either gone through the entire siege of Delhi or have followed General Havelock from the beginning to the end of his marches—I cannot help entertaining a strong wish that it maybe deemed right and consistent with precedent by those who advise the Crown on these subjects that some distinguishing honour and reward should be conferred on the remnant of those gallant men to whom the country owes a debt of gratitude which it is impossible to overestimate or repay. With these feelings, Sir, I most heartily concur in the proposal made by the noble Lord, and I beg leave to second the Resolution which he has moved.
  MR. BRISCOEremarked, that he hardly needed to say how cordially he agreed in all that had been said by the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet; yet with great humility and every apology to the House he could not help making a suggestion, which he trusted would be favourably received. He wished to add a few words to the Resolution, and after the proposed pension of "£1000 per annum to Sir H. Havelock," to insert "and to the next successor to the title during his life."
  MR. CHAIRMANinformed the hon. Member that his Amendment was irregular.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, that he did not intend to move a proposition, but merely to throw out a suggestion for the consideration of the Government. It might not be generally known that Sir Henry Havelock was between sixty and seventy years of age, and that he had a son who had received the Victoria Cross. Under these circumstances, and considering the danger to which General Havelock's life was still exposed, as well as the nature of the climate, it would be a source of consolation to the brave old soldier to know that at his decease there would be some provision for his son; without which, indeed, the title would be a very inadequate acknowledgment of services the value of which no language could exaggerate. Sir Henry Havelock might

  393
  almost be said to have preserved to this country the empire of India. It would not be becoming to make any remark on the amount of the pension, which was certainly not large, considering the manner in which it had been earned. But if so deserved a mark of favour were made to extend to General Havelock's next successor, the House and the country would hail its proposal with acclamation. When the annuity was voted to Lord Gough, the sum fixed on was £2000, which was also to be paid to the two next surviving male heirs of that nobleman.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, that as a member of the sister service he could not refrain from expressing their warm admiration of the brilliant achievements of these gallant officers in India. Indeed, he knew not which most to admire—the rapid marches and glorious victories of General Havelock; the magnanimous self-denial of General Outram, who scorned to deck his own brow with the laurels due to his comrade; or the siege, assault, and capture of Delhi, in all of which the same bravery—the same sublime heroism were displayed; nor would he omit from the bright catalogue the civil servants of the East India Company. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had described in terms so graceful, so spirited, and so appropriate, the services rendered by these brave men, that it would ill befit any other hon. Member to enlarge on this subject; but there was one topic on which the noble Lord had been silent that would awaken a generous response on the part of the House. No language that he could command could do justice to the heroism of those noble women who, triumphing over the natural weakness and timidity of their sex, stood unmoved amid threats that might well have moved the stoutest hearts, and with death staring them in the face feared it not until there was added to it the certainty of dishonour. With such terrors before their eyes they unhesitatingly sacrificed life, so dear to all, to escape what was far more repulsive, and, dying by their own hands, frustrated the savage—the demoniacal designs of the brutal miscreants who surrounded them. He had but one word more to add, in which he was sure that he would carry with him the feeling of his profession. He ardently wished that an opportunity might he given to the blue-jackets under the
  394
  gallant Peel of emulating the deeds of their brethren of the red-jackets.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he should be sorry if in that House, although they were so unanimous, some military man did not rise before the Resolution was passed, and he had waited in the hope that some other member of his profession would express those feelings which he was sure would always be in perfect unison with the sentiments of the House on such a subject. Nothing that we had read of in any former days exceeded the gallantry, the determination, and the constancy under extreme difficulty which had characterised the marches, the endurance, and the actual fighting of the column under General Havelock; and the same must be said of the troops before Delhi, who had to resist perpetual attacks, not only under General Wilson, but also under the first commanding officer who took up a position before that stronghold, General Barnard. General Barnard had the greatest difficulties to encounter, and his great services ought not, to be forgotten. He started in the midst of the revolt without preparation, and though many persons were against his moving his troops (as they had also been against General Anson's moving them) in the middle of the hot weather—which, as they all knew, tried the English constitution—yet he resolved to march on Delhi. When he arrived before that place, he found the enemy in possession of a most important position, and although heavy marching had wearied his troops, he attacked and carried that post, and it had been subsequently held by a small force against a powerful enemy until it was eventually made the means of securing the effectual capture of the rebel stronghold. General Barnard was attacked there no fewer than ten times in twenty days; and when that fact was borne in mind, together with the constant accessions of strength which the mutineers received in Delhi, it could not fail to establish the claim of that commander to the gratitude of his country, or to perpetuate the recollection of his name. It was owing to General Barnard's having maintained that position in the face of all these difficulties that General Wilson, when he succeeded to the command, was able to hold it. Indeed, so strongly did General Wilson feel the difficulties of his position, that

  395
  at one time it was positively a question with him whether, if he did not receive reinforcements, he ought not to retire to Kurnaul. For the final operations, which were crowned by the capture of Delhi, the credit was due to General Wilson; and nothing could be finer than the patience, the resolution, with which he waited for a sufficiency of troops and supplies, and the courage which marked the great achievement of the assault itself; while, on the other hand, nothing could be more painful than the loss of General Nicholson and his gallant comrades who fell in its accomplishment. To all these officers the House and the country owed a lasting debt of gratitude, as also to the officers who served under Sir Henry Havelock. General Neill having performed important services in the Crimea, where he held a high command in the Turkish Contingent hurried out to India when the late war was over. The valuable assistance he rendered to General Havelock, to whom he marched with reinforcements, and then shared in the operations for the relief of Lucknow, could not be too highly praised; and his memory would be long cherished by a grateful country. It afforded him the sincerest pleasure to join in the Resolution by which the distinguished services of General Havelock and General Wilson were to receive their due reward, and it would add to the nominal title of a baronet, now conferred upon them, to feel, that in the one case "of Lucknow," and in the other "of Delhi," could be written after their names. He was quite sure there was no military or naval man who would not feel the deepest gratitude to the House for the unanimity with which this proposal had been received.
  MR. JAMES WHITEsaid, as the Committee had been addressed by hon. Members of the military and naval professions, he hoped that, as a merchant, he might be permitted to say a few words. He regarded the pension proposed as a very niggardly one, and quite unbecoming the dignity of that House, when they considered the weighty obligations under which this country was to General Havelock. If he was not misinformed, General Havelock was now some sixty-three or sixty-four years of age. His life was exposed to great danger from the climate alone, independently of the other perils by which it was constantly menaced. He would put it
  396
  to any gentleman connected with an insurance office, what was the value of a pension of £1,000 a year under such circumstances. Was it worth two, three, or four years' purchase. He believed the highest estimate would be three years' purchase. The sum proposed was so utterly incommensurate with the services rendered by General Havelock, that the country must entertain a very mean opinion of that House when it found that to such a man so insufficient a reward was offered. At the same time he could not forget the fact that General Havelock had not the honour of belonging to any very noble family. He begged to say that those who had returned from a humiliating and degrading campaign in the Crimea had received higher honours than it was now proposed to bestow for glorious achievements which would adorn the annals of this country. These observations had been forced from him, and he would only say that he regarded the pension now proposed as very inadequate to the services performed.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I cannot allow the expressions which the hon. Gentleman has thought proper to use with reference to the Crimean campaign to pass unnoticed. The hon. Member must be in a state of entire ignorance as to what took place in that campaign. He must have forgotten the battles of Alma and of Inkermann—he must have forgotten those long months of privation, and danger, and difficulty, which nothing but the courage of Englishmen could have enabled an army to surmount—he must have forgotten that the army landed after having suffered most severely from cholera; he must have forgotten that, after having undergone privations for two or three months, not only destitute of those ordinary conveniences which are almost invariably seen in the tents of soldiers during a campaign, but the men without their kits, the officers without their baggage, the troops still performed their duty without flinching, and in a manner honourable to themselves and to their country. I think the hon. Member must have forgotten that the army, having commenced its career under such difficulties, closed that career in a manner which elicited the admiration of the officers of other Powers. He must have forgotten that the army—which had to encounter difficulties unexampled, I believe, in history—instead

  397
  of meriting the terms which the hon. Member, most improperly, I think, and so unlike an Englishman, has applied to it—having covered itself with honours, was, at the end of the war, in a state of perfect discipline, and performed services of which the country was justly proud.
  MR. JAMES WHITEsaid, he wished to explain. God forbid that he should utter a word against the gallantry and indomitable courage of the army which served in the Crimea. He quite concurred in all the noble Lord had said in its praise. He should be unworthy the name of an Englishman if he said anything disparaging of British troops. He had referred to the campaign in a strategic point of view. He did not pretend to be learned in such matters, but he had spoken on the authority of German and French writers, who had criticised the tactics of the campaign. In the one campaign there had been success; in the other failure.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I will take it, then, upon strategic grounds. The two armies in the Crimea—French and English—besieged a fortress behind which there was an army equal, if not superior, in numbers to the allied forces, amply furnished with all the matériel of war, with stores which had been accumulated during many years. The allies occupied a position of extreme difficulty, at a great distance from their own resources; they conquered; they took the fortress, which was considered impregnable; and instead of failing in a strategic point of view, they gained advantages which enabled the allied Powers to conclude a peace, by which Russia engaged in future not to keep any naval arsenal in the Black Sea, and instead of maintaining a fleet of eighteen or twenty sail of the line in that sea, bound herself to confine her naval force to ten small vessels for purposes of police and customs. I think my hon. Frieud—if he will allow me to call him so—on reflecting a little upon the results of that campaign, will see that not only as regards the bravery and endurance of our forces, but also as regards strategic results, the expressions which he used in a moment of warmth, and perhaps without much reflection, were unjustifiable.
  MR. CROSSLEYsaid, he thought, considering the services of General Havelock, that he ought either to receive higher honours and no money, or that
  398
  if any pension was proposed it ought to be more proportionate to the eminent services which the gallant General had rendered to his country.
  Resolution agreed to: to be reported To morrow.
  House resumed.

MOTION FOR SUPPLY.
Committee on Motion, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
Queen's Speech referred:—Motion considered.
(In the Committee.)
Queen's Speech read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
In reply to a question from Sir D. NORREYS,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUERstated that it was not the intention of the Government to ask for any Votes in Committee of Supply before Christmas. The present Resolution related to a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, and was not in the nature of a Vote. He had considered the Report of the Committee of last Session with regard to proceedings in Committee of Supply, and he had prepared some Resolutions founded upon that Report, which he would submit to the House after the holidays.
Resolution agreed to; to be reported To-morrow.

BANK ISSUES INDEMNITY BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2. (The restriction on the amount of securities to be taken in the Issue Department suspended.)
  MR. MALINSsaid, the effect of the Government letter was to authorise the Bank of England to exceed the limited issue of £14,500,000 upon securities, but that letter was unlimited in its terms. It had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that letter had been acted on only to the extent of £2,000,000. The whole of that sum, however, had not been issued to the public; but according to the accounts of the Bank of England, published in last Friday's Gazette, the amount of notes in the banking department was £2,268,000,

  399
  and consequently, if the Government letter had not been issued, and things had gone on as before, the amount of reserved notes would have been reduced to £268,000. The object of the Bill was to give legal validity to that which had been done by the Government contrary to law, but most beneficially to the public. The second section would suspend the operation of the Act of 1844 until the expiration of twenty-eight days after the first meeting or sitting of Parliament in 1858, and then came a proviso which introduced a most prejudicial qualification, the removal of which was the object of the amendment he was about to propose. The proviso was to the effect that if before the expiration of the time mentioned the Bank of England reduced the minimum rate of interest below the rate of 10 per cent, the suspension of the Act of 1844 should cease. So that, although the Bank might have a sufficient reserve to justify them in reducing the rate of discount, the effect of that provision was to make it obligatory on the Bank of England to maintain the enormous rate of interest of 10 per cent, or to bring the operation of the present Bill, as far as the second section was concerned, to an end. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated last night that this was the highest rate of interest ever known in the history of the Bank of England since its foundation in 1697. The highest rate previously known was 8 per cent. Now, was it consistent with the well-being of this great commercial country that the rate of interest should be fixed at 10 per cent? Could commerce exist or flourish under such a rate? What was the operation of this rate of interest? In the first place it created alarm, and the borrower was afraid to ask the lender for money because that rate of interest was understood, while it prevailed, to act as a prohibition to the loan of money. It operated not so much against the great trader, the holder of first-class paper, as against the bills of the smaller trader, which were not discounted for less than 15 or 20 per cent. How was the trading interest to exist under such circumstances? Mr. Chapman in his evidence said that no person could trade anew on 10 per cent—that was, no person could enter into new transactions. Did the Govern-men, then, mean to proclaim that all new transactions in this country should be stopped for the next two or three
  400
  months? He had not as yet heard any reason given which could justify the raising of the rate of discount from 6 per cent in July to 10 per cent, as it stood now. The excuse assigned was that the gold was to be prevented going out of the country, and the exchanges were to be turned in our favour. But did this compensate for the ruinous depreciation in the value of our manufactures, which had taken place? He was assured, for instance, that silk within the last month or two had been diminished in value 40 per cent. In the iron districts of Wales, likewise, iron rails, which were before worth £8 per ton, were now attainable at £5 per ton. When it was considered how many thousands of men were engaged in the manufacture of these rails, it was no light matter to have the price reduced so that it would no longer answer the master's while to employ men to make them. It was supposed that if there were not this high rate of discount the result would be the withdrawal of the gold from the Bank of England. By the accounts in the Gazette of last Friday it appeared that the bullion in the Bank up to last Wednesday night was not less than £7,356,467, and that the amount of notes in the hands of the public was £21,102,430. Now, the gold was in the issue department, with the exception of a small quantity, some £300,000 or £400,000 in the banking department, and that gold, amounting to £7,000,000 in round numbers, was positively locked up, and could not be released except by the return of some portion of the notes representing those £21,000,000. Therefore it was only by the diminution of the notes that the gold could be taken away, and was it within the range of possibility that the whole £7,000,000 of notes would be returned to the Bank? From the return annexed to the Report made by the Bank Committee of last Session, it appeared that for the last eight years the notes in the hands of the public had not gone so low as £18,000,000. On the 22nd December, 1849, the amount was £17,803,000, but in the week following it had risen to £18,227,000, and since that the minimum had been £18,000,000, and that being the case, he asked on what principle could it be said to be, he would not say probable, but possible that the notes in the hands of the public should now be reduced below £18,000,000? It was impossible that the notes held by

  401
  the public could be reduced so low as £18,000,000, and as the amount of gold held by the Bank could be reduced only by a contraction of the circulation, the only reason given by the Government for maintaining so high a rate of interest as 10 per cent—namely, that it was necessary to preserve the gold in the coffers of the Bank—fell entirely to the ground. Then the notion was, that it was necessary to maintain the convertibility of our notes. The Bank at this moment had only £7,000,000 in gold in their coffers. Of the twenty-one millions of notes which were out, there were fourteen millions and a half nominally convertible but in reality inconvertible. By law they were issued on the foundation of securities, and, in fact, there was not gold in the Bank to meet them were they produced. The experience, however, of the ten years before the passing of Sir Robert Peel's Act showed that the minimum average of notes in possession of the public was £16,000,000, and since then it had never been less than £18,000,000. They had thus gone on for twenty years with the notes never below £16,000,000, and why then should they abstract from the public a rate of interest so prejudicial to all the great interests of the country? Mr. Chapman had stated, and the right hon. Gentleman himself had admitted last night, that it was a great national evil, when the rate of interest was so high as 10 per cent, or even 7 per cent; for when the Bank rate of interest was even 7 per cent, the interest actually paid by the shopkeeper and the farmer was always from 3 to 5 per cent more. "What then was the effect of the present state of things upon trade? They might read it in the daily papers and in the trade reports every Monday morning; from which it appeared that there was hardly a mill in Manchester at the present moment that was working full time. He did not deny that the monetary collapse in America might have had some share in bringing about our own troubles, but that share was a trifle compared with the effects produced by a feeling being universal, that every prudent man ought to suspend his operations and not enter into any new engagements so long as the rate of interest remained so high. It had been said the other night that the profits of trade would never pay a rate of interest as high as 10 per cent—why then
  402
  maintain that rate at such a point? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he was only following the precedent of 1847; but what was that precedent? The rate of interest in 1847 was 5½ per cent, and the Government authorised the Bank to infringe the law provided that they charged 8 per cent. The public would never have tolerated discounts at that price but for the relaxation of the law; but the operation of the Act had been gradually to familiarise them with 7 and even 8 per cent; although it had not enabled them to bear a high rate one whit the better. Take the case of mortgages. The land, they knew, only yielded 3 per cent, and how could they pay 10? If that rate were kept, the land must, in the course of a few years, change its proprietors. Take, again, railway property. It appeared that there were debentures secured upon railways amounting to £160,000,000, a large portion of which required to be renewed every month. Those railways could either not get their debentures renewed, or they must submit to ruinous terms. The evil effects of the present state of things upon the agricultural, the railway, the shipping, and the commercial community could hardly, therefore, be exaggerated; and in the meantime there was not the slightest necessity for it; the convertibility of the note not being in the slightest degree endangered. Twice, however, the Bank had been in danger of stoppage for want of notes, and because they had locked up so large an amount of gold in the issue department. He contended that they had exposed the interests of the community to the greatest possible danger, for no other reason whatever than the fancy of the late Sir Robert Peel for dividing the Bank of England into two departments. The only justification offered for maintaining a high rate of interest had failed them, and he trusted the Committee would agree with him—in as much as the House and the Government had expressed such unbounded confidence in the Bank of England, and concurred in praising the prudence, foresight, and judgment with which they had conducted the finances of the country—that the arbitrary restrictions imposed upon them by the proviso in the Bill should be expunged, and that, instead thereof, the Bank Directors should have a discretion vested, in them.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words "Provided always" to the end of the clause.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, that, as he understood the hon. and learned Member, he wished that the Bank should discount in such a manner as should be advantageous to the interests of merchants, railway directors, and others engaged in trade, and that if the funds of the Bank fell short and it sustained any loss, the British public should make up the difference. He could not imagine that the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously expected the Government to support such a view. As one very much interested in the state of our finances and very anxious to keep down the Estimates, he could not assent to such a proposal. In 1844, being but imperfectly informed upon this subject, he read with much admiration the articles published by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) in the Economist, which he then thought conclusively proved that as long as convertibility existed no notes which were needed could remain out in the market. It now appeared to him that some hon. Members wished to argue that what was true of a convertible was also true of an inconvertible currency. He himself was in favour of a convertible currency, and thought that the best course to pursue would be to leave gold as free as corn. In these matters we seemed to be performing the evolutions of a political quadrille. At one time we had a most ingenious sliding scale to keep corn in the country, and now we seemed to be adopting a similar machinery to preserve ourselves from a dearth of gold. If there was to be a Committee on banking, it was desirable that there should be upon it some person who on these subjects was a pure sceptic, who was not convinced, who was not pretentious, and who did not profess to be informed. That was his case. He professed to be ignorant and wished to be informed. The onus of convincing him lay upon the Government. At present he believed that they had no diagnosis—they were quite at sea, It had been well said that "fools rush in where angels fear to tread," and he was afraid that they had given an example of that, not only on questions of currency, but with regard to all matters of social and political economy. As, however, the Act of 1844 had broken down in the only instances in which it
  404
  had been tried, he for one was not prepared to endorse it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must be excused for not subscribing to all the doctrines contained in the speech of the hon. Baronet, but so far I agree with him that it would not be advisable for the Committee to expunge the proviso to which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Malins) objects, and I hope in a very few words to be able to satisfy the Committee that no sufficient reason exists for altering the Bill as it is now printed. The ground upon which that proviso was introduced was this:—When the letter of 1847 was addressed to the Bank the Government inserted, and in my opinion judiciously inserted, the condition that so long as the Bank continued to exercise the extraordinary powers conferred upon it the rate of discount should not be below 8 per cent. The rate of interest then prevailing was, according to my impression, 6 per cent, but according to the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford 5½ per cent, and the Government required that it should be raised to 8 per cent. At that rate it continued for about three weeks. All that the Government did when they issued their letter in the present year was to say—
  "In order to prevent this temporary relaxation of the law being extended beyond the actual necessities of the occasion, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the Bank terms of discount should not be reduced below their present rate."
  It was with that understanding that the licence was granted to the Bank. In drawing the bill we thought that it was our duty to preserve the condition upon which the Bank was allowed to issue the £2,000,000 of notes, and that no reason could exist for our taking some arbitrary rate of 6 or 8 per cent, or any other below the rate of 10 per cent, which was spontaneously fixed by the Bank as determined by the then rate of discount in the market, and without any reference to the Government letter. That is the point to which I desire to call the attention of the Committee—that the rate of 10 per cent was not arbitrarily fixed by the Government. It was merely assumed as being the existing rate of discount at the Bank. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that we are fixing this rate for some considerable time, whereas we only propose to establish it

  405
  for the period during which the infraction of the law shall continue. The moment the Bank of England find their affairs so far re-established as to consider it unnecessary to overstep the law they will be able to fix the rate of discount at whatever point they think convenient; but so long as the breach of the law is continued it does seem desirable that they should not reduce that rate below the point which it had reached before the suspension of the Act. I understand that the reserve of the Bank is gradually increasing, and it is no very sanguine expectation to hope that before very long they may have so re-established themselves as to render further transgression of the law unnecessary. On Saturday night last the reserve in the banking department, including gold and silver, amounted to £3,200,000; on Monday night it was about £3,590,000. Therefore they had then a reserve of about £1,500,000 beyond the excess of notes issued under the authority of the Government letter. It is to be hoped that this state of things will be progressive, and that ere long the state of the reserve will enable the Bank to reduce the rate of interest. But it is a fallacy to suppose that the Bank regulates the universal rate of interest. If the condition of things be such that it is profitable to money lenders to lend at less than 10 per cent, they will no doubt lower their rate of interest without asking the permission of the Bank. The very circumstance that the prevailing rate of interest is 10 per cent is a sufficient proof that the rate fixed by the Bank is not an arbitrary one, but that they are following the common rate of the market. The hon. and learned Gentleman says we shall injure the landed and railway interests of the country by fixing this rate of interest; but let me remind him that the mercantile rate of interest is not one that necessarily fixes all the other rates of interest in the kingdom. Can we have a better proof of this than the present price of Consols? If any one invests at present in Consols he cannot expect to realize anything like 10 per cent for his money, and I might refer to the practice of moneylenders on mortgages to prove that the rate of interest on real security is independent of the Bank rate, and not in any way affected by it. The hon. and learned Gentleman wishes us to believe that the whole trade of the country is dependent on this clause, but I trust that after the
  406
  explanation I have given the Committee will not agree to the proposal which he has made.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, that, notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, he still thought that the discounts charged by the Bank of England regulated the rate of private bankers. He would put a case which he thought was likely to arise. They all knew that the rate of discount was raised to prevent gold going out of the country. That had been accomplished, but in the operation they broke up the general confidence of the country; and in order to restore that general confidence and to revive trade it might be necessary to continue in circulation an amount of notes larger than the Bank limit permitted, because, when there was a want of confidence, the same amount of notes did not perform the same duty that a much smaller amount did in a time of confidence. If it turned out that the demand for commerce required the continuation of a larger amount of notes than the limit permitted, it might safely be granted, so far as the exchanges went, because they were turned. But if that happened, what would be the result? The Bank would say this:—"We must keep up the rate of 10 per cent, however injurious to the public, or unnecessary it may be as far as the trade in gold is concerned, because, if we do not, the privilege of continuing that increased quantity of notes in circulation which is necessary for the restoration of confidence will be taken out of our hands." If the Bank found no danger in the export of gold, but that public confidence required a large issue of notes to remain out some time longer, the matter might be left in their hands. He objected to any arbitrary rule being laid down in this House with regard to the rate of discount which the Bank ought to charge, or the amount of notes they ought to have in their possession; and he believed that the more the matter was left to their discretion the sounder would be their practice, and the better would it be for the country at large. If his hon. and learned Friend divided the Committee, he should give him his support.
  MR. GREERsaid, that, notwithstanding the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he also was of opinion that with an increasing reserve at the Bank amounting now, as he understood it, to a million

  407
  and a half and upwards, beyond the £2,000,000 in excess of their legitimate issue, the question of interest might be safely left to the discretion of the Directors; and he was perfectly willing to trust to their discretion and prudence that they would not make an injudicious reduction. Indeed it was not to be supposed that they would be over-hasty in making any reduction, for they had a pecuniary interest in keeping up the rate. He thought the country had been to a very unnecessary extent put under contribution to the banks and money-lenders, and the result was, as stated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, that trade was now staggering under an incubus of 10 per cent discounts. He thought, therefore, that the sooner this state of affairs was brought to an end the better. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that because the Government of 1847, when authorizing a similar violation of the law, had stipulated for an advance of the rate of interest to 8 per cent, being, as he alleges, 2 per cent beyond the existing rate, the present Government was acting very graciously in permitting the Bank to retain their existing rate in 1857 on obtaining an indemnity for breaking the law. But it appeared to him that, supposing the Bank had acted with the same degree of prudence on both occasions the Government had only proved that they were too late in interfering when they did so in November last, the rate of interest having then risen to the unprecedented height of 10 per cent, and that they would have been justified, if not bound, by the precedent of 1847, in applying the relaxing principle when the rate of interest had been raised to 8 per cent. Besides, it must be recollected that at present 10 per cent was only the minimum rate of interest, and he was informed that the maximum rate was 12, 15, and even 20 per cent, a state of things that operated most injuriously upon all the mercantile transactions of the country. There might, no doubt, be an exception, as had been stated, in the case of loans upon real estate, which were of a permanent character, or investments in the funds; but there could be no doubt that the transactions affected by the present exorbitant rate of interest were immense, and made a difference of millions to the country. He, therefore, entreated the Government to consider whether it was abso-
  408
  lutely necessary that 10 per cent should be fixed as the minimum rate. Let it be reducible to 8 per cent without the Bank forfeiting the right of falling buck upon the £2,000,000 which they had issued in excess in case of a recurrence of the panic. He thought the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) would not object to that proposal, and if he adopted it in his Amendment he (Mr. Greer) would give him his support.
  MR. CAYLEYsaid, one reason why the relief experienced in 1847 was not felt now was, that the commercial public had been so alarmed at the high rate of interest that they did not know yet what might follow, and therefore the Government, by delaying the adoption of measures of relaxation, had protracted the pressure to which the country was subjected. It was to be supposed that, in consequence of the reduction in the number and amount of commercial transactions consequent upon the present crisis, a much less amount of currency than usual was required to conduct them. He believed, for instance, that not more than £19,000,000 of currency was now required. If confidence were restored, it was most likely that the immediate effect would be to withdraw some £2,000,000 from the hoards where it was now deposited. Nor did he know that there was any measure more likely to have this effect of restoring confidence—withdrawing, say, £2,000,000 from the hoards where it was deposited, and increasing the reserve of the Bank of England to the same amount—than a reduction of the rate of discount by 2 per cent. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be wise to leave a little more discretion to the Bank than was done by the present Bill.
  SIR CHARLES WOODobserved, that he did not rise to address the Committee upon the general question, but only to set the hon. and learned Member right on a matter of fact. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins) had stated that in 1847 the rate of discount was 5½ per cent, and that it was afterwards raised to 8 per cent. The fact was, that the minimum rate of discount was 5½ per cent, which was not charged upon any considerable portion of the paper that the Bank discounted. The average rate of discount in 1847 was 7½ per cent, so that the real amount of the rise in the rate of discount was not much more than

  409
  a half per cent. [Mr. MALINS: I spoke of the minimum.] The minimum rate was 5½ per cent upon bills having only a short time to run, but the average rate was 7½ per cent, and the rise was only a half per cent on the average rate.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he had distinctly stated that the minimum rate of interest of the Bank of England in 1847 was 5½ per cent. If that were the minimum rate of interest in 1847, and 7½ per cent was the ordinary charge, now that the interest was at 10 per cent the ordinary charge would probably be 12 per cent. He did not require to be told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the present rate of interest did not affect all the ordinary relations of life, and did not proportionally increase the interest upon mortgages; but if a small freeholder went to the country bank with his deeds under his arm for a loan of money he would not get it at present for less than 10 percent. He would challenge the First Lord of the Admiralty to show that there was any danger of gold being taken out of the country if the present enormous rate of interest were reduced. He had been appealed to not to divide the Committee, but he had so strong a sense of the evils from which the commerce of the country was at present suffering that if he could find any hon. Member who would go out with him as a teller he would go to a division.
  Question put,
  "That the words 'Provided always, that, if before the expiration of the time' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 100: Majority 82.
  Bill reported without Amendment; to be read 3° To-morrow.
  Adjourned at Ten o'clock.

THE DEBATE OF THE ADDRESS.

  FURTHER EXPLANATION.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, in reference to the conversation which took place in your Lordships' House yesterday between my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) and myself, permit me to say that even at this moment I am quite at a loss to clear up the contradiction between his statement and mine touching the communication alleged to have passed between the President of the Board of Control and the Peninsular and Oriental Company. I have ascertained to-day that the Managing Director of that Company, on whose authority I made that statement, is still absent in Paris. He has, however, been written to to-day, and I hope by Thursday or Friday, at the latest, I shall be able to throw further light on the matter. I shall then, I trust, either be able to satisfy the House and my noble Friend opposite that the President of the Board of Control labours under some defect of memory on this subject, or I shall be in a position, if it turn out that I have been misinformed, to offer an apology, which I shall do most cheerfully, and which I hope will be satisfactory to the House.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I disclaim the slightest wish, my Lords, to impute to the noble Earl any intentional misstatement of the facts in the matter in dispute; but there is some extraordinary misunderstanding on the part of some of the parties concerned, which it would be most satisfactory to have cleared up.

PENSION TO SIR HENRY HAVELOCK.

  THE QUEEN'S MESSAGE.
  THE QUEEN'S Message of yesterday read.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have upon the present occasion a peculiarly agreeable duty to perform, in which I am sure I shall meet with the

  315
  support of every one in this House; for, after the manner in which General Have-lock's name has been received wherever it has been mentioned, there can be no doubt that the House will cordially welcome any reward which Her Majesty may please to confer upon that gallant officer. I am sure also that every one of your Lordships will join with me in regretting that the circumstance of General Wilson being an officer in the East India Company's service precludes this House from marking its admiration of his noble services in the same way as those of General Havelock; for General Wilson has greatly contributed, under Divine Providence, to the successes which we have obtained. With respect to General Havelock, his claims upon the gratitude of the country are great and of long standing. He entered the army some considerable time ago—in 1815—so that he is not now a young man. Shortly afterwards he went to India, and served, I believe, in every campaign, and has been engaged in every principal action in India from 1824 down to the close of the late Persian war. It would be tedious, as it is unnecessary, to enumerate the number of stars and medals which that gallant officer bears upon his breast. Upon his return from the late Persian expedition he reached India almost simultaneously with the fearful outbreak of the Native soldiery which we so much deplore. He was immediately sent to join General Neill, with a very weak column of four regiments, partly Sikhs, and a small body of artillery, commanded by Captain Maude. He marched from Allahabad to relieve Cawnpore, but, as we all know, arrived too late to prevent one of the darkest pages being added to our Indian history. He effected one of the most extraordinary marches to be found in military annals. With his force decimated by fever and cholera, exposed to the effects of the heat at a season during which hitherto it had been considered impossible to move troops in India, he met and defeated the enemy no less than four times, inflicting great losses upon them on each occasion, between the 5th and the 16th of the same month. After leaving Cawnpore he marched to relieve Lucknow, and, after crossing the Ganges, he fought two battles on the 29th of July, one early in the morning and the other late in the evening, and in both again was victorious. However, being encumbered with sick and wounded, and his force very much reduced
  316
  in numbers, he was compelled to retrace his steps, to recross the river, and to await at Cawnpore the arrival of reinforcements. These reinforcements he received under the command of General Outram, who, I must remind the House, following the distinguished example of the late Commander in Chief, Lord Hardinge, in the Sikh campaign, most chivalrously and honourably to himself confined himself to his civil office, and accompanied General Havelock as a volunteer, in order that that gallant officer might have the credit which so properly belonged to him of having conducted the victorious troops under his command to the relief of the besieged city of Lucknow. His force then consisted of 2,700 men; they again crossed the Ganges, attacked and carried the enemy's position at Alumbagh on the 21st of September, and afterwards fought another battle under the walls of Lucknow. They ultimately arrived at Lucknow, but I am sorry to say that at present we have no information that their efforts have been crowned with that complete success which we all so earnestly desire, the expedition having been chiefly undertaken to rescue some of our helpless countrywomen and their children, who were surrounded by enormous bodies of Sepoys in arms. It must be the first wish of every one that God in His divine providence will permit these gallant heroes to effect their purpose, and that we may receive that information ere long. Our present duty, as your Lordships, I am sure, will unanimously agree, is by every means in our power to testify that we entirely concur with Her Majesty in wishing to do honour to one of her bravest and most distinguished soldiers. I beg, therefore, to move the following Address to Her Majesty:—
  "That this House returns Her Majesty the Thanks of this House for Her Majesty's most gracious Message, informing this House, ' That Her Majesty being desirous of conferring a signal Mark of Her Favour and Approbation on Major-General Sir Henry Havelock, Baronet, K.C.B., for the eminent and distinguished Services rendered by him in command of a Body of British and Native Troops in India, and particularly in the gallant and suc-

  317
  cessful Operations undertaken for the Relief of the Garrison of Lucknow, recommends it to the House of Lords to concur in enabling Her Majesty to make Provision for securing to Sir Henry Havelock a Pension of One Thousand Pounds per Annum for the Term of his natural Life; and to assure Her Majesty that this House will cheerfully concur in enabling Her Majesty to make such Provision."
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, it would be impertinent in me to attempt to follow the noble Earl in the statement which he has just made, especially as upon a former occasion I expressed my high sense of the services of General Havelock. I am happy, however, to have an opportunity of expressing my entire concurrence with the noble Earl in the eulogium which he has so justly pronounced upon General Wilson, whose name I inadvertently omitted to mention when I addressed your Lordships on a former occasion. I should be sorry if, in mentioning the names of distinguished officers, it should be thought that I had intentionally passed over one to whom we are so deeply indebted. I can only say for myself, and I believe I may say on behalf of every one of your Lordships, that we cordially concur in the Address which the noble Earl has moved. If there is one other name which I may venture to mention upon this occasion, it is one to which I adverted upon a former evening—the name of one who I trust still survives, and to whom the thanks of this country are eminently due—I refer to the gallant officer who so long commanded at Luck-now, Colonel Inglis, who, with all the anxieties attendant upon the presence of his wife and children, has nevertheless so nobly fulfilled the duties of his perilous position as commandant of the garrison. I am quite sure my noble Friend will feel that it is only right we should do justice to persevering gallantry under such trying circumstances.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I most heartily thank the noble Earl for the cordial manner in which he has seconded the Address. I would only wish to point out, in respect to what has just fallen from the noble Earl, that this is not the proper occasion or place to discuss the
  318
  distribution of honours, which is the prerogative of the Crown. It will be sufficient for me to remind the House that, although it would be most gratifying to confer honours on the spot where they are earned, yet that when they have to be conferred at home it is necessary for the Government to await complete official information.
  At a later period of the evening,
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE,who had been absent when the Address was moved, rose and said: I wish, my Lords, to set myself right with your Lordships with respect to my absence from the House in the early part of the evening, when Her Majesty's gracious Message in reference to General Havelock was under consideration. I am perfectly aware that I am out of order in adverting to that subject now, but I am extremely desirous that my absence should not be supposed to be intentional, and I am sure your Lordships will give me credit for speaking with sincerity when I say that there is not a single Member of your Lordships' House who is more anxious to do honour to so gallant and distinguished a soldier as General Havelock than myself. Many greater campaigns, no doubt, than that in which he has been engaged can be found recorded in history; but I very much question whether an arduous service has ever been performed with greater zeal, devotion, judgment, or discretion by any officer in command of troops than has been within the last few months displayed by the distinguished General whom your Lordships have this evening honoured. Not only have the troops under his command been opposed to very large bodies of Native soldiers, who have surrounded them on all sides, but they have had to contend against one of the severest of climates—a foe equally formidable. It has, indeed, been often stated, so trying is that climate, that European troops could neither march nor fight during the summer months in India. In encountering its severity our troops have had to endure great suffering, but they have, nevertheless, performed their duty nobly. As has been stated to your Lordships, all troops, beyond doubt, look up to their leader; and Sir Henry Havelock possesses, I believe, among other distinguished qualities, that which enables him to induce his men cheerfully to follow him in carrying out any undertaking in which he may desire to embark.

  319
  He is beloved by his troops, and therefore the duties which he requires at their hands they zealously discharge. I trust, my Lords, that the service in which he is now engaged will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. We cannot but look with anxiety for the results which we expect daily to hear; but I doubt not that if that service is possible it will be performed by this distinguished officer. It is also but right that, while honouring General Havelock, we should also concede due honour to Sir James Outram, who upon this occasion waived his claim as a general officer of higher rank and allowed to Sir Henry Havelock the distinguished honour of relieving Lucknow. It is gratifying also on such an occasion to be able to allude to officers of both services—that of the East India Company as well as that of Her Majesty. In doing honour, as we have done this evening, to an officer of the Queen's service, I am glad to think that an officer of the East India Company's service—I mean Sir Archdale Wilson—has not been forgotten. It is gratifying to find both these services so zealous and acting so entirely in harmony; for so alone, my Lords, can the interests of the country be properly attended to. I understand that in the course of this evening a noble Friend of mine (the Earl of Derby) alluded to another gallant officer whom he thought deserving of honour (Colonel Inglis). I believe my noble Friend behind me (Earl Granville) replied, that although this was not the place in which these things could be decided upon, inasmuch as it concerned the prerogative of the Crown, yet, at the same time, he was quite ready to state that a considerable difficulty existed in conferring these distinctions off-hand, because the information we received from the seat of war was so scanty, and came at such long intervals. My Lords, that is precisely the view which I take of this case. I can assure you on my own part, and in conjunction with my noble Friend behind me (the Secretary for War), that we have the greatest desire at once to meet the cases as they arise, and to award distinctions as soon as possible after the actions which call for them, knowing full well that half the value of those rewards and distinctions lies in the fact of the services being acknowledged on the spot. But your Lordships must at the same time be aware that the great events which have
  320
  taken place in India are so peculiar, the distances between the several scenes of action are so enormous, the cases are so isolated, that we have had great difficulty in procuring information on which we can safely and speedily act in the distribution of public honours; and though in General Havelock's instance there can be no question that he deserves the honours bestowed upon him, and my noble Friend has been able to advise Her Majesty to act at once, there are many other cases which will probably have to be met respecting which we are not yet in a position to determine without information. I am happy to have an opportunity of making this statement, because I have seen it declared in some quarters that there has been a remissness or a slackness in conferring these honours. As far as I am concerned, I am sure there is every disposition to bestow honours on all those to whom they are due; and I am sure that no honour which your Lordships can pay, or which Her Majesty in the exercise of Her prerogative can confer, is too great for the services rendered not alone by those who led our troops in India, but by those gallant troops themselves. I can only, my Lords, conclude by expressing my entire and cordial concurrence in the vote to which your Lordships have come this evening.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: As the Royal Duke has done me the honour to refer to something which fell from me this evening, I hope both he and your Lordships will believe that in introducing the name of Colonel Inglis into this discussion I had not the slightest intention to be guilty of the presumption of even suggesting the bestowal of any honour upon that or any other officer. I quite agree with the Royal Duke in the difficulty which must be experienced in procuring proper information in these matters, and I think that the fewer recommendations of individual officers for rewards and distinctions which are made by Members either of this or the other House, or from any private quarter, the better. These, however, ought to be derived directly and spontaneously from the Crown, for unless that is so they lose a great deal of their value, while, at the same time, the Crown loses a great part of that which is its proper prerogative. I do think, however, that in discussing the services of General Havelock, and the rewards bestowed upon him in con-

  321
  sequence of those services, relating too, as they did, to the relief of Lucknow—the occasion was not an inappropriate one to introduce some mention of the services, the perseverance, the exertions under great difficulties which have characterised Colonel Inglis as commanding the regiment principally concerned in the defence of Lucknow.
  LORD PANMUREwas happy to think that while Parliament would confer upon General Havelock, a Queen's officer, a substantial mark of the favour of the Crown and the nation, a similarly substantial mark of the favour of the East India Company would be recommended by the Directors and would no doubt be conferred upon his gallant companion in arms, Sir Archdale Wilson. With respect to all the other brave officers with whose names and exploits in India the country was familiar, he perfectly concurred with what had fallen from the Royal Duke, and thought that any suggestions respecting the bestowal of honours upon them would be an interference with the prerogative of the Crown, while it would lower the value of those honours even in the eyes of the officers who were to receive them.
  Address ordered, Nemine Dissentiente; the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

RELIGIOUS WORSHIP ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING—DEBATE ADJOURNED.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, although I do not intend to press the second reading of this Bill upon the present occasion, yet I think it is incumbent upon me to make some statement of the reasons which have induced me to bring forward this measure. Your Lordships will remember that in 1855 a Bill was passed by this House and ultimately became law, entitled, "An Act for securing the Liberty of Religious Worship." That Act left the ecclesiastical law untouched, and did not alter in any way the authority of the diocesans, or interfere with the obligations of the clergy. It only relieved laymen and clergymen of the Church of England from penalties for having services or prayers in unlicensed places. The object of the Act was one of great importance,
  322
  in consequence of the state of the population in large towns, and especially in this metropolis. The population has so increased that it has gone completely beyond the control of what is called the parochial system—so much so that the existing number of churches is insufficient for the wants of the population, and unless we could obtain a large vote of public money or procure enormous contributions from private sources to build churches adequate to those wants, and to endow a sufficient number of clergymen to officiate in them, it became necessary to resort to other means of making known to large classes of the people the first principles of Christianity, its doctrines, and the duties they inculcate. It was with the view of enabling us to open places of worship at little expense and practically adapted for affording such instruction that the Act was passed; and as soon as that Act became law I and other gentlemen considered in what way we could make use of the facilities it afforded. We determined to open Exeter Hall; and if in time we should find the end we sought was obtained, to open other places for divine worship in which we could have a certain form of prayer and sermons delivered by clergymen selected from all parts of the kingdom. Those services were instituted last year under the sanction of the right rev. Prelate who presides over the diocese of London, and with the sanction of the incumbent of the district within which Exeter Hall is situated. When we asked the clergyman's sanction it was as a matter of courtesy, not admitting nor denying the power which is now supposed by law to reside in him to inhibit these services. But the permission of the incumbent was solicited and given; and the services were instituted, as I have already said, under his sanction. Now, my Lords, let us bear in mind that vast masses of people exist in this great metropolis and in our great towns who are almost entirely deprived of religious instruction of any description. I have alluded to the paucity of churches and to the inadequacy of the number of the clergy to the discharge of their duties, and I can assure your Lordships that even in those parishes in which the staff of clergymen is greatest—and I shall be borne out in that statement by the clergy themselves—a very large proportion of

  323
  the working-classes have the utmost difficulty in obtaining the advantage of spiritual teaching. I will content my self with stating the fact without entering into the causes to which it is to be attributed, but that the fact is what I have described it to be nobody can gainsay. The habits and mode of life of the lower orders, the extent to which their religious training has hitherto been neglected, and the great distrust of the clergy of the Church of England by which they are influenced—looking upon them, as I am sorry to say they do, only in the light of gentlemen who wear black coats and receive large salaries—have caused the obstacles to gaining access to those classes upon the part of the clergy to be so overwhelming that some of the clergymen in London—those most active and painstaking in the discharge of the duties of their sacred calling—have found that at the close of a long life they have been unable to make any advance in becoming acquainted with a large proportion of the people within their care. We, therefore, my Lords, found it necessary to accommodate ourselves to that peculiar state of things, and to see what we could do without departing from those principles of propriety which it was most important that we should preserve. Under these circumstances, then, we resolved to invite the classes to which I have referred to attend at services at which they might, at all events, be enabled to hear evangelical prayers and be instructed in the doctrine of the Gospel by some approved minister who would be found ready to undertake the performance of that duty. An invitation in accordance with that resolution was accordingly issued, and Exeter Hall was thrown open to the working-classes upon the following conditions,—namely, that those who came first should be first served; that there should be no distinction of persons, no reserved seats, no collection, and, in short, that every one who came, no matter how humble he might be, should be dealt with upon precisely the same footing as if he were the first man in the land. The result answered, I am happy to say—nay, it exceeded—our most sanguine expectations, not only so far as relates to the number of those who attended at the services, but also so far as their position in life is concerned. Their earnestness, and the amount of attention and
  324
  deep feeling which they evinced, was something which I dared not even imagine would be exhibited. I, as a matter of duty and of principle, was present at the whole twelve services. I watched their progress from beginning to end, and I can bear testimony to the fact that towards their close the earnestness and attention to which I have alluded had greatly increased, even in comparison with the first occasion when those qualities were displayed upon the part of a large congregation of working people, assembled together suddenly and without any restraint, to a degree which created surprise and satisfaction in the breast of everybody who took an interest in the movement. Four or five thousand people were assembled in the hall on each occasion—no restraint whatever was imposed upon them—and the result was far different from what some anticipated if large masses should be collected together. Well, my Lords, I have mixed with the working-classes since that period. I have corresponded with them; and I can assure your Lordships that the effect which these services has produced upon their minds has been of a character at once deep and lasting. They spoke during the progress of the services, as they speak now, with the utmost gratitude of the Church of England. They expressed their astonishment at finding that the clergy of that Church should have shown themselves so eager to promote their welfare. I saw my right rev. Friend the Bishop of Carlisle in his canonical robes officiating to a vast mass of those poor and hitherto forgotten people, and it is, I can assure your Lordships, with tears in their eyes that they speak of this instance of the interest which has been exhibited in their regard—they say they could not have believed it possible, unless they had lived to see it themselves. Now, my Lords, I am convinced that it is only by such means that the Church of England can arrive at a full sense of its duties: and I am convinced that if these services had been continued, every human being who has attended them—with very few exceptions indeed—would have become a firm and true adherent of the Established Church. The Exeter Hall services are, however, now at an end. They have been stopped by the authority of the incumbent of that district in which Exeter Hall is situated; and, with-

  325
  out entering into any inquiry whether the law justified him in taking that course or not, I may state to your Lordships that the reason which induced us to acquiesce in the inhibition was simply that which I am about to mention. The services were to have been recommenced in the month of October under the sanction of the Bishop of the diocese. Shortly before the day upon which they were to have been recommenced, however—I believe only one day before that time—an inhibition was issued by the incumbent of the district to the minister who was to have officiated, and who lives at Ramsgate. That gentleman at once wrote up to say that he did not understand the meaning of the doctrine upon which the inhibition was founded; but as his preaching might be a breach of the law, and he did not wish to appear before the public as a breaker of the law, he must decline to officiate. That announcement took us by surprise. Several members of the committee were in different parts of the country, and but a very few of its number were to be found in London. Those who were here deemed it to be the wisest course to take—being ignorant of the law upon the subject—to declare that as the minister who was to perform the services did not wish to expose himself to the consequences of entering upon the duty, the services should be closed, and should not be renewed until further inquiries had been made. If my own individual opinion had been acted upon at the time, the services would have been persevered in, because I have very great doubt as to whether the power of inhibition upon the part of the incumbent legally exists. Assuming, however, that such a power does exist, I think it is highly expedient that some step should be taken either to do away with it altogether, or, at all events, to qualify its exercise to some extent. Now, my Lords, let me for one moment direct your attention to the grounds upon which the inhibition in question was issued. The first ground which is set forth by the rev. incumbent is that the Exeter Hall services did not answer the purpose for which they were instituted, inasmuch as they were not attended by persons belonging to that class whose benefit, it was sought to promote; and the second ground which was advanced was, that those services had the effect of emptying the ordinary churches
  326
  Now, the latter charge I believe to be altogether unfounded. The services were held at half-past six o'clock, while the canonical services of the church are invariably held at eleven o'clock in the morning and at three o'clock in the afternoon. I must also express my belief that very few of the ordinary attendants of our churches were habitual frequenters of these services; some persons belonging to the better classes did, no doubt, attend upon some occasions at Exeter Hall; but it was our particular request that none but the working-classes should come there, to the exclusion of those who were ordinary attendants at church. I do not, however, mean to say that we were not upon the whole glad that there were present a mixture of classes, inasmuch as it was likely to be agreeable to the working-classes themselves that there should appear to be a community of worship, and that there should be no exclusiveness in places of worship as regarded different classes. But, be that as it may, to say that the members of the working-classes did not constitute the vast majority of those who attended those services is to make an assertion which must either be the result of malignity and a desire to misrepresent the truth, or of a total ignorance of the facts of the case. Several Members of both Houses of Parliament went to Exeter Hall upon those occasions, and I appeal to them whether those whom they saw assembled there were not essentially members of the working-classes? To the young men connected with the Sunday schools who were placed at the entrances to the hall to prevent any persons but those connected with the working-classes from going in, and to ascertain that the services had been effective of the object which the promoters of them had in view, I would make a similar appeal. I feel assured that by them the accuracy of my testimony will be corroborated, and that they will one and all be ready to bear witness to the order and the decorum which pervaded the whole of the vast multitude which at those services was congregated in Exeter Hall. Well, my Lords, the services have been stopped, notwithstanding that the rev, incumbent had been earnestly solicited not to persevere in his inhibition; and what has been the result? The Dissenters have taken up the position which the Church of England is not allowed to oc-

  327
  cupy. The services thus inhibited were opened under the sanction of the Bishop of the diocese, and closed against his entreaty—nay, his supplication. The Nonconformist body have stepped into our places, and I say here, as I have said everywhere, and as I shall continue to maintain, that to the members of that body we owe a debt of gratitude for the manner in which our places have been supplied. They have in this instance acted with a delicacy and a forbearance which redounds infinitely to their credit. They declined to engage Exeter Hall until they had ascertained that it would be quite impossible for us to renew our services, and having taken the hall they offered to give it up at any moment the inhibition should be removed. They also, that they might not seem to do anything by way of foil or contrast to us, adopted most minutely forms of the service which we had instituted. They selected the hymns which we used to have sung, and the officiating minister read a lesson and a portion of the Litany of the Church of England from the Book of Common Prayer; while in his discourses he never either directly or indirectly alluded to the difficulties under which the Church of England was placed in the attempt to preach the Gospel to the masses, or to the freedom of the party to which he belonged, or to the manner in which that body had come forward to follow in our footsteps. Now, my Lords, let us just observe the position in which the Church of England is placed in reference to this question. When Exeter Hall was shut against us, we applied for the use of St. Martin's, another fine hall in its vicinity. The incumbent of the district in which that hall is situated, however, although he approved the services which were held at Exeter Hall, yet considering that the services had been inhibited in the manner he had mentioned, announced it to be his intention to issue his inhibition against our holding services within his parish. We are therefore in this position, that while in the hall which I have just mentioned, members of every persuasion—infidels—nay, even the Mormonites themselves—may arise and preach to the people, to the ministers of the Church of England alone is that privilege denied. But then, my Lords, when we were shut out from these great halls, was any substitute offered us? Were any means placed
  328
  within our reach by which to instruct the tens of thousands who came Sunday after Sunday to hear the Word of God? For I should mention that, though Exeter Hall held but 5,000, half as many more were sent away every week for want of room, and the doors were thronged an hour or an hour and a half before they were opened, so that people might be sure of finding admission. Was any substitute offered us? None. We have indeed been told very indistinctly that in the course of time Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's may be opened for short services and extemporaneous preaching. Now, no one would rejoice more than I should to see these edifices opened for service several times a day, and every evening also. I should greatly rejoice if five St. Pauls' and five Westminster Abbeys could thus be open to the public. But, if that were so, even they—vast us they be—would not be enough to take in the hundreds of thousands who are within this vast metropolis, who are now in spiritual destitution. Besides this, another consideration presents itself in the peculiar habits, manners, and tastes of a great portion of our population. There are large numbers of people who never will go to any recognised place of worship at all. What may be their motives it is not for me now to state; what may be the feelings which guide them I should be rather afraid to mention. Yet these people are not unwilling to be taught if you will teach them in their own way; and, considering their numbers—considering that they have immortal souls like ourselves—I think we are bound to do everything we can consistently with principle and with truth to engage these persons to come and hear the Word of God as preached by the ordained and authorised ministers of the Church of England. The class of which I am speaking will not now enter Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's; but my firm belief is, that if they be got into the habit of attending the occasional services in Exeter Hall and the buildings to which we sought to attract them, they will end by going to the Abbey, to St. Paul's, and at last to their parochial churches, if they are but treated with propriety and respect when they enter those places. I use the words "propriety and respect," because I consider it a great defect in our churches—a defect which has not grown up of late years; on the contrary, we are now learn-

  329
  ing to avoid it—that the working-classes, when they attend the services of the Establishment, generally find the churches pewed up in the very aisles—that they are shut out from places where they can hear and be well accommodated, and not placed on a footing of equality with the rest of the congregation. They see many nooks and corners reserved for the working-classes; they find free seats set apart for them; but they will not occupy these places; they think they are looked upon as a distinct order of beings, and that they are looked down upon and despised. Unless, therefore, you show them proper respect, and in the House of God admit that there at least there is equality, depend upon it the vast proportion of the labouring population in London, will never be brought to attend the worship of the Establishment. Now, they went to Exeter Hall because, as they over and over again assured us, they found themselves treated there with respect, had the opportunity of getting the best places, were not driven into the nooks and corners of the building, and were in all respects recognised as human beings equally with ourselves. It appears, then, to me that, considering the vast numbers at present unprovided with religious instruction, the great necessity which exists for bringing this mighty mass within the influence of Gospel ministration—considering, moreover, that this can be done if we accommodate ourselves to the peculiar habits of the people—the power of inhibition which stands in the way of an object so desirable, must either be altogether removed or greatly modified. This power is a very great one to be exercised by persons of a subordinate station, and from their position irresponsible. I think it ought to be vested in individuals occupying a higher station in the Church—those who are directly responsible to your Lordships' House and to the people of England. I wish to speak with respect of the parochial system, and also of the parochial clergy; but we must bear in mind in considering this system that it has to be regarded in two aspects—namely, as it affects the incumbent and as it affects the people. Now, any one conversant with the parochial system knows that in the rural districts it can be carried completely into effect; there the people have a personal knowledge of the clergyman, and the clergy can attend to the especial wants
  330
  of their flock, and need neglect none. When, however, we come to such large districts and parishes as are to be found within this metropolis, where 10,000, 15,000, or 20,000 persons have to look up to one incumbent for spiritual assistance and guidance, how is it possible that any portion of the system can be properly carried out? In such a case is it not something tantamount to a mockery? Nugatory as it is, however, in these districts, the parochial system is constantly brought forward as an argument against any improvement which may be contemplated. I repeat that the system must be regarded under two aspects—as it affects the incumbent and as it affects the people. We know the rights of the incumbent; but what are the rights of the people where it is in force? Every man, woman, and child may claim a seat in the parish church, and also the personal and direct ministration of the clergy. Is that right respected and allowed in our larger towns? Can the system in that aspect of it be carried out? Why, when you go to the east end of London and look at those swarming parishes, where, thank God! there are some of the most devout, active, and pious men who ever ministered to the Church of Christ, these clergymen will tell you, with tears in their eyes, that they cannot discharge one-tenth of their duties, and the people therefore must be left without that superintendence and deprived of the enjoyment of those rights which properly belong to them. If, then, the people possess these rights, and if it is manifestly impossible that they can enjoy them—if we have to relax the parochial system in our inability to afford the people their full rights—if it is impossible for the minister to extend to them his pastoral superintendence, and if the parish church cannot receive them, where are they to go? Where, except to places like Exeter Hall, the doors of which are thrown open, to invite these neglected wanderers from other parts of London to enter and listen to the Word of God? You shut them out from their rights in their own parishes; you tell them that here the parochial system cannot be maintained; they then come down to Exeter Hall, and are suddenly met with the declaration that there the system must be observed with all its rigours. You tell them—"No! The incumbent here is determined to exert his full au-

  331
  thority, and will allow no human being but himself to preach the Word of God within his district." Thus, the persons who come from those distant parishes, where they cannot enjoy their rights, find that no regard is paid anywhere to those rights; that their civil liberties are not respected, and their spiritual instruction remains uncared for. Now, it seems to me that you must do one of two things—either make the parochial system, with the attendant rights conferred by it, rigidly observed in every parish throughout the country, due provision being everywhere made for the spiritual instruction of the people and their accommodation in the churches; or else you must make such relaxations in the system as are demanded by the necessities of the time and the wants of the population. As to saying that you will maintain the present state of things—that you will allow the parochial system to be entirely broken through in one district and yet preserve it in all its rigour in another district—I think this is an outrage upon the people of this country—a declaration that the Church of England is not to instruct, but to deny instruction, and coerce those who attempt to impart it. I hold in my hand a letter I have just received from a dignitary of the Church, who by no means agrees with me in all things, and from this letter I cannot help quoting one short passage:—
  "I entreat you (he says) to persevere in any measure which may prevent a parochial charge for the health of men's souls from being turned into a territorial dominion to impede their being taught."
  This appears to me to contain the whole sum and substance of the case, and I think your Lordships will agree with me that some relaxation must take place in the present system, and that we cannot leave these mighty masses uncared for. At present the Bishops of the Church are placed in a very peculiar position. In this instance the Bishop of the diocese gave his sanction to the services at Exeter Hall. Having surveyed the condition of the people, being deeply touched with their spiritual destitution, he entered most warmly into our scheme, himself attended the services, and closed one of them by pronouncing the benediction. When the inhibition was issued the Bishop of the diocese had a long interview with the incumbent, and implored him (using not episcopal authority, but
  332
  episcopal entreaty) that he would desist from his opposition, and allow the services to go on. But in vain. Now, the Bishop is in a great measure responsible for the spiritual condition of his diocese, and if, when he sees that its wants are crying and grievous, and sanctions the means used for the purpose of supplying those wants, he is to be set at naught by the incumbent of a district, who declares that the Word of God shall not be preached there except by himself, I must say it appears to me that this Bishop has little more to do except to retire from the field altogether, and leave the subordinate clergyman in quiet possession. I think it is necessary that something should be done either to remove or to alter the power of inhibition. I am most anxious for the preservation of parochial rights, and therefore in the proposition I am about to submit to your Lordships I shall be very careful not to infringe upon those rights further than I conceive to be absolutely necessary. I wish to legislate upon the immediate point to which I have called your Lordships' attention, and not to go beyond it; but at the same time I must tell your Lordships that I am constantly receiving oral communications and written communications, both with and without signatures, charging me with pusillanimity for not going further—declaring that the measure I have proposed is most unsatisfactory—that it will be attended with little, if any, advantage—that a great deal more must be conceded, and that the members of the Church of England will have larger concessions. I think I am bound in candour to say to those of the bench of Bishops—because the whole body are not agreed—who resist any alteration on this essential subject, that the terms demanded will become year by year far more extensive, and I have not the slightest doubt that the perseverance of the laity of the Church, supported by the great body of the clergy, will eventually succeed in effecting the great object described by the Apostle, that "the Word of the Lord may have free course and be glorified." I will now tell your Lordships what is the nature of my proposition. Without affirming or denying the power of inhibition, I assume that it exists; and I propose that this power of inhibition shall not extend to parishes or districts the population of which by the last preceding census exceeded 2,000. In pa-

  333
  rishes with a population of less than 2,000 the clergyman may say—"We are perfectly competent to manage our own parishes; we don't want any sort of assistance; the whole thing is entirely within our grasp;" and in those cases I think the parochial system may be continued. This provision will exclude from the operation of the Bill a great number of country parishes where the clergymen are capable of discharging their parochial duties, and really do perform them. I think the power of inhibition should not, however, extend to parishes where the population exceeds 2,000 souls. I then propose that this power of inhibition, which may in some instances be wise and necessary, should be exercised under prominent responsibility, and the Bill provides that such inhibition shall not be valid unless it be sanctioned by the Bishop of the diocese, who will be the judge of the necessity either of admitting or rejecting any clergyman of the Church of England who may come into a parish. The responsibility ought, in my opinion, to rest upon the Bishop, because he can take a large view of the necessities of his diocese, and will not be influenced by motives of interest in regarding the condition of its various districts. I further propose to limit the Bill entirely to the occasional services held under the Act commonly called the "Liberty of Religious Worship Act" I provide that the power of inhibition shall be limited to "any congregation or assembly occasionally meeting for religious worship in any building or buildings not usually appropriated to purposes of religious worship." I think your Lordships will see, therefore, that I have asked no more than is absolutely necessary. I propose to legislate only for an evil that has arisen, and to leave the parochial system untouched wherever it is unnecessary to interfere with it. I have only proposed such a measure as will enable hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands to meet in places not ordinarily appropriated to religious worship, where they may receive the teachings of ordained clergymen. On Sunday last I attended one of the services conducted by Nonconformists, and the hall was thronged, principally by members of the working-classes, who were most devout and attentive. I confess that as I walked away I wag almost overwhelmed with shame
  334
  to think that the Church of England alone was excluded from holding such services; that the Church of England alone, which is constituted the Church of the realm, and to which such a duty is peculiarly assigned, should be the only body, among believers or unbelievers, which is not allowed to open a hall with the view of giving instruction to the people. In consequence of the representations of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford), who stated that it was the wish of a large majority of the Bishops, I promised to postpone the second reading of this Bill; but in urging this postponement—which is no doubt intended to lead to the ultimate rejection of the measure—I must say I think the right rev. Prelates make the fatal announcement that the Established Church, as she now stands, is not capable of performing those duties the discharge of which was the object of her foundation, and that she is altogether unable, unless with the aid of the Nonconformists, to instruct and evangelize the people of this country. The noble Earl concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill, with the view of adjourning the debate on the Motion to the 8th February.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I should be sorry to interfere between the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of St. David's, who had risen to address the House) and your Lordships, but I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the measure which has been submitted to us by the noble Earl. I rise rather for the purpose of expressing my satisfaction at his determination to postpone the consideration of this question; but I must at the same time express my regret at the terms in which he has signified his intention of doing so. I can assure the noble Earl that he does a great injustice to many of those who desire that the consideration of the subject should be postponed, if he interprets that desire as an intimation of hostility to the measure; for he will find among them many who are warm advocates for some change in the law as relating to religious worship. I am sure, also, it is an injustice to the right rev. Prelates to suppose that in pressing the postponement of this Bill, which is certainly one of very considerable importance, they were influenced by a determination to reject the

  335
  measure. I must remind the noble Earl that some degree of suspicion always attaches to legislative propositions which bear upon individual cases. In a great deal of what has been said by the noble Earl as to the defects and shortcomings of the parochial system, I fully and entirely concur; and I am quite aware of the necessity of adopting some measures in order to remedy those defects. I will not attempt to enter into any discussion upon the topics to which the noble Earl has referred. All I wish to say is, that according to the declaration of my noble Friend himself, this Bill is brought in for the purpose of dealing with a case which has arisen with reference to the Exeter Hall services. Now, my Lords, I pronounce no opinion—indeed I am not competent to do so—as to the amount of good which those services may have produced; but because a clergyman of the Church of England has exercised those rights which undoubtedly belong to him according to the existing law of the Church, my noble Friend steps in, and, without a moment's hesitation, without discussing the question whether the law of the Church is on the whole right or wrong, asks us by the authority of Parliament to interfere for the purpose of meeting this individual case. I contend that that is not the fitting mode of dealing with a question of this great importance. I do not mean to say that my noble Friend is debarred from bringing forward any particular question which he may think of urgency and importance during this short Session; but it must be recollected that an announcement has been made on the part of Her Majesty's Government that it was not their intention that any other business should be transacted than that for which Parliament was specially summoned, and hon. Members on the opposite side of the House expressed their willingness to acquiesce in such an arrangement, and intimated that they would not interfere with the progress of the one measure to which the Government desired to confine the attention of Parliament by the interposition of other business. After that announcement was made it was quite clear that there would be a very small attendance of Members of either House during the short Session before Christmas; and if any proof were required of the inconvenience of passing a measure of this nature at the present
  336
  time, I need only direct attention to the bench of Bishops, where I find that that body are at this moment represented by three only of their number. Many right rev. Prelates are performing various duties in different parts of the country, without any expectation that your Lordships would be called upon at this time to discuss a question affecting the interests and welfare of the Established Church. On the first day of the Session, however, just before the House broke up, my noble Friend, without a single word, laid this Bill upon the table, and moved that it be read a second time and taken into consideration on the following Monday, it being then understood that the next day—Friday—the House would only meet pro formâ, and that no business would be transacted. It happened, however, that a conversation on the subject of this Bill took place on Friday, in consequence of which my noble Friend has postponed his measure. The Bill is one which, in my opinion, involves a principle of great importance. I will not say my noble Friend's proposition may not he a good one, or that it may not be advisable to adopt this or some analogous measure; but great objections may and must arise to a total alteration, in many important respects, of the parochial system throughout the country. I rose, however, merely for the purpose of saying that those who desire the postponement of this measure are not to be regarded as its opponents, and to express a hope that, as my noble Friend has had the opportunity of stating fully and ably his own views and arguments, and of thereby placing his Bill in the most favourable position before the public, your Lordships will not think it necessary on this occasion to enter upon the partial and imperfect discussion of a question the further consideration of which is, by consent, adjourned. I am most anxious that the subject should be fully and fairly discussed. I do not pretend to have made up my mind as to the course which should be adopted. The question is one which was very fully considered when my noble Friend introduced his former Bill; and it was then understood to be the prevailing opinion that the parochial system should not be interfered with. Therefore what was then done is in opposition to the principle which the noble Earl now calls on the House to assent

  337
  to. I hope, as this debate is to be continued on a future occasion, the House will not now enter into an irregular and unnecessary discussion of the question.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, he was exceedingly thankful to the noble Earl who last spoke for his interruption, to which the House was indebted for a speech which, he for one, had heard with great satisfaction, and which must have great influence on their Lordships and the public out of doors. He assured the House that in the few remarks he was about to make he should be careful to keep within the range pointed out by the noble Earl, and not to anticipate any discussion which the measure might undergo on a future occasion; but as he was one of those who deprecated what he considered to be the undue haste with which this measure was pressed on by the noble Earl who proposed it, he desired to make a few remarks partly in explanation of his own motives, and partly in reference to the statement which that noble Earl had just made. He desired it to be most distinctly understood that his motive for wishing the postponement of the measure was not because he did not attribute to the noble Earl the purest, best, and most honourable motives, or because he felt less deeply and strongly even than the noble Earl himself the great and pressing importance of the object which the noble Earl had in view; it was solely because he thought the subject was one of too much importance to be dealt with so hastily. As far as his knowledge went, the noble Earl laboured under an entire misconception if he supposed that any member of the Episcopal bench was opposed to that object. At all events, if the noble Earl had come to that conclusion in consequence of anything said the other night, the noble Earl might be assured that he for his part would give him no opposition, if he could reconcile the proposed measure, which had his sympathy, with the general interests of the Church, and with the maintenance of the parochial system. He had formed no final judgment on this subject, and had not committed himself in any way to an opinion on either side. He was prepared to listen to the arguments for this measure at any future period, not only with the most perfect impartiality, but
  338
  really with the hearty desire to carry it into effect:—in fact, he could hardly conceive why the noble Earl should suppose that any members of the Episcopal bench could be opposed à priori to such a proposition, because, when its nature and tendency were considered, it seemed calculated in a most important degree to increase the power and authority they now possessed. He assured their Lordships that he should have been exceedingly gratified by such a mark of confidence towards the Episcopal body coming from the noble Earl, had he not been aware that, after the most rev. Prelate (the Primate) had failed to induce the noble Earl to depart from his original intention of pressing on the measure, the noble Earl had given way to the authority of the Lord Chief Justice. Now, he thought that, on a subject of this peculiar nature, the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury might have been considered as great as that of the Lord Chief Justice. In the greater part of the noble Earl's statements he fully concurred, and had heard with great satisfaction almost everything that fell from him. He gave the noble Earl credit for a desire neither to misstate nor exaggerate any fact in the slightest degree; but there were one or two points on which the noble Earl appeared to him to labour under some misapprehension. In the first place, he thought there was much greater reason than the noble Earl was aware of to doubt the success of the experiment which the noble Earl had made. There might be, he allowed, great difficulty in ascertaining how far it had succeeded or not, but if the object was such as he had understood it to be, then he must say that the reports which had come to his hearing led him, very reluctantly, to question the success of the experiment. This movement was intended, as he had fancied, to make some impression on the heathenism of that vast mass of the population of this great city which was never in any way brought within the sound of the Gospel, or ever partook in the ordinances of the Christian religion. On that essentially rested the great interest of the movement; and when it was first made public he entertained the strongest wishes for its success; but facts had come, he would not say to his actual knowledge, but had reached him, so attested that he was disposed to believe

  339
  them, which led him to doubt whether that object which he had just described had been in any degree attained, and whether the persons who had formed the great bulk of the congregations at these occasional services did belong to that unhappy class for whose benefit he had sincerely hoped those services were designed. On the contrary, he believed they belonged to a very different class of persons—persons to whom the Word of God was not entirely new or strange, who were in the habit of attending occasionally religious worship, and who could not, therefore, be considered in the light of heathens or outcasts from the blessings of Christianity. He would not say for a moment that there might not be present also persons of a different description, for whom it might he exceedingly desirable to provide church accommodation. He fully admitted that such was the case; but, nevertheless, he could not consider the urgency of the case so pressing if these occasional services, instead of being attended by persons now for the first time enjoying the opportunity of having the Gospel propounded to them, were attended by a class of persons who, if not there, might be receiving, it might be, some inferior kind of instruction, and attending a less edifying kind of service, but still would be listening to instruction and attending Divine worship in some other way. He knew that such was the impression actually made at least on one person not unfavourable to the noble Earl's plan, but, on the contrary, one of its warmest approvers, who had watched its progress with friendly interest, but who, for the sake of truth, had done all in his power to ascertain the actual working of this experiment. That person declared that, as far as his experience and observation went, the experiment appeared to have failed. That might be open to doubt, as a matter of fact, but still, where there was so much doubt hanging over that which was the foundation of the measure, the noble Earl did not appear to have made out a sufficient case for the urgency with which he had intended to press the Bill on their Lordships. He now came to a point, perhaps more important. He thought the noble Earl had mistaken the immediate cause of the obstruction which had taken place in the progress of this experiment, and in so doing had placed in a light not exactly
  340
  true—and, if not true, in a light very invidious and injurious to the person concerned—the conduct of the clergyman whose inhibition had given occasion for the present measure. It must be very painful to a clergyman of the Church of England to be held up in their Lordships' House and before the eyes of the country as a person who refused to let the Word of God be preached in his parish, and he was sure their Lordships would favour him with their attention while he pointed out that there was very great reason to question the correctness of that imputation. As for one part of that clergyman's conduct he thought he could speak with entire confidence, because he had heard from him a statement so clear and distinct that it was impossible to be misunderstood, and he was sure that that person would not misrepresent the case. He had been informed by this gentleman that when his consent was first applied for to these occasional services, though he himself considered it a very questionable and doubtful experiment, though he clearly foresaw that it might be attended—as it had been—with a great deal of personal inconvenience to himself, still he gave way to the authority of his Bishop in some degree against his own convictions, and the only condition which he made on giving his consent was that these services should not be, as was originally designed, formed entirely on the model of a dissenting place of worship.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: As far as my memory serves me that condition was made by myself.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sdid not mean to deny that the condition was first suggested by his right rev. Friend; but it was insisted upon by the incumbent. It was, he believed, at first intended that neither the Evening Service nor the Litany should be read; and when it was proposed that the sermon should be preceded by the Litany a very strong objection was made, which was overruled by his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of London), who suggested that the Litany, as being a medium between the Evening Service and the mere reading of a collect or two, should be used. It appeared to him, that the incumbent in the first part of the business, at all events, had acted with the greatest consideration both for the object in view and for the authority of his Bishop, Was it

  341
  then very natural that a person who had so conducted himself in the first stage of the transaction, at the interval of a few months should have undergone such an entire change in his views and character as to act as one who wilfully and obstinately prevented the preaching of the Word of God in his parish? He believed that the conduct of this gentleman in the latter part of the business had been also most conscientious, and that he had been driven to the line of conduct which he had adopted by the injudicious proceedings of other parties towards him. If that consent which had been requested from him at the beginning, and which he gave under the simple condition already mentioned, had been afterwards applied for in like manner, he would probably again have accorded it. But an opportunity to do that was never given to him. He was informed that he had no longer any voice in the matter, that either he must be supposed once for all to have given a consent which he could never retract, or else that those who applied for it in the first instance had been in error, and that his consent was not necessary. Thereupon he felt bound for the assertion of his right as a minister of the Church of England, to refuse his consent until the principle should be decided, until it should be ascertained whether he had a right to withhold his consent or not. Nor would he have been justified in acting in any other manner, and if any evil consequences had ensued from his inhibition, he was not the person who was responsible for them. That responsibility lay with those who, refusing to recognise that right which he conceived he possessed, by their denial drove him to try the question in a manner which had issued in the interruption of this experiment. He would not enter into any discussion upon this measure. He did not mean to say that the statement of the noble Earl might not be sufficient to show that there were good grounds for the introduction of such a measure, but where he conceived his statement entirely and signally to have failed was to show that there was any need for the urgency with which he had introduced it. He could not conceive that any serious injury to the interests of the Church of England could result from the postponement of the consideration of a measure which, whether it was a
  342
  right or wrong one, was on all hands admitted to introduce a very grave and important innovation into our parochial system. He most fully sympathized with the noble Earl in the desire which he had expressed to see the naves of Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's thrown open in the freest manner for the accommodation of the population of this great city. He hoped that the time might come when we should see those large spaces filled with large and devout congregations, composed, he would venture to say, of a class a little lower in the social scale than that which filled the area of Exeter Hall last summer. He further hoped that when these places should be crowded to overflow, and should be found insufficient to receive the multitudes who flocked to them, the Church of England might not be so utterly destitute either of spiritual or of temporal resources as to be unable to provide in this great city more than one building entirely devoted to such a purpose, and not one which was open on other occasions for purposes of a different, if not of a totally opposite nature. But he conceived that might and he hoped would be done without any important innovation on the parochial system; and until he found that he had been entirely misinformed about the most material circumstances of this case, he should continue to believe that they at all events did not afford a sufficient ground or reason for any such measure as that now before their Lordships.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he should be sorry indeed if any impression went abroad that any charge had been advanced by him against the gentleman referred to with respect to the first part of his conduct. In his estimation his conduct at first had been very praiseworthy. Nothing could be more proper than that a gentleman entertaining great doubts as to the wisdom of opening Exeter Hall for this object should communicate these doubts to his diocesan, take his opinion, and, finding his opinion adverse to his own, waive his objections, and permit the services to continue. As to his conduct afterwards, he should be sorry indeed if any expression which fell from his lips should be construed into a charge against the clergyman in question. He acted, as it was to be hoped every clergyman of the Church of England would act, most conscientiously. That the statement of his

  343
  right rev. Friend (the Bishop of St. David's) was perfectly correct as respected the other part of the business he could hardly allow, because he could state that an assurance had been given to this gentleman, that if any want of respect had been evinced by those who felt anxious for the continuance of these services, they were quite willing to make an acknowledgment of the right of the incumbent, and therefore, as his diocesan, he (the Bishop of London) besought this gentleman not to persist in withholding his consent. The incumbent was not to blame for having exercised the rights which he possessed. He acted conscientiously, and he (the Bishop of London) should deeply regret that he should be held up to opprobrium for what he had done. At the same time he should not be doing justice to those who were engaged in this movement if he did not add that he thought this gentleman had acted most mistakenly. When so great a movement as this, which he, as the Bishop of the diocese, esteemed to be one of the best works that had been undertaken since he entered upon his office, was stopped by a single incumbent, he did feel that the gentleman who had put his veto upon it did not exercise a sound discretion. No doubt he acted perfectly conscientiously, but he certainly acted very indiscreetly. One other explanation he must be allowed to make. The noble Earl had said something about the majority of the Bishops being opposed to this measure. His right rev. Friend had shown that this statement could not apply to all the members of the Episcopal bench, because when this Bill came to be discussed it would have, we might trust, his support, and he hoped also that of the right rev. Prelate who made some important observations a few nights ago. He wished to say a word about what passed on that evening. The most rev. Prelate (the Primate) usually took the opportunity of stating in that House his own sentiments and those of the bench, without leaving it to any other person to represent him. The most rev. Prelate was certainly present at the meeting of Bishops which had been held; but as he (the Bishop of London) was not in the House when this subject was last discussed, he could not say whether or not the terms in which that meeting was described were exaggerated; probably they were
  344
  not. At the same time he thought it would be no breach of confidence—indeed he thought it was his plain duty—to state what that meeting was. The Bishops met at certain times to discuss questions requiring a common decision. On this occasion there were six of them present, and as one went away there remained but five. The most rev. Prelate was strongly urged by one of the number to oppose the further proceeding with the noble Earl's Bill, on the ground that delay was desirable. He undertook to speak to the noble Earl; but, having failed in the object of his private representation, when he spoke to the noble Earl in the most friendly manner, he did not feel himself called upon to oppose the measure, even on the ground of delay being desirable; and he (the Bishop of London) was not quite certain whether, if the noble Earl had pressed his measure, the most rev. Prelate himself, as well as other members of the Episcopal bench, would not have felt bound to support it. Of this he was quite certain, that nothing like a majority of the Bishops was opposed to the proceedings of the noble Earl and his friends. He (the Bishop of London) had thanked him and those who acted with him in his own name, and he knew that many of his right rev. Friends were prepared to record their thanks for the good work which had been done; and he was happy to think that there was a prospect, a near prospect, that the example which had been so worthily set by these gentlemen would be followed by our great cathedrals. He rejoiced to be able to announce that Westminster Abbey would be open for Divine service on the evening of the 3rd of January, and he could express no better wish for the services to be conducted there and in St. Paul's Cathedral than that they might be attended by as great and hearty a body of worshippers as were found at the services in Exeter Hall. He agreed with his right rev. Friend that, even although the cathedrals should be thrown open, there would still be room for other services; and he hoped that so long as he occupied a position of responsibility he should encourage every good work, whether it was carried on in a cathedral or elsewhere. He did think that when Parliament met again they ought to legislate upon this subject. The parochial system must, of course, be maintained; but the law

  345
  did not maintain that system in all cases. Wherever it was proved that the parochial system was used to give the clergy a monopoly rather than to secure the rights of the laity, the law of the land had overridden the parochial system. He would refer to only two Acts of Parliament. One of them authorised the diocesan, without consulting the incumbent at all, to sever a large portion of his parish and make it into a new district parish. That, of course, was a more complete interference with the parochial system than anything which was proposed to be done by this Bill. An Act of Parliament, passed in the reign of George III., provided that if it should appear to the Bishop that the services performed in any parish church were not sufficient for the people, and that the system of pews, which had been referred to, excluded the parishioners from attending those services, the Bishop might, however obstinately opposed to such a step the incumbent might be, insist upon the performance of a third service; might order the incumbent to appoint a curate to discharge that duty; and, in the event of his refusing to do so, might himself appoint a curate, who should go into the church and officiate for the incumbent. That was the parochial system properly enforced. It was to be maintained, but it was to be maintained by the Bishop who was made the judge as to whether or not the incumbent was duly carrying it, out. He had referred to these cases, in order that when this measure was discussed their Lordships might really know that it was never the intention of the law to give to the incumbents a monopoly which should stand in the way of the teaching of the Gospel.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sstated in explanation that, as he was informed, the incumbent of the parish in which Exeter Hall was situated received, after his last interview with the right rev. Prelate, a letter from one of the persons interested in this movement in which his claims were positively and distinctly denied.
  THE BISHOP OF RIPONsaid, that having preached at one of these special services in Exeter Hall it was his decided conviction, founded upon many years' experience as a minister in different churches in the Metropolis, that the congregation which he witnessed in Exeter Hall was to a very considerable extent composed of a class of persons whom he had never
  346
  seen assembled in any church whatever. He thought it impossible that any one who had been present at one of these services could for a moment doubt that the congregation was largely composed of the working classes, and he most deeply deplored that a stop should have been put to a movement which was, he believed, more calculated than any which had been commenced for many years past to augment the influence of the Church of England, and to advance the best interests of true religion.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that the great objection raised to the proposal of the noble Earl seemed to be that it was inconsistent with the parochial system, but he thought that was a difficulty which might be got rid of in a manner which would be satisfactory both to the Church and the people. No one had a higher veneration than himself for the parochial system, which was one of the most ancient forms of Christian Church government, extended through the whole Western Church, and existed in England long before the Reformation, and, having on two occasions had to study the old canon law, he rather thought, although he would not give a positive opinion, that according to that law the diocesan was considered to be the pastor of the whole of his diocese. He had the care of the souls of all who lived within his jurisdiction and had aright to be present in the discharge of his ecclesiastical duties in any part of it. The incumbent under him had the peculiar—the cure, but still the diocesan had concurrently and above, even above the incumbent, the cure of the souls of all within his diocese. He might mention that in the evidence given by Cardinal Wiseman on one occasion in a celebrated marriage case at the bar of their Lordships' House his Eminence stated that the law in Roman Catholic countries was that there could not be a valid marriage unless the parish priest was present or the Bishop. That doctrine, he (Lord Campbell) believed, proceeded on the ground that the Bishop, according to ancient law, had a right to jurisdiction within a parish concurrently with the incumbent. If that were the case, could he not, concurrently with the incumbent, license another to preach in aid as it were of the incumbent in his parish, addressing a different class, and one which never enter the walls of the church. He did not think that that would be in the

  347
  slightest degree uncanonical; the suggestion might perhaps he worthy of notice, effecting the object, as he thought it would, without interfering in any manner with the parochial system.
  LORD PANMURE: My Lords, the question before the House has been pretty nearly disposed of for the present, inasmuch as my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has agreed to postpone this measure until the meeting of Parliament after the Christmas recess; but I cannot help expressing my regret that the services which it is its object to legalize in future have been arrested in the manner with which your Lordships are familiar. Having been present on more than one occasion at the Sunday evening services in Exeter Hall, I should be wanting in my duty, my Lords, if I did not, in contradiction to the assertion which I have seen made more than once, and which I have heard repeated by my right rev. Friend below me (the Bishop of St. David's), that the object for which those services were instituted has entirely failed, state my impressions on that point. It was my privilege on three occasions to attend the services in Exeter Hall. On the first of those occasions I was requested to occupy a seat on the platform. [The Earl of DERBY: There is no distinction in the seats.] I was requested to occupy a seat on the platform, which was open to all as well as to me, and I went there. But I did not fully satisfy myself on that occasion as to the nature of the congregation of which I formed part, and upon the two subsequent occasions I took my seat in the body of the hall, in the very midst of (he people for whose benefit the services were instituted. I was surrounded on all sides by men evidently in the position of operatives and mechanics. I could distinguish them by their dress, by their posture, and by every sign by which men can be known in society. I could also distinguish the effect of the services, in the attention with which they were received, and in the piety which appeared to me to surround me on all sides; and I am as convinced as that I now stand here and make this statement to your Lordships that the great body of these people did consist of operatives who were not provided with opportunities of attending other churches—though I will not say that they might not have attended them. But there was another remarkable fact in
  348
  those vast assemblies with which I was no less struck on the first than on the last two occasions on which I was present; that was, the enormous proportion of males present in comparison with women. I say it without hesitation that of those great assemblies, consisting each time of between four thousand and five thousand people, unlike all other assemblies of that character at which I have been present there—for example, the May meetings—the proportion of men to women was at least twenty to one, whereas at the May meetings which I have attended the case was almost precisely the reverse. I will also say that the services instituted in Exeter Hall not only succeeded in drawing to them the population for whom they were intended, but that class on whose moral and religious habits it was the interest of this country to make the deepest and earliest impression. As a sincere friend of the Church of England, I must say that if you want to build up her fabric and extend her influence over the population, you cannot more surely attain that end than by attracting to her ordinances such congregations as I have seen assembled in Exeter Hall, whether these Sunday evening services are held there, or in St. Martin's Hall, or, what I should like to see still better, in Westminster Abbey.
  The EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, in answer to the right rev. Prelate who first addressed their Lordships (the Bishop of St. David's), he would state that he had received a letter yesterday morning from a gentleman who informed him that he totally disapproved of the Exeter Hall services, until he met with a manufacturer in Lambeth who told him that about seventy of his workmen regularly attended those services, not one of whom, he believed, was ever before in the habit of attending a place of worship. That he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) thought was a sufficient proof, not only that a large majority of the working-classes attended the services in question, but that portion of them for whom they were expressly intended.
  Further debate on the said Motion adjourned to Monday, the 8th day of February next.

CONVEYANCE OF TROOPS—THE "AUSTRIA."
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE,in rising to move, That there be laid before this House Copy of the Contract made with

349
the Owners of the Steam Ship Austria, for the Conveyance of the 94th Regiment to India, said, that the conveyance of troops was a question which at all times interested the public, and it was a question relating not only to the economy of time and money, but regarding also the safety of brave men. In the month of August last the 94th Regiment was ordered to proceed to India. That regiment, he might say, having been sixteen years in that country, though it had been but one year at home, was selected as one peculiarly fitted for the service. The Government naturally wished to despatch the regiment with all speed, and the East India Company, with the sanction of the Government, engaged a vessel named the Austria to transport the troops. That vessel was not the property of an English subject or an English company. She was to sail from Cork upon the 5 th of October. The troops were prepared to embark upon three separate occasions, but were prevented by delays. At length they sailed, but very soon the vessel was obliged to put back to Plymouth. Again they sailed, but again they put back, and eventually the Government were obliged to send the troops by the overland route, and to engage an Irish steamer to convey them to Alexandria for that purpose. The Austria was taken up from a Dutch company as he understood. It was now a thoroughly established principle that the Government were to accept the lowest tender for conveyance, where good securities were given. That principle should be carried out, but there were occasions on which it was right to make exceptions, and it was a question whether those exceptions were not fitly made where shipping was employed on important objects, considering that the shipping of the British nation was far better adapted for British purposes than the shipping of foreign nations. With respect to this particular ship he understood that she was a fine looking ship, but she was pronounced by the surveyor to be unfitted in her then condition for the conveyance of troops to India. It was then proposed that she should have a spar deck put over her main body, so as to make her more commodious. After a time, that deck not being finished, she put to sea with the regiment, having partly completed her deck, but starting probably to avoid the penalties of demurrage which a continued delay would
350
have entailed. She, therefore, went to sea in this condition, contrary to the directions of the surveyors. When she got into the Bay of Biscay, she shipped so much water that she was compelled to put back. The surveyor then ordered the deck to be put on; which detained her six weeks; after which, on the 4th of October, she put to sea. On the 25th of November a portion of her machinery broke down, and she put back to Plymouth. When deprived of the use of her engines she was found to be a most difficult vessel under sail, and she had to be towed into Plymouth by two steamers. The crew were all foreigners but two, and there was no possibility of communication with them. This fact in a great degree augmented the anxiety of the passengers. From the 5th of October, when that vessel sailed from Cork for the East Indies, she had only arrived at Plymouth. On the point of economy of time and money, therefore, this vessel had completely broken down. While this system was going on, there were in the ports of England a steam navy boasted of as numbering 270 ships of various sizes, and a reserve of 10,000 men substituted for the coast-guard, instead of pressing men for the sudden manning of ships. It had been observed that the manning of the navy had been very much lost sight, and that there was a large list of officers doing nothing but receiving the public half-pay. It was a subject of astonishment that these officers were not otherwise made use of. The St. Jean d'Acre was lying at Plymouth, and of all the ships in the world there was nothing like a British man-of-war for carrying troops. Take out the lower guns, and there was the most perfect transport that existed in the world. The contract cost of conveyance of each man on board the Austria was £45, or nearly £30,000 on the whole, so that in point of money the employment of the Royal steamers would be a great gain to the country. With the experience of the Russian war before us, in which the transport service had cost the country no less than £9,000,000, he was justified in asking the House to consider whether it would not be advantageous to avail ourselves of the resources in the Royal harbours and dockyards. Now that we should have to maintain nearly 100,000 European troops in the East Indies, it was probable that there would be a re-

351
gular demand for vessels to convey troops to that country, and he would suggest that the Government should organize a system of transports, which should be entirely under their control, in order that they might, with facility and at a moderate expense, send troops to any quarter of the globe at a moment's notice. The noble Earl then moved for the Paper.
LORD PANMUREsaid, that his noble Friend, in making the Motion which he had just submitted to the House, seemed to have altogether lost sight of the fact that the transport of troops to India was contracted for by the East India Company, and that the vessels which were employed upon that service were surveyed by a surveyor, specially employed by the Company for the purpose. He might also inform the noble Earl that the system was one which had not been adopted of late years, but one which had been in existence ever since the troops of the Sovereign began to be conveyed to India. The Company was responsible for the expense of the conveyance of our troops from this country to India, but when they were about to return home, and were consequently no longer to be regarded as in the service of the Company, we were obliged to bear the cost of their transport. Now, out of the large number of vessels which had been employed by the Company in the conveyance of nearly fifty thousand soldiers who had left these shores for India, the Austria was, he believed, the only one in whose case a casualty had occurred, and the only one in reference to which he had heard any complaint made against the Company for not having paid due attention to the comfort and safety of the regiments which were embarked under their auspices. It was quite true that they had been accused, and perhaps not without some degree of justice, of selecting, in the first instance, ships of too small a calibre, and of distributing the troops in too many vessels; but, be that as it might, nobody could deny that the Court of Directors had latterly shown the greatest anxiety to secure for the transport of the troops the best vessels. With respect to the Austria, he would only say that the facts in relation to her had been correctly stated by his noble Friend opposite. She had been in the first instance found not to be sufficiently well adapted for the conveyance of troops
352
upon a long voyage, and after considerable delay on the part of the Company in chartering her—for he must say in justification of the illustrious Duke at the head of the army, that he was not responsible for any delay which might have taken place in the embarkation of the 94th Regiment, inasmuch as when it had been notified to him that the regiment had been ordered on foreign service, he had made every endeavour to send it at once down to the port of embarkation—a still further loss of time had been occasioned in fitting her with those decks and cabins which had been considered to be essential to the comfort of the troops upon along voyage. When, after those alterations had been effected, the Austria had set out upon her voyage, she met with an accident, but it was one of a nature which, he must contend, might happen to any vessel, and no sooner had the occurrence of the accident been ascertained than the determination had been come to to send the 94th Regiment viâ Alexandria, so that it might be expected to arrive in India not long after the period at which it would have reached that country had it been conveyed by the vessel in which it had embarked in the first instance. With reference to transport service generally, to which the noble Earl had called their Lordships' attention, and which was entirely under the control of the Admiralty, he could only say that he entirely concurred with his noble Friend in thinking that there could be no valid objection to the employment of the large class of vessels at the disposal of the Admiralty. Indeed, to prove to his noble Friend that Her Majesty's Ministers were not disinclined to use those vessels, he might state that in bringing home our troops from the Mediterranean one of Her Majesty's ships had been engaged. The noble Earl must, however, bear in mind that the officers in the navy were extremely adverse to having their ships employed as transports. Indeed, there was nothing which the captain of one of these vessels would in all probability like less than to be obliged to take out his lower-deck guns for the purpose of conveying a regiment of troops, and that such was the case his noble Friend must from his own experience be aware. A circumstance of that nature, however, was not one which ought to preclude the use of those vessels, when necessary, in

353
the transport service, and he should only add that upon no occasion on which it had been found necessary to send troops to any part of the world on the responsibility of the Government had the Board of Admiralty shown any indisposition to devote to the transport service the best vessels at their command. He should, of course, if his noble Friend wished for its production, have the copy of the contract which had been entered into with the owners of the Austria laid upon their Lordships' table; but as that document had nothing to do with the general question of the conveyance of troops upon the responsibility of Government, he trusted his noble Friend would deem it unnecessary to press his Motion.
In reply to Lord MELVILLE,
LORD PANMUREstated, that the officer by whom the Austria had been surveyed was a gentleman who was employed by the East India Directors exclusively for the purpose of surveying their transports
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock till To-morrow, Three o'clock.