Sitting of 27 April 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° County Franchise; Weights and Measures.
2° Poor Law Amendment; Chelsea Hospital (Purchase of Lands).

CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CROSSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary for the Home Department, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to take any steps towards extending the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act to Municipal Elections?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the Corrupt Practices' Prevention Act with reference to Parliamentary Elections was now at that moment under his consideration, and he was endeavouring to amend that Act. The result of several Election Petitions last year had induced him to think that, what occurred in the course of those petitions might suggest Amendments which might be introduced into the Bill; and, therefore, if the House would allow the subject to stand over for ten days or a fortnight to consider such Amendments, he would lay a Bill on the table. Having done so, he should propose to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, as had been the case before, and it would then be brought down to the House for their consideration. He saw no reason why the provisions of the Bill should not be extended to Municipal Elections, but he thought it better to put the Act respecting Parliamentary Elections into a satisfactory shape before they applied it in the way suggested by the Member.

  THE ENFIELD RIFLE.—QUESTION.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary for War, whether it is true that some of Her Majesty's Regiments of Infantry in the East Indies are still armed with the old smooth-bore
  1798
  musket; and if so, what has caused the delay in changing those arms for the En-field Rifle, which has long been issued to the rest of the army, both at home and abroad?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that every one of the regiments sent from this country in 1857 had been furnished with the Enfield Rifle. The regiments which were serving in India previous to 1857, were originally furnished with a smooth-bore musket; but there had been sent out last year 35,000, and up to the 19th of the present month 82,000 rifles for their supply, a number quite sufficient for the arming our troops in India. Of course the distribution of those rifles depended entirely on the East India Company, and, it having- been reported to the War Office that some of the regiments still retained the smooth-bore muskets, Lord Panmure had called the attention of the Company to the fact and requested that all Her Majesty's regiments in India might be furnished with Enfield Rifles. Considering the large supplies of this weapon which had been sent out, he hoped that every one of Her Majesty's regiments would now be armed with it.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he wished to know whether the House was to understand that some of Her Majesty's regiments still retained the old smooth-bore musket at the present moment?
  GENERAL PEELreplied, that previous to 1857 they had, but since that time the number of rifles he had mentioned had been sent out, which would be quite sufficient for the supply of all Her Majesty's regiments now in India. The distribution of these rifles, as he had stated, depended entirely upon the East India Company.

THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT INGESTREsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to a memorandum left in his office by the late Chief Commissioner of Works, with reference to the unsatisfactory Estimate sent in by Sir Charles Barry for the completion of the Works at the Palace of Westminster, and whether any and what determination has been come to on the subject?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, his attention had naturally been called to the memorandum in question, and he had lost no time in communicating on the subject with Mr. E. Barry, who was acting on the part of his father, then suffering from ill-

  1799
  ness. In consequence of those communications, details and estimates had been sent in for the entire completion of the Palace of Westminster. Those estimates had been submitted to the Treasury, and in a few days would be in the hands of Members.

  NAVAL RETURNS.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he would beg to ask, when the Returns of the Money saved in Wages by paying off eight Line-of-battle ships in the spring of 1857, of the expense of refitting the ships Duke of Wellington, Exmouth, &c, and of the number of Continuance-Service Men in the Fleet on the 1st day of January 1857, will be laid on the table?
  MR. CORRYwas understood to say, that the Returns referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be ready by Monday next.

DENMARK AND THE DUCHIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WISEsaid, that several documents had appeared in the German newspapers on the subject of his question, and he therefore begged to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Report made in May, 1857, by Consul General Ward, of Leipsic, to the British Government on the differences which had arisen between the Duchies and the Kingdom of Denmark; as well as a copy of any Observations or Reply communicated by the Danish Ministry to Her Majesty's Government in reference to the said Report?
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, the subject was one which excited the greatest interest throughout Denmark and Germany, and it was also one on which Her Majesty's Government, and probably the other Powers of Europe might be called upon to express an opinion. The paper referred to by the hon. Gentleman was a Report which Consul General Ward was requested to draw up in order that it might be confidentially considered by the Government; and the hon. Gentleman would no doubt see that upon a matter of this European importance, which was still pending, and as to which Her Majesty's Government might have to adopt a particular line of policy, it was not for the convenience of the public service that a confidential Report of this nature should be published to the world, as it would be if laid on the Table of the House. The hon.
  1800
  Member said that documents had appeared in the German papers in reference to this subject. He (Mr. S. FitzGerald) was informed that that was the fact; but as these documents had not appeared in extenso it would be understood that good reasons existed for the reserve which had been exercised. As regarded the latter part of the question he had only to inform the hon. Member that Mr. Ward's Despatch had been confidentially communicated to the Danish Government, but that no further communication had passed respecting it.

MILITIA CAPTAINS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD BURGHLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary for War whether the Government will make some allowance to the Captains of the sixteen disembodied regiments of Militia to compensate them for the losses they must sustain by their not being able to recover the debts from their Companies in consequence of their regiments being suddenly disembodied?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, it was his intention to follow the precedent set in former cases on this subject, and he found that it was not the custom to make any allowance to Captains of disembodied Militia regiments to compensate them for the losses referred to.

  CHURCH RATES.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, that on behalf of many hon. Members who took a great interest in this question, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the loader of the House to reconsider the determination he had expressed not to give a day for the discussion of the church rate question.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he really could not, with a fair regard to the progress of public business, give a day for the discussion of church rates or of any other subject. On Thursday, however, he should propose to the House, that on and after the 13th of May (Thursday fortnight), Orders of the Day should take precedence over Notices of Motion; and in that case it would be open to hon. Gentlemen to make this an Order of the Day, which would, he trusted, afford the hon. Member the opportunity he desired.

  THE CAGLIARI—QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I wish, Sir, to ask a question respecting a matter of

  1801
  very considerable importance which has appeared several times on the Notice Paper. I mean the Motion with reference to the Cagliari, and the conduct of this country towards Sardinia. As the question is one which affects the honour and character of this country, I think the discussion upon it should not be long postponed. At the same time I feel that it would be unreasonable to ask the Government to give up at present any of the days which are devoted to Government orders. But it appears to me that on Tuesday next no notices are given of very urgent business; and, therefore, seeing that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex (Mr. Byng) has the first notice on that day, I venture to request him to postpone that notice, should the House agree then to consider the Motion of the hon. Member for Bridgewater (Mr. Kinglake) respecting the Cagliari.
  MR. BYNGsaid, he would beg to state in reply to the suggestion of the noble Lord, that he should have much pleasure in postponing the Motion which stood upon the paper in his name for Tuesday next, in order that the important subject to which the noble Lord had referred might be brought under the notice of the House, he must, however, remind the noble Lord that he should feel it to be his duty to take that course only in case the hon. Member for Cork and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, in whose name notices for the day in question stood upon the paper, should also consent to give way upon that occasion.

  STADE DUES.—QUESTION.
  MR. HUTTsaid, he wished to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—he having announced it to be his intention to nominate a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Stade Dues—when the accouchement might be expected to take place.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that although he had been unable to hear distinctly the question which the hon. Gentleman had put to him, he supposed it referred to the nomination of the Committee upon the Stade Dues. If that were so, he begged to assure the hon. Gentleman that he should have moved that Committee that evening had he not been anxious to send the order of reference in the first instance to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. L. Ricardo) for his consideration. He had sent
  1802
  the order to the hon. Member on the previous day, and, not having heard from bin that he disapproved the terms in which it was couched, he should have no hesitation in moving the appointment of the Committee to-morrow.
  MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, he felt very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having taken the trouble to send him the order of reference, but he had unfortunately never received it.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of further improving the administration of justice, by increasing the number of assizes for civil business in the several counties of England and Wales. At present there was an extraordinary inequality between the mode of administering justice in London and in other parts of the country, for while there were ninety-six sittings in London and Middlesex in the course of the year at which causes might be tried, there were only two in such counties as Stafford, Gloucester, and Lancashire. All the great provincial towns were now placed in exactly the same position with respect to the administration of justice in which they had stood before the passing of the Reform Bill in relation to political representation. To prove to the House how very unequal, as well as inconvenient, was the working of the system under the operation of which that state of things prevailed, be might mention the fact that while a person residing at the Middlesex side of Westminster-bridge was afforded an opportunity of having an inquiry instituted into a question of injury done to his real property sixteen times in the year, a person living upon the Surrey side would have that question tried only upon two occasions. So great, indeed, had the grievance arising from the anomalies of the present system been found to be that various remedies for it had been devised— among others the establishment of County Courts, which tribunals had, however, failed to give that amount of satisfaction in that regard which the country was entitled to expect. The establishment of a winter assizes had also been found to be but a very partial remedy for the inconveniences to which he adverted, and he might add that the Committee of the Incorporated Law Society had stated it to be its opinion

  1803
  that the true remedy for those inconveniences was to be found in a measure giving the same facilities for bringing on cases for trial in the country as now existed in London. Mr. Gordon, Master of the Common Picas, had also published a pamphlet, urging the expediency of adopting that course, and the Law Review—the organ of the law reformers—had in two articles advocated a precisely similar policy. He might also state that the law societies of Manchester, Hull, Plymouth, and Liverpool had all expressed themselves as being strongly in favour of having three assizes in the year, and the only law society, he believed, which had not approved that proposition, was that of Devon and Exeter. An objection had been raised to this course on the score of the additional expense it would entail on the country, but he did not imagine that it would be so great as had been supposed, inasmuch as it would, in his opinion, be unnecessary to appoint in consequence an additional number of Judges, and if the expenses of jurors should be increased there would, on the other hand, be speedy justice and prevention of delay in the settlement of mercantile disputes. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had moved for a Committee to consider the expediency of establishing Tribunals of Commerce. Now, he thought that it would be better to improve the old courts than to establish new ones. The County Courts had already cost £100,000 a year, and in respect to Tribunals of Commerce, the best that could probably be said of them would be what was said of the old Courts of Requests, that persons would get a great deal of injustice for very little money. The adoption of the course he advocated involved no novel principle, inasmuch as the Great Charter which had been passed in the reign of King John provided that writs of assizes should be issued four times in the year, while in the reign of King Edward I. it had been twice expressly enacted that assizes should be held annually three times. Another point which was well deserving of consideration was the great distances which persons now had to travel in order to reach their assize towns — in some instances no less than eighty miles. In order to meet that inconvenience a suggestion had been made to divide counties. That plan was no novelty, for it had already been adopted in respect to Lancashire, which now possessed two assize towns, and a further division had been
  1804
  proposed in order that Manchester business might be disposed of upon the spot. If that proposition were carried out it was estimated that the cost of building courts, even to the extent of £50,000, would be saved in one year by the reduction of expenses. Then, again, the great county of Yorkshire, with a population of 1,800,000, had but one assize town, and the inhabitants of the West Riding, numbering 1,325,000, were compelled to go to York to dispose of their law business. Out of the 1,325,000 inhabitants of the West Riding, only 72,000 were nearer to York than to Wakefield, which had been suggested as an assize town, and 736,000 were more than thirty miles, some fifty-five miles from York. There were other counties, Warwickshire and Staffordshire for instance, which required division, and altogether the subject was one which was entitled to consideration. He had no objection to adopt the Amendment notice of which had been given by the hon. and learned Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Collins) that after the word "assizes" in his notice of Motion there should be inserted the words "and assize towns," and that after the word "civil" there should be inserted the words "and criminal," and therefore he should move
  A Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of further improving the Administration of Justice by increasing the number of assizes and assize towns for civil and criminal business in the several counties of England and Wales.
  MR. HADFIELDseconded the Motion.
  Question proposed.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that as the hon. and learned Gentleman had adopted his Amendment, it would be unnecessary for him to detain the House on the subject, further than to say that, in giving his notice, he had merely followed the words of the Royal Commission which was issued about a year ago. The condition of Yorkshire alone was a proof that some change was necessary, the inhabitants of the West Riding being especially interested in the adoption of some more convenient arrangements than those at present existing. The population of the West Riding is nearly one million and a half, and 19–20ths of this population live within a circle of fifteen miles of Leeds and Wakefield, and are distant an average of thirty-five miles from York. I am at a loss to say what reasons can be assigned for carrying this vast population out of the West Riding into another. South Lancashire, with a smaller

  1805
  population, and a much smaller area was to be subdivided, and why not Yorkshire. This change had been recommended by a Judicial Commission as far back as 1834, and two of the Judicial Commission last year had reported in favour of a separate assize at Wakefield in the West Riding; and I, for one, would prefer to support the view maintained by my right hon. Friends the Member for Droitwich and South Lancashire to that held by the judicial part of that Commission. It might be said, indeed, that the grand juries had on several occasions passed resolutions in favour of retaining York as the sole assize town for the county; but I don't think much weight should be given to this. The grand jury come for the week and enjoy themselves, and return not, nor wish to do, to their own homes at night. York possesses a pleasant club as every Yorkshireman knows, pleasant walks by the river's bank and pleasant societies, and both to bar, and bench, and magistracy, is a more pleasant place of sojourn than manufacturing towns like Leeds or Wakefield. To the petty jurymen, however, to witnesses, and parties generally, any plan that would reduce the distance they had to travel, and enable them to return to their homes at night, would be a great boon. He hoped that something would be done, and that the House would not be satisfied simply with the opinions of the Judges upon this point, but that Her Majesty's Government would pay that attention to the opinions of their colleague the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, and to that of the Member for South Lancashire, which such opinions eminently deserved.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that before the House assented to the Motion for the proposed Committee they ought to consider whether it was necessary or desirable that they should obtain any further information upon that subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had made the Motion had directed their attention to the Report of the Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into the common-law judicial business. Now a Commission was issued—
  "For the purpose of inquiring into the present arrangements for transacting the judicial business, civil and criminal, of the superior Courts of common law in England and Wales, and also into the times and places at which assizes are now holden, and as to the division of the country into circuits; and to report whether any changes can be made by which such business may be transacted with greater convenience and at less expense; and also whether any reduction may be made in the present number j of the Judges of the said courts without detriment j to the public service."
  1806
  The House would therefore see from the directions given to the Commission that the inquiry which they instituted was, in point of fact, of a far more extensive character than that contemplated by the Motion before the House. The inquiry of the Commissioners was not only more extensive than that now proposed, but, with great respect for hon. Members of that House, he doubted very much whether the Report of a Committee of the House of Commons would carry with it greater weight than the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners. On that Commission were the Lord Chief Justice, Viscount Eversley, Lord Wensleydale, Sir Cresswell Cress-well, Baron Martin, his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir J. Fakington, Mr. Wilson Patten, and the Under Secretary for the Home Department, Mr. Waddington, of whom he would take that opportunity to say that a more able public servant, or one better acquainted with the special subject under discussion, did not exist. It was a pleasure to him (Mr. Walpole) to make that public acknowledgment of the hon. Gentleman's services. As, then, the inquiry by the Commissioners had been of the most extensive character, and been conducted by men of the greatest knowledge and experience, was it likely that the House could obtain, through the medium of a Committee, any further information to enable them to deal with this subject? He doubted very much that they could. The object of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion being to increase the number of assizes for civil and criminal business in the several counties of England and Wales, he (Mr. Walpole) was confident that that could only be obtained by a large increase of the judicial staff, and he wished the House to consider what would be the consequences. If they were to have more assizes for the transaction of civil and criminal business than at present, they would greatly curtail the important business which. was transacted in London, and impose upon the Judges a greater amount of labour than they could get through with anything like satisfaction. The Commissioners stated in their Report that they should have been better satisfied if arrangements could be made for holding an assize three times a year in every important assize town, but they were satisfied that, owing to the number of Judges that would be called on to leave their town duties for that purpose, this object could not be effected without very serious incon-

  1807
  venicnce to the public, which would more than counterbalance any advantages to be derived there from by the particular localities. The House could only get over that difficulty by increasing the number of Judges, and against any arrangement of that nature he was sure his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford would seriously set his face. But, independently of that, he wished the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. M'Mahon) to consider whether the addition he had suggested to the number of assize towns was really required at the present time. Thirty or forty years ago the case was very different. The means of communication were then much less than they now were. They had not then established County Courts all over the kingdom. The whole of the business at that time was much delayed by the want of facilities for rapid communication, and by the want of more circuits; but he doubted whether they would improve the administration of justice by laying down a general rule that they were to have three circuits for civil and criminal business all over the kingdom. With regard to the criminal business of the country, it would be within the knowledge of the House that special Commissions were issued in the winter for the transaction of that part of it which lay in the northern counties whenever the state of the business to be transacted called for such a course. He stated the other day, when a question was put to him on this subject, that the adoption of the recommendations in the Report of the Commissioners materially hinged on the success of a Bill which had been introduced by the corporation of Manchester to enable them to hold assizes in that city. When it was seen how that arrangement worked the House would be in a position to consider whether Wakefield or Leeds should be added to York as an additional assize town, or whether those towns should claim the right to have assizes holden there in lieu of York. Taking all these things into consideration, he thought the best course to take was to go over the Report of the Commissioners, and see how far, by acting on the recommendations contained in it, any defects in the administration of justice were likely to be supplied, and how far the objections taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman could be removed. For the reasons he had given he did not think it expedient to grant the Committee.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that as the Com-
  1808
  mission had conceded the principle of the Motion before the House, he could not see why the right hon. Gentleman had objected to it. If the rule was to be that the additional assize depended upon considerations of the area and population of a district, he was at a loss to conceive why a concession was refused to Yorkshire which had been granted to Lancashire, as the case of Yorkshire was much stronger. Sheffield, which was at such a great distance from York, contained more people than some counties, and he could cite numerous cases in which injustice had been done, in consequence of the expense of bringing the necessary witnesses to the assize town. He did not think that to effect the alteration asked for any increase in the number of Judges would be necessary. Formerly there were only twelve Judges, now we had fifteen, and in the Common Pleas there was not half business for the Judges of that Court. The true principle on which they ought to act in all these matters was to bring justice as much as possible home to every man's door.
  VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, he was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department say he was not disinclined to consider the claims of the West Riding. He must say, on behalf of his constituents, that they were little inclined to acquiesce in the Report of the Commissioners in so far as it affected them; and the inconveniences to which the West Riding was subjected had been so clearly proved by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon), that he had nothing to add to his observations except that he entirely concurred in them. With regard to the proposition of Wakefield being removed from the Northern Circuit, and attached to the Midland, he should prefer to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) say he would agree to grant this Committee rather than that he would consider the question when the time came for carrying into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners. As to the expense, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to fear that to incur it would bring down upon him the censure of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford; but he should remember that the good administration of justice was a thing superior to all considerations of expense, and with regard to the West Riding of Yorkshire it was next to impossible this could exist without the establishment of a a separate assize.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he consi-

  1809
  dered the question now before the House was not whether the recommendations of the Commissioners should be implicitly adopted, but whether an inquiry with a view to certain alterations in the present system should be granted or not. With respect to this, he thought that the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) was entitled to great weight. It was highly inexpedient to have a Committee to inquire into facts which were sufficiently known already through the Report of the Commission. Many memorials were presented to that Commission and to the claims of the memorialists the closest attention was paid, and a variety of important recommendations made regarding them. They expressed an unanimous opinion that it was inexpedient to have three assizes uniformly throughout the country, but recommended that a third assize should be held for criminal business in cases where a gaol delivery might be advisable during winter, and they also recommended that in Yorkshire and Lancashire a third assize for civil business should be established; and, in consequence of that recommendation, he believed that assizes had been held in some twenty counties during the course of last winter. He did not understand the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to say that the Government would consider itself bound by the recommendations of the Commission though he considered these were entitled to the highest respect and ought to be carried out in so far as that could be done. He thought, under all the circumstances, that there was no necessity for the inquiry proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford.
  COLONEL SMYTHsaid, he hoped the Select Committee would not he granted. As far as regarded Yorkshire, the county with which he was connected, he could fairly say that the distances which witnesses had to travel to and from the assize town was a matter of very small importance in these railway days; and it was scarcely necessary for him to state that not a single witness need sleep at York. In addition to that he did not think that any town in the West Riding was at present prepared to supply the necessary accommodation to the Judges, barristers, and witnesses, and all those who attended the assizes.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, that, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Smyth) had the honour of representing the City of York, there was no great difficulty in understanding why he objected to
  1810
  the Motion before the House; but he was surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not see that a great case was made out with regard to the town of Wakefield and its neighbourhood. He (Mr. Bright) had received a letter that very morning from a magistrate at Wakefield, independently of a document forwarded to him in common with every other hon. Gentleman in that House, setting forth in a forcible manner the claims of the West Riding to have a third assize. Now, it would appear that the country was perfectly well satisfied with the experiment which had been tried with reference to Lancashire, and they were about to extend it. Well, then, if Manchester had made out a case for itself, was not the claim of the West Riding much stronger? He (Mr. Bright) was not competent to say which was the best town in the West Riding, although no doubt Wakefield was the capital of the Riding, and probably would be chosen when any change came to be effected. At present, a poor man committed to take his trial at the assizes—and poor men formed the bulk of persons charged with crime in our courts of law—was sometimes obliged to bring his witnesses from one end of the county to the other, and it therefore stood to reason that his chances of acquittal were fewer than they would otherwise be. This threw great difficulties in the way of a man proving his innocence, and was one of the greatest hardships to which the citizens of any country could be subject. In his opinion there was no necessity for a Committee, because the facts of the case were patent. The change which had worked so advantageously in Lancashire the people of the West Riding must necessarily acquire, and he thought they had an absolute right to ask the Government to make it for them. The only result of a Committee would be to produce a vast blue-book without making the case a bit stronger than at present, and he would therefore ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press his Motion to a division, but rather let the inhabitants of a district, where a necessity for a change in the periods of holding the assizes was felt, bring their claim before the Home Office, and, if necessary, before Parliament.
  MR. CHARLES WORTHsaid, that as the representative of the borough of Wakefield, he begged to express his thanks to the hon. and learned Member who had brought this question forward. There would be great convenience in selecting the town of Wakefield for the assizes of the

  1811
  West Riding. Lancashire had two assize towns already, and was about to have a third. The principle had also been acknowledged by the Government in the Probate and Registration of Wills Act. A court was held at Wakefield under this Act, which had been the greatest been ever granted to the inhabitants of the West Riding. He hoped that the Government would bring forward some measure for the more easy and convenient administration of justice in counties.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALdid not wish to prolong the debate, but the House would not fail to observe that, while the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wexford related to the administration of justice in England and Wales, the question had been debated almost exclusively in relation to the West Riding of Yorkshire. The noble Lord (Viscount Goderich) might rest assured that when the Report of the Commission came under the consideration of the Government, due regard would be paid to the claims and interests of the West Riding. He doubted whether any evidence could be delivered before the Select Committee which would not be found in the Report and appendix of the Commission. A question had been raised whether the county of York should not be taken from the Northern Circuit and thrown into the Midland Circuit, so as to necessitate a redistribution of the counties composing the present circuits. He wished also to remind the House that, with regard to the only two counties in England that had been mentioned in the debate, the Report of the Commission recommended that provision should be made at the winter assizes for the administration of justice in civil as well as criminal causes. No one had suggested any inconvenience in any other county in England except York and Lancaster, and they had been provided for by the Report of the Commission.
  MR. BOWYERsaid, he was anxious to see a third assize established all over the country for criminal business; and in proof of this, he called the attention of the House to the hardship of the case of those prisoners who, committed in the month of August, might have to remain in prison six months waiting for trial in consequence of the present system. He looked upon the administration of justice by assize courts as one of the last relics of barbarism, and thought we were approaching the time when we should see a far greater extension of the system of local courts. Those who had any experience in assize courts would be able to tell the House how
  1812
  the arrangements were made and what were their consequences. The Commission days for the various towns were struck in London, and if at any particular place a heavy case came on for trial, it was either made a remanet or else it deranged the whole business of circuit. In consequence of the present system, many causes were hurriedly tried, while in others suitors were put to enormous expense in having to conduct their cases before a referee—generally some barrister who had no practice, and who was inferior in experience to the County Court Judges. He believed that the House must look to a further development of the system of County Courts, and that the remedy must go a great deal deeper than his hon. and learned Friend had contemplated in his Motion.
  MR. BEECROFTobserved, that although a great deal had been said about Wakefield, he would maintain that Leeds ought to be the town selected for the assizes of the West Riding. It was more convenient, and its population alone entitled it to the preference, while it had other claims to be selected.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that although he did not approve the system upon which assizes were at present conducted, he could not support the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman for the appointment of a Select Committee. The Report to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had referred contained all the information which was necessary for the formation of a correct judgment on this subject. He conceived, however, that the matter was one which could not be determined by such an inquiry, but that it was purely a question of practical administration which ought to be decided by the executive Government. He concurred with his hon. and learned Friend below him (Mr. Bowyer) in the belief that the prompt administration of justice would be greatly promoted by the development of those local tribunals which had been recently established.
  MR. MELLORobserved, that he entirely concurred in the reasons of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department for declining to assent to the appointment of the proposed Committee. They had already abundant information before the House. The Report which had been referred to contained the evidence of law officers of all descriptions, such as clerks of the Crown, clerks of assize, and other persons who were familiar with assize business, and it appeared from their statements that the expediency of establishing additional assizes should be dependent

  1813
  upon the general convenience of the inhabitants of the districts, and the cost with which such arrangements would be attended. It seemed that in one circuit there were five large and important assize towns, in which the average number of causes tried was not more than five or six at each assize. He therefore thought that there were but few places where additional as sizes were needed, and that the establishment of even these should depend upon special requirements, which might, from time to time, arise. The Committee would multiply expenses, and would prove, he believed, entirely useless.
  MAJOR EDWARDSexpressed his general concurrence in the views of the noble Member for the West Riding, and hoped the Secretary of State for the Home Department would give this subject his serious consideration. He could state that in Yorkshire great annoyance, dissatisfaction, and expense, were occasioned by the circumstance that witnesses and attorneys were compelled to resort to the assizes at York from the remotest districts of that extensive county. The hon. Member for York had alluded, and very properly, to the great advantage derived by the public from the facilities afforded by railway trains, in which he quite concurred; but against that, he omitted to mention that a taxing officer was now appointed by Government, and that the costs allowed by him to witnesses, attorneys, and counsel, are reduced to so low a scale as to he utterly inadequate to cover inevitable expenses, and as a natural result, more especially in criminal cases, no encouragement being held out to the police and parties aggrieved to do their duty, the ends of justice were not unfrequently entirety defeated.
  MR. POWELLremarked, that he was convinced that, under the present system, the assize business was frequently conducted in a very hurried and unsatisfactory manner.
  SIR JOHN WALSHobserved, that one part of the Report of the Commission was against much of the evidence, and he would, on a proper occasion, be prepared to prove that such was the case. He agreed in the principle that it was desirable to extend the administration of justice according to the population, but in the Report it was proposed to give additional facilities at the expense of the Principality of Wales, which would be unjust and a very great hardship upon Wales.
  MR. M'MAHON MR. M'MAHON, in reply, expressed his belief that it was the opinion of all hon.
  1814
  Gentlemen who had studied the evidence that there ought to be three assizes within the year, and also a division of counties for the better administration of justice; but the Report of the Commissioners was altogether at variance with the information contained in the blue-book. The Law Society had expressed their decided opinion that there ought to be three assizes in the year, and that opinion was shared by all the solicitors who had been examined before the Commission.
  Question,—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of further improving the Administration of Justice, by increasing the number of Assizes and Assize Towns for Civil and Criminal business in the several counties of England and Wales,"
  Put and negatived.

  MASTERS AND WORKMEN.—LEAVE.
  MR. MACKINNONsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee of 1856, appointed to inquire into the expediency of establishing equitable tribunals for the amicable adjustment of differences between masters and operatives, and to move for leave to bring in a Bill to enable masters and workmen to form Councils of Conciliation and of Arbitration. The subject had been for many years brought before the notice of Parliament, and was one of very considerable importance, because it was the general impression that, if such a measure as he suggested were carried out, one of its effects would be to put an end to the frequent disputes which took place between workmen and their employers, which disputes too often terminated in "strikes.'' These strikes were often of the most lamentable character, and attended with the most disastrous consequences to all involved in them. During the Preston strike, the loss to the operatives was calculated at between £50,000 and £60,000; the loss to the masters was enormous; and the poor tradesmen who supplied the workpeople with necessaries, and who were, of course, entirely innocent of all connection with the strike, were also great sufferers. There was great hope that these calamitous events would be prevented by meetings of delegates from the operatives and the masters, at which the whole of the circumstances on either side might be gone into, and the case settled on principles of justice to both parties. It would, perhaps, be said, that the law did not sanction any system of equitable coun-

  1815
  cils. He found, however, that in 1824, a Committee of that House, consisting of no fewer than forty-six of its leading Members, agreed that a Bill should be brought in, whereby these councils should become part of the law of the land. He was not, therefore, now asking the House to affirm a new principle. Again, in 1856, a Committee, over which he had the honour to preside, examined a great number of witnesses on this subject, and although the opinions of the masters was equally balanced, the operatives were entirely in favour of the establishment of those Councils of Conciliation and Arbitration. To show the absurdity of the existing law he might refer to the evidence of Mr. Ham-mill, the Worship Street magistrate, who explained the difficulty at present experienced by magistrates in deciding disputes between masters and workmen. In one case, the question which came before him was, whether the work done by a silk weaver was such as it ought to be. How was it possible for the magistrate to decide satisfactorily such a question, which was one rather for persons skilled in weaving than for magistrates? The conclusion which the Committee of 1856 arrived at was, that the attention of the Legislature might with advantage be directed to this subject, and they were of opinion that the formation of Courts of Conciliation in the country, more especially in large commercial, manufacturing, and mining districts, would be beneficial, and would probably lead to the amicable settlement in many cases of disputes between masters and workmen. From all the information which he had been enabled to collect, the operatives were of opinion that the existing law dealt with them in a very unfair spirit, inasmuch as whenever they happened to have a dispute with their masters, the case was submitted to the consideration of a magistrate, whose tendency they alleged was to support the masters against them. The Bill which he proposed to introduce, had for its object, the removal of the inconvenience which resulted from that state of things, and he therefore trusted it would receive the sanction both of the Government and the House. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in his Bill.
  MR. INGHAMseconded the Motion.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, at this stage of the measure he should not trouble the House with any observations further than to say, that he thought it only reasonable that the hon. Gentleman should have
  1816
  an opportunity given him of bringing in his Bill. He granted that there were inconsistencies in the existing law relating to masters and workmen, which might be properly and justly considered. In addition to that, the law as it stood, with reference to arbitration, had not operated successfully, and he thought that certain provisions might be adopted to give further facilities for referring disputes to arbitration. He would not venture to express an opinion upon the Bill, until he had seen and examined it; but on the second reading, he should be prepared to state on the part of Her Majesty's Government, whether they thought it desirable that it should pass or not.
  Leave given.
  Bill to enable masters and workmen to form Councils of Conciliation and of Arbitration, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MACKINNON and Mr. INGHAM.

COUNTY FRANCHISE BILL.

  LEAVE GIVEN.—FIRST READING.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the Franchise in counties in England and Wales, and to improve the representation of the people in respect of such Franchise. When he last brought forward this important question for consideration, his Motion for leave to bring in a Bill was, in a full House, rejected by a majority of only thirteen. But for the chivalrous assistance received by the noble Lord then at the head of the Government, from those hon. Gentlemen who now formed and supported the present Government, that Bill, instead of having been rejected, would have been carried by a considerable majority; for the noble Lord could only muster, of his own immediate followers, thirty-one supporters, and those, too, hon. Members more immediately connected with the Government. Soon afterwards, the noble Lord having received another Parliamentary defeat—for he (Mr. Locke King) was of opinion that the rejection of his Bill by a majority of only thirteen was tantamount to a defeat—made an appeal to the country. He did not get up as a cry the question of Parliamentary Reform, but he adopted a cry which was calculated to rouse the British lion, and talked of an insult offered to the British flag. The country, however, after the excitement of a few days, no longer dwelt upon that cry, forgot the Chinese question and Commissioner Yeh, and began to think of Parliamentary Reform. He might say that this very Motion, which he had only

  1817
  submitted a few weeks before to the House, met with general support. He did not bring the question before the House in the last Session, for the noble Lord then at the head of the Government took the wind out of his sails by promising, in an unguarded moment, to introduce a measure of Reform in Parliament. The noble Lord, with much dexterity, contrived to convert his promise into an understanding that no question of Parliamentary Reform should be brought on until the following Session, and consequently he (Mr. Locke King) did not bring on his Motion. He had had some experience of Ministerial promises which were made in one Session in order to stave off to another disagreeable questions, and he believed that little faith was to be placed in promises made for a subsequent Session. If they looked hack to the history of the progress of this question of the county franchise, if would be found to be nothing more than a series of broken promises. He had not brought forward this question in any spirit of hostility to the present Government, for he had brought it before the House every year, except during the war, and it had, in fact, become an annual Motion. The objections which were generally urged against it, resolved themselves into a very small compass. One was, that it was not desirable to proceed with it, inasmuch as a general measure of Parliamentary Reform was about to be introduced; but after the experience of the past, that, he thought, was an objection which was entitled to no great weight. Another objection which was urged against it was, that the present was not the time to deal with the subject to which it related; but that was the stereotyped argument in favour of delay in dealing with every description of question. It was also said that it was extremely inexpedient to proceed by what was termed piecemeal measures of Parliamentary Reform; but, in the present state of the feeling of the House and the country, the only way in which the question of reform could be dealt with was by bringing forward small, honest, and just measures of the kind he proposed for their adoption. Indeed, he preferred small, honest, and just measures to a large one, which often afforded scope for the introduction of dishonest provisions. He would not go into the details of the Bill he proposed; the House must be quite familiar with its plan, and he would not weary them with statistics, which he bad on many former occasions laid before them, but would only say
  1818
  that no one had ever assailed the class he sought to enfranchise. The existing state of the franchise in counties was one of the greatest anomalies in the country; for, whilst one individual living in a town had the right of voting for a representative in Parliament, another individual who resided, it might be in an adjoining town, in a house better in all respects, and paying a higher rent and a larger amount of taxation, was not allowed to have any share whatever in the representation. On a former occasion, when he had brought the measure before the House, the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) suggested that he should take care to provide against the creation of faggot voters. That recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman he was willing to adopt, and he proposed that a part of the qualification which was to give a vote of £10 might be a dwelling-house of the annual value of £5. Before sitting down, he could not help adverting to a circumstance of rather a curious kind which took place previous to the last election. A rumour had prevailed that the late Government intended to support the introduction of his (Mr. Locke King's) Bill, and that rumour was afterwards confirmed by a noble Lord a Member of the Cabinet, who said that it had been agreed by the Government to support the Bill, in order that in Committee such modifications might be introduced as would render it a judicious extension of the county franchise; but he added that afterwards it was found the Bill had not been draughted in such a shape as to render that possible, and therefore it was decided that it would only have been a waste of time to allow a Bill to be read a second time which was found to be such a measure as the Government could not support. Now, this statement was an entire fiction; for there was no Bill before the House, the Motion only being for leave to bring one in. He trusted he should receive some explanation of the mistake, and he hoped the present Government would not fall into the same error as the last, for they must recollect that the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, however well disposed to assist them upon this question, could not give them the same support as they had been able to give to the noble Lord when he was in office. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to introduce a Bill to extend the Franchise in counties in England and Wales, and to improve the representation of the people in respect of such Franchise.
  MR. BYNGsaid, he would give his reasons for seconding the Motion in three sentences. He did so, first, because he was anxious that a sound, and, as he ventured to think it would be, a comprehensive measure of Reform should be passed. Next, because he ventured to think that by this measure they would practically enfranchise many towns and considerable villages which were now unrepresented. And, thirdly, because he believed that by so doing, and by enlarging the basis and area of their representation, they would comprise within its scope a large class of the community, intelligent, honest, and well calculated to enjoy the privilege of voting for the return of Members to Parliament.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the Franchise in Counties in England and Wales, and to improve the Representation of the People in respect of such Franchise."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have no objection to urge against the purpose of the Bill which the Hon. Gentleman proposes to introduce. I have no objection to extend the franchise at present enjoyed by the counties; and I think that an extension of that franchise may improve the exercise of it. I rise with no prejudice whatever to the general purpose of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman; but, Sir, before acceding to his request to bring in a Bill, which, in the new version of his Motion, is to extend the franchise in counties in England and Wales, and improve the representation of the people in respect of such franchise, I may say that there are several considerations which induce me to fear that the introduction of this measure will be a source of embarrassment to those who seriously intend and wish to improve the franchise. The Hon. Gentleman, in describing the Bill which he now asks leave to bring in, says it is a measure "small, honest, and just," the tendency of which would be to remove the greatest anomalies. Now, how stands the general question of the representation at the present moment in England? I speak from memory—and I may be erroneous in some slight details; but I am confident in the general results— you have a certain number of members returned to Parliament for those counties with whose franchise the hon. Gentleman only deals. You have, I think, 150 or 160 county Members, returned for Eng-
  1820
  land and Wales, and they are returned to Parliament by something more than half-a million of electors. You have, on the other hand, about 330 borough Members who are returned to Parliament by a little more than 400,000 electors. Well, Sir, those who are Parliamentary Reformers, and who bring to the great question of the re-construction of our representation an impartial spirit, must, at the first blush, be rather struck with the impression that the, balance between the county representation and the borough representation was not particularly exact and just, and it would seem somewhat strange that more than half a million of electors under our present scheme should only return 150 or 160 Members of Parliament, whilst 400,000 other electors should return 330. One might almost be disposed to say that this would figure amongst the greatest anomalies to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. But what is the remedy which he offers to the House, and which he offers to us, mind you, because he despairs of any great and comprehensive measure of Parliamentary Reform being introduced, and says that we can only take refuge in these "small, honest, and just" measures? The measure of the hon. Gentleman, as I collect it from his brief but lucid narrative, is this:—"There being a great inequality at present between the number of Members who are returned by the half million of electors of counties compared with the number of members returned by the 400,000 constituents of the boroughs, I will introduce a Bill which shall aggravate that anomaly. I will introduce a Bill which must add, and, perhaps, add greatly, to the number of electors who return the county Members; but, as I despair of any further change, I would leave the arrangement by which the small number of electors return the large number of Members untouched and uncriticised." This, then, is the course by which he proposes to remove the anomalies that are recognised in our representative system, and, to use his own language, improve the franchise of the country. Now, I think the House ought well to consider this question. If we agree to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman on the grounds upon which he has placed it, namely, that any hope of general improvement is impossible, and that, therefore, we ought to agree with his "just and small and honest" measure, we shall land ourselves in this position—that we shall have a very small number of Members returned to this House

  1821
  by a very large constituency, and a very large number of Members returned to this House by a very small constituency. Now I draw from a statement which is not speculative, which is not hypothetical, but depends upon facts which arc lying upon the table of this House, and upon arguments which are founded upon returns moved for by the hon. Member for Surrey himself, what appears to be the irresistible inference, that if you make up your minds to deal with the question of the franchise in this country, you cannot deal with it partially, and that whatever may be the objections against what are called large and comprehensive measures, I feel persuaded that when you are dealing with the representation of a great people, it is impossible by those "small, honest, and just" measures to perpetrate anything but what will be large in injustice, and vast in impolicy. I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman could ever have brought his mind to take the position which he has done on this subject, for whilst he seeks for a great extension of the suffrage in that class who already possess the enjoyment of the franchise to a greater degree than the rest of the country, he introduces his Motion with the simultaneous proposition that any further change is almost to be despaired of. Is the House prepared, then, for the state of things which the hon. Gentleman contemplates, and which the passing of his measure would bring about? At this moment, in the counties—to which the hon. Gentleman's Motion alone refers—every Member of Parliament represents 3,300 electors; whereas, in the boroughs, every Member of Parliament represents 1,280 electors. Why, Sir, when I hear talk of great anomalies, it appears to me that this is a state of affairs which is also somewhat anomalous. But what is the Motion of the hon. Gentleman? It is, as I said before, to aggravate this anomaly. It is, if passed, that the Members of Parliament for counties shall represent a much greater number of electors than at present, and that a Member who represents a borough constituency shall represent much less. I do not confound this important point with any question of what is called the agricultural interest or the urban interest. Unquestionably there are boroughs whose constituencies are entirely agricultural, and there are counties where the constituencies are manufacturing and commercial. That is altogether another question. The question as to a fair and equitable ba-
  1822
  lance of those interests is entirely removed We have a hard arithmetical proposition to consider at present—why it is that 500,000 men should at the present moment return only 160 Members to Parliament, and 400,000 men return 330. And when a measure for Parliamentary Reform, which we are told is "small, and honest, and just," and the only one we can obtain, is brought forward to aggravate all those circumstances, and increase the disproportion that at present exists, I ask, is the House really prepared to sanction such a proceeding? If there be on the part of the House—what I cannot doubt there is—a sincere desire for a wise and well-considered settlement of this long-mooted and long-controverter question as to the due and fair representation of the people in this House, I cannot conceive how they could take a Motion more retrograde than that which the hon. Gentleman has brought before us to-night. Sir, I am not opposed to the extension of the franchise in counties. I think there are classes of persons in counties that might be brought to exercise the franchise with advantage to the State, and with perfect security to all those great institutions which I trust will always be honoured and respected and cherished in this House; but it is impossible any longer, with the information that we have on this subject, to resist the conviction, that if you deal with the county franchise, you must deal also with the franchises that are enjoyed by the towns; and the great Reformer who comes forward and tells us, "I despair of a general measure that will on the whole secure adequate justice, therefore I will bring forward a little measure which on the face of it must perpetrate great injustice," is not, in my opinion, with great deference, one who proposes a course which will conduce to the advantage of the public interest, or achieve and accomplish those results which I think all sober-minded men who have duly considered this subject wish to realise. Sir, I cannot make that appeal to the hon. Gentleman, which was made by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton on a former occasion, as I have not that claim upon the confidence of the hon. Gentleman which the noble Lord has the honour to possess. I cannot appeal to the intentions of the present Government with any hope that he will be influenced by my statement. But I am bound to say, as an indication of our present intentions, and in the cause of truth, that the fair and sufficient representation of the people in the Commons

  1823
  House of Parliament is a question which will undergo and command our deep and sincere attention; but I cannot for one moment hold out the hope to the hon. Gentleman that it will be my duty ever to propose to this House a scheme conceived in the spirit of the measure which he now introduces to our notice, telling us at the same time that probably it is the only measure we shall ever be able to obtain. That, I think, would be but a partial settlement of the question, one which would lead to great jealousy, to great public inconvenience, and I cannot doubt to protracted agitation, perhaps, to a conclusion which would be little satisfactory to the nation. The Bill of the hon. Gentleman, which he now asks leave to introduce, may, as far as it goes, be what he calls a just measure; but if it be, as he announces, an isolated measure, it appears to me one that will aggravate the injustice, of which experience is now said to be felt. I cannot understand upon what principle the hon. Gentleman can vindicate a measure which, under the circumstances to which I have referred, would deal only with the franchise of the country, and not subject to the same revision and consideration the franchise enjoyed by the constituencies in towns. It appears to Her Majesty's Government and myself that this question of the fair and adequate representation of the people in the House of Commons is one which must be considered as a whole; that it is one, no doubt, which must be approached in a calm and temperate spirit, in a mood of mind very different from that which in times long past accompanied the agitated discussions to which this subject gave rise in this House. Still I cannot doubt that, with the knowledge which we possess, and with the desire among all classes and in all parts of this country to come to a safe and practical solution of the questions which have been brought forward within recent years with reference to this subject —I say I cannot doubt that if Parliament approaches this great subject in a mood of mind not unworthy of it, it would be possible to produce a measure which might give satisfaction to all who consider the subject divested of passion, and with the anxious and sincere desire to add to the strength of the constitutional institutions of the country; but I cannot believe that we are dealing worthily with the question if we permit a Bill such as the hon. Gentleman proposes, and proposes almost in the light of a final measure ("No!") to be brought forward. Well,
  1824
  then, as a substitute for a final measure. I ask the House, was not the tone of the hon. Gentleman this—"I bring forward this measure because I despair of any larger one being introduced—because there is a general feeling that no other alteration will take place; and therefore I propose this to your notice?" Propose what? That which under the circumstances he himself describes would be a most unjust measure, and if the circumstances to which he refers are not well founded—if there be a fair prospect of dealing with the question generally and largely — then I say the hon. Gentleman is not justified in bringing forward this Motion. I will not make an appeal to him to relinquish his present purpose in consequence of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government— I have no claim upon him to do that— but, as representing the Government, who are seriously desirous of considering the question on all its merits, and if possible, of bringing forward a measure for the consideration of Parliament which shall be worthy of their acceptance, I am bound to say that, so far as I am concerned, I cannot sanction the introduction of any measure like that of the hon. Gentleman, which, if carried, would create a great injustice, and be a great embarrassment to our future legislation. On these grounds, therefore — because, if the measure be carried, it will aggravate an anomaly that already exists; because it will give to that portion of the constituency which is already imperfectly represented in this House, with reference to the other portion, an increase of electors with a relative diminution of representatives; and because it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give their consideration to the whole question of the representation of the people in Parliament—an assurance which I do not wish at all should influence the course of the hon. Gentleman—I shall feel it to be my duty, whilst in no way differing from the hon. Gentleman in the general purport of his Motion, not at all opposed to the extension of the franchise in counties, and believing that extension, wisely and well-considered, would tend to the improvement of the representation of the counties, but believing also that the question of county representation cannot be effectively and beneficially dealt with unless we take into our consideration also the representation of other parts of Her Majesty's dominions— then I say that, under these circumstances, I shall feel it to be my duty to move as an Amendment the Previous Question.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House hardly denies that the proposition of my hon. Friend (Mr. Locke King) is a fair one. He does not deny that the franchise in counties might be usefully extended; and he does not deny that those persons with a £10 occupation are a respectable class, and worthy to enjoy the franchise; nor does he give any good reason against the introduction of the measure on grounds of general policy. But the right hon. Gentleman goes off upon a distinction which he is very fond of making, but which I have always thought is one of a very unsubstantial and untenable character—namely, that the counties have a certain number of electors and of Members, and that the boroughs have a certain other number of electors and also of Members. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken in making any such sharp distinctions as he draws between the counties and the boroughs; because, in the first place, there are some counties which are so much inhabited by persons engaged in trade and commerce that they constitute very much a town population—such, for example, as the metropolitan counties and Lancashire; while, on the other hand, there are many municipal boroughs situated in agricultural districts which are little else than representatives of the agricultural interest. Therefore, the distinction drawn by the right hon. Gentleman was not one founded in actual fact. I remember that Mr. Canning, speaking of the differences in the Cabinet to which he belonged, said the line that separated the two parties was not a straight, but a serpentine line. I may say also that the line by which the right hon. Gentleman separates the counties from the boroughs is not a straight, but a serpentine line. I must say that I dislike those extremely sharp and microscopic distinctions between the various classes which exist in some other countries, and I think it is a great advantage to this country that they do not exist among us. If the right hon. Gentleman's theory was well founded, he would prove that we had given an immense advantage to the counties and the agricultural interest by the Reform Bill; but it was not so. At that time there were eighty representatives of English counties and twelve of Welsh counties. We increased the number to 150, while we reduced in a similar proportion the number of borough Members. But did we thereby
  1826
  intend to give an advantage to the agricultural interest? Far from it. The general purport of the Bill was to increase the influence of the large towns—such as Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds—not to give any preponderance to them, but to give them representatives in Parliament, and place the trading and commercial classes on an equality with the agricultural interests. If the theory of the right hon. Gentleman was right, it would have a precisely opposite and different effect; but I will say to the right hon. Gentleman, that so far as the practical ratiocination and effect of his theory is concerned, he will find that the effects it produced are diametrically opposed to his expectations. With respect to the number of electors, the right hon. Gentleman says there are 500,000 electors who return only 150 Members; but, surely, if you wore to add to the number of electors, you would not diminish, but give greater weight to the counties. If their Members are sent to represent a greater number of electors than before, instead of this being any unfairness to them, it would increase their influence in this House. The right hon. Gentleman also made use of an argument to which, if it had been employed by my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton, I might have been disposed to listen. He said we should take up this question of Reform as a whole. I certainly cannot find fault with that, argument in itself, because it is one I have used myself. Seven years ago I certainly thought that Reform should be considered as a whole, and that, when it was resolved to make a change in the Reform Act, the provisions thought to be necessary should be embodied in one comprehensive Bill. But we have had some experience during the last few years. We have bad Bills introduced, and I have myself had the honour of introducing two of them. Now, if we found that there was some inconvenience from the heat and violence that existed in this country at the time of the Reform Bill, there was at least this effect produced, that the great majority of the country was bent on one measure. They cried for the Bill, and the whole Bill—the majority of the country being of one mind; and, therefore, both this and the other House of Parliament consented to pass the Bill. But I doubt very much whether, with the calm, dispassionate, and quiet consideration which it is now proposed to give to the subject of Reform, there is such a chance as we had

  1827
  in 1831 of carrying any large measure of Reform; because, in proportion to the calm and dispassionate temper of the people, all the private interests rise in their strength to influence and affect it. There is, perhaps, one part of the Bill that is introduced very obnoxious to some fifty hon. Gentlemen of this House, who think themselves affected by it. There is another part of the Bill that strikes against the views and opinions of 100 other hon. Gentlemen. These club their objections together, and even those most anxious for Reform find parts of the Bill that are so objectionable and obnoxious to them, and either resolve to oppose it altogether or follow such a course as makes it easy for those opposed to Reform to obstruct its progress. I will give an instance of this. In the last Reform Bill which I introduced, I proposed a considerable disfranchisement of small boroughs, and to a certain extent to give representation to minorities; but, though that Bill made a very extensive change, the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) fixed on that part of it relating to minorities as one very obnoxious to him, and denounced it as a trick. What I thought a very fair proposition, the hon. Member for Birmingham seemed to regard as an artifice, and this may be taken as a sample of the kind of objections to which any Bill that may be introduced is liable. Now, if this be so, I will not say that I despair of a large measure of reform; but I will ask if there is not such a feeling of difficulty with regard to a largo and comprehensive measure as to make it wise in us to adopt the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey—a proposition to which in itself but few persons will be found to object. The effect of his Bill will be to add a large number of persons of respectability and character to the constituencies of the counties; and surely it will not be disputed that by adding to the electoral body those respectable persons, and thereby extending the basis of our representation, we shall increase the confidence of the country in this House, which is certainly one of the great objects to be promoted by any Reform Bill that may be introduced. The right hon. Gentleman speaks with very natural doubt and hesitation of the particular measure which he himself expects to introduce in the name of the Government. I must repeat, on that head, that I have a deep and strong impression on this subject, arising from what was declared by the present
  1828
  Prime Minister when be accepted office, he said he must have time to consider this question—that it had been kept so long dangling before Parliament, that he was fairly entitled to have time fully to consider it; but beyond this he did not go. He took care to say, with that manliness that belongs to him, that if he were to come forward next Session and state that he had no Bill of Reform, that he had no scheme to improve the representation of the people, he had said nothing that could expose him to the taunt of having violated any promise or broken any pledge. Seeing that is the case—seeing the inherent difficulties of the subject in its various attitudes and phases—seeing the difficulties that a Ministry with a largo majority in this House must encounter in such an attempt, and considering that we have a Ministry whose majority is very doubtful — looking to the apathy of the Government and the extreme lukewarmness of the Prime Minister, I must say that my doubts very much exceed my hopes on this subject. For my part, I think the right course will be at once to accept the Bill of my hon. Friend, and not listen to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that we should vote for the Previous Question. We should remember that "a bird in the band is worth two in the bush," and in that spirit support the Motion of the hon. Member for Surrey.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he should not have risen at all on this occasion were it not to vindicate a noble Friend of bis (Earl Granville) from a charge of insincerity made against him by the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Locke King). That hon. Gentleman asserted that Earl Granville stated that it was the intention of the late Government to have moved certain alterations in the Bill of the hon. Member for Surrey in Committee, and that this could not be a correct statement, because, in point of fact, until the Bill came into the House, they did not see it, and could not have intended to alter it. It was true, however, that the members of the late Government intended to have supported the introduction of the Bill, and afterwards to move certain Amendments in Committee; and it was not till they came down to the House that they found that that course was not open to them, and that they must oppose the Bill. It was quite true that the House refused leave to bring in the Bill, but the hon. Member for East Surrey had in the previous Session laid that measure upon the

  1829
  table of the House; and, as they found from his speech that he intended the Bill to be exactly the same as that of last year, they had just the same opportunity of considering the Amendments they would introduce as they would have had if the measure had been actually brought in. It was unnecessary among those who knew Earl Granville to vindicate that nobleman's truthfulness. But at the sumo time he had thought it necessary to state the facts he had already mentioned, which he thought would satisfy the House that the late Government in point of fact had the Bill before them, and that that being so, it was their duty to examine the Bill and sec if it was possible to make those Amendments which they intended to introduce. On the present occasion he thought they were not exactly in the same position. His hon. Friend now brought in a Bill under a different title, and the contents of which would not be precisely the same as the previous one. They were therefore, he conceived, perfectly at liberty to act in the same way as they intended, under similar circumstances, to have acted on a former occasion; and he for one, therefore, should certainly vote now for leave to introduce the Bill. For his own part, he did not think that either the course of reforming Parliament by a general measure or of improving the representation by a series of smaller ones, was absolutely right or wrong. There was much to be said for both courses, and the main thing to be looked at was the times and circumstances under which such measures were brought in. He must confess, however, that if they had any certain and immediate prospect of a general measure of Reform being brought before the House by a Government in whom he reposed confidence, he should not be disposed to vote for these smaller Bills introduced by individual Members, because he thought there were many advantages in viewing the question of Reform as one great whole, and that the question was better in the hands of the Government than in those of individuals. But with his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) he must say that, looking particularly at the general composition and feelings of the present Government, and to the vague and uncertain nature of the promises which they had made upon this subject, he entertained no very confident expectation that a measure would be proposed to Parliament during the next Session which was at all likely to receive the support of the House and the
  1830
  country. For those reasons, he was unwilling to debar the House from the advantage, whatever it might be, of seeing the Bill which his hon. Friend (Mr. Locke King) now sought to introduce. The present Government also had, he thought, rather cut away the ground from under their own feet, and debarred themselves from giving any opposition to the introduction of such a Bill, for a few days ago they had consented that a measure reforming the representation, by abolishing the qualification of Members, should be brought in. They have not, therefore, shown any indisposition to allow other Reform measures of this kind to be laid on the table, and he thought they might with consistency have suffered this Bill to be introduced, reserving to themselves the right upon the second reading of taking any course they might think expedient.
  MR. J. H. PHILIPPSsaid, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had invoked the aid of arithmetic on this subject, he should like to ask those gentlemen who fulfilled the important office of taking the divisions of that House whether they could tell when any hon. Member was returned by a thousand or five hundred votes? He should also like to ask the House whether when a division ran close, the vote of any hon. Member who was returned by a constituency of 300 was not as good as that of any hon. Member who was returned by 5,000? Several returns had been made to the House showing the amount of representation as compared with population and property. One of these returns was moved for by the hon. Member for Stock-port, which showed a very remarkable result. It showed that, in round numbers, the county Members were returned by nearly 3,000 voters, and the borough Members by about 1,000 voters. A calculation which he (Mr. Philipps) had himself made showed that each county Member was retained by 2,978 voters, and each borough Member by 1,306 voters. The Bill of the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Locke King) did not refer to Scotland, and yet in Scotland the disproportion was less conspicuous, for there the county Members were returned by a smaller number of voters than the borough Members. In Bedfordshire, the county from which the family of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) took its title, one county Member was returned by 2,138 voters, and one town Member by 439. He would next turn to the three largest coun-

  1831
  ties in England. In Devonshire one county Member was returned by 4,222 voters, and one town Member by 521; in Lincolnshire one county Member was returned by 5,125, and one town Member by 479. In Yorkshire the disproportion was very conspicuous; in the North Riding each county Member was returned by 6,052 voters, and each Member for the towns by 664, or in the proportion nearly of 10 to 1. But the West Riding was the most conspicuous of all, each county Member being returned by 18,000, and each Member for the boroughs by 1,354 voters. He was not prepared to deny that in some cases £10 householders would be a very valuable addition; but in other places they would entirely alter the character of the constituency. This was not a time to indulge in lucubrations about Parliamentary Reform; but he could not help expressing a wish that the franchise should be more connected with the payment of taxes than it was at present. He could not disguise from himself the fact that the action of constituencies had been to reduce the general taxation, and to encourage particular expenditure. A fortnights ago every hon. Member for those towns in which there was a Government dockyard supported a proposition, contrary to all the rules of political economy, for increasing the wages of dockyard artificers without reference to the laws of demand and supply. To be sure, one of the Members for Portsmouth stood up manfully against it, but he would appeal to the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Baring) whether his fidelity to the general interests of the country was not maintained at the expense of his own personal popularity in the borough. The action of constituencies had been lately rather in favour of what he should call giving the British hon. an airing; but, however valuable that animal might be, they might depend upon it that he did not go out without some expense, and that some of his escapades were more costly than they were worth. He, therefore, thought that in any scheme for the reform of the representation, the connection of taxation with representation ought not to be lost sight of. Though not opposed to the consideration of alterations in the franchise, he could not support the proposal of the hon. Member, believing that no plan which utterly disregarded the inequalities he had pointed out ought to receive the attention of the House.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, the real point had been lost sight of in the debate. There
  1832
  had been minute calculations as to the relative number of electors in counties and towns, but the question for the House to consider was whether or not the class of voters which the Bill proposed to enfranchise were a class of men who could be properly and justly entrusted with the franchise. He agreed, to a certain extent, with the noble Lord the Member for the City of London that it would be better to take these questions one by one, and thought that if parties were fit to be entrusted with the franchise they ought to be allowed to become members of the constituency. The difficulty which had arisen with respect to large measures of Reform was that none of them bad given satisfaction to any large majority of Members. One measure which was regarded by many of the most eminent Reformers as a sine quâ non in any extensive scheme of reform was the Ballot, and he believed that such a measure as that now before the House might be objected to on the ground that it was improper and impolitic to intrust so largo a body of men with the franchise unless they received the protection of the ballot. There was, indeed, an opinion prevailing very generally, that it would be much better to disfranchise instead of enfranchising unless the ballot were conceded. All those hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House seemed to concur in the opinion that the £10 householders in counties were fit and proper persons to possess the franchise, and for his own part he would support the Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey. It was the opinion of many persons that without the protection of the ballot disfranchisement would in many cases be better than enfranchisement. With respect to the question now before the House, he had no objection to the granting of the franchise to £10 householders in counties. The proposition seemed to have received the assent of almost every hon. Member. With regard to letting loose the British lion, he was glad that the British hon. had been let loose, and, he must say, that whenever let loose, he performed his part in a manner which almost invariably did honour to his country. And when they found that he had amongst his admirers at the same time the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell,) and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. M. Gibson) it might well be said that extremes met; and when the British hon. returned to his lair ha might retire in comfort and satisfaction.
  MR. KNIGHTLEYwas understood to oppose the Motion, on the ground that the Bill which the hon. Gentleman asked leave to introduce would, in fact, cause a large addition to the influence of the town constituencies, as contradistinguished from the rural population. Even at present he thought that many rural districts were very inadequately represented, and that if any places should he deprived of representation it was the unimportant and nomination boroughs like Morpeth, Midhurst, &c.
  MR. CLAYsaid, the only argument he had heard against the measure was that it would increase the great anomaly which existed at present. Now he thought that it was one of the greatest recommendations of the Bill, because the more glaring the abuse, the more speedy became the remedy. He would do hon. Members for comities the justice to say that he did not believe they considered it a grievance to be elected by large constituencies, and in his opinion the larger the constituency which sent a man to Parliament, the greater the honour of his position and the respect which he obtained in that House. But when they had made this anomaly so glaring it must strike hon. Members on the other side that there was a ready way of remedying it. They might ask themselves in what way it was to he done, and they might find a solution in the suggestion made by an hon. Member opposite, that the first thing to do was to destroy, as far as their Parliamentary life was concerned, a number of small boroughs, and redistribute the seats. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke) that this was not the chief point of discussion; but the chief point of discussion was simply this—Did the Bill of the hon. Gentleman propose to admit into the franchise a class every way deserving it? He thought it did so, and he should therefore support the measure, not in despair of obtaining a largo measure of Reform—not as a substitute for a large measure of Reform —but as the readiest and best preparation for one.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, the very remarkable speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), was characterised by great plainness and candour. In short it was the most remarkable speech ever heard in the House, because, if he rightly understood the right hon. Gentleman, he expressed his readiness to adopt the principle that a Member of the House was entitled to vote
  1834
  on any question, black or white, according to the circumstances in which he was placed. ["No!"] That was what he understood the right hon. Member to argue. It was true that was a principle often acted upon, but not usually acknowledged in that straightforward manner. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London objected to the distinction drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer between boroughs and comities, and said he disclaimed those sharp distinctions. He was not surprised at that being the case because at the present time they told strongly and inconveniently against the object the noble Lord had in view, but he remembered the time when the noble Lord did not dislike those distinctions when they could be. brought to bear on a different phase of the question. The feeling of antagonism which now existed between counties and boroughs was, in his opinion, to be attributed to the noble Lord himself, and to those who supported the doctrines of which the noble Lord had been the advocate for so many years. That feeling had been brought about by various causes, but mainly by what was called recent legislation. It was a feeling that it was difficult to allay, and he contended that in any measure of Reform it would be necessary to see that the counties of England were not overruled as they were at present by borough representation. Another remarkable statement of the noble Member was, that the influence of a Member of the House depended upon the number of his constituents. Now, he should like to know if a Member having a double number of constituents had power to give two votes instead of one. The breadth of the noble Lord's "basis" was great, for he believed a Member for the City of London represented a constituency of 20,000. On the other hand the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton represented a constituency of about 200, and yet it was generally supposed that the influence of those noble Lords in that House was as nearly as possible balanced—therefore, taking it even on that ground, the noble Member's argument was not a good one. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was also of opinion—and no one was better able to form an opinion—that there was at present no excitement on the subject of Reform, and that they might approach the consideration of this question with calmness and in a candid manner. He heard that statement with the sincerest pleasure, and he could only say for one that there was no man more

  1835
  anxious than himself to see the question settled, because he believed nothing could be more unjust and more anomalous than the present state of the representation of this country. Not only were these numerous classes excluded from the franchise who were fully entitled to have it, but owing to the Reform Bill introduced by the noble Lord, the representation of the counties was such that they were not justly and fairly dealt with. He considered that they were entitled to a very much larger share of the representation than they now had, and that, he apprehended, would be one of the principal subjects of discussion when this long-talked-of Reform Bill made its appearance in the House. He would only further say, with reference to the measure before the House, that he was not prepared to give his support to it, after the statement, in which he entirely concurred, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who showed distinctly that this measure could only extend the injustice and anomaly which now existed.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he should have been contented to give a silent vote upon that occasion were it not that being a member of the great Conservative party his silence might lead to the inference that he was opposed to any extension of the suffrage and to any alteration of the Bill of 1832. Now, he put no faith cither in the completeness or in the finality of that Bill, and, if the House were called upon to pass an abstract Resolution, staling that it required amendment, he should find it difficult to meet a Resolution of that nature with a direct negative. A great injustice—the result of the uniformity introduced by the measure of 1832—was that the poorer classes had, owing to the disfranchisement of the freemen, been deprived of their fair share of the representation in that House. There were, it could not be denied, great anomalies in the existing system. The question however which the House had then to consider was, whether the present proposal was an improvement of the Act of 1832. The proposal did not affect boroughs, and it was not surprising that borough Members should support a measure which had a tendency to swamp the independence of counties. If any alteration was made, it ought to be one which would make a fairer proportion between towns and counties. At present the Isle of Wight, with 1,949 electors, returned one Member; while Newport, a town on the island with
  1836
  654 electors, returned two Members. If it were intended to reduce the county franchise to the standard of the boroughs, surely the new voters who would be created in the towns of Ryde and Ventnor and others should vote for the borough which, with a small number of electors, returned two Members, rather than for the island which only returned one Member. In any system of representation the object ought to be to have all classes represented, and not to establish a uniformity of qualification, and therefore if they were to have a £10 franchise in the counties, he would rather see a £5 suffrage, or even household suffrage, in the boroughs, than the same suffrage as that which existed in the counties. He was as anxious as any one for a measure of Reform, but he could not consent to the present proposal, as he objected to a proposition which would give the now dominant class still greater power.
  MR. STANHOPEsaid, he thought the course of the discussion had shown the impolicy of bringing forward such a measure at the present time, because it had turned not so much upon the Bill which the hon. Gentleman sought leave to introduce as upon the general principles of a Reform Bill. It had proved that it was impossible to touch the present system without making a general change, for when they once began to tamper with their present system, they did not know where they could stop. It was proposed to fix the franchise in counties at £10 for the sake of uniformity, and, perhaps, in a few months or weeks, they would have another alteration; but were they prepared to maintain the franchise in boroughs at £10, because, unless they did that what would they gain? He always thought it was a great advantage that different classes were represented in that House, and he feared that it would be a serious disadvantage to the country when the large agricultural class should be so completely superseded in the representation in Parliament as they would be if the Bill of the hon. Gentleman were passed into law. If they adopted this measure the agricultural classes would he swamped by a number of voters who lived in towns.
  MR. LOCKE KING MR. LOCKE KING, in reply, said, he had never intended to imply that his Bill should be received as a substitute for a more extensive and general measure. On the contrary, he regarded it only as an instalment.
  Whereupon Previous Question, "That that Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. LOCKE KING, Mr. BYNG, and Mr. HEADLAM.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.

ISLE OF WIGHT PILOTS.

  RETURN MOVED FOR.
  MR. CLIFFORDsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the state of the law affecting pilots in the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth districts; and to move for returns from the Trinity House showing the rate of profits accruing to such pilots. He brought forward the subject as a matter of justice to a valuable body of men who were led to believe they were treated with injustice, but at the same time he hoped the House would not fancy that the question was one of local interest merely. In 1853, when the Merchant Shipping Act was introduced, the question of the remuneration to the pilots of Southampton was urged on the attention of the House. It was then shown that there was no reciprocity between the Southampton pilots and the pilots of the Isle of Wight, for while the Southampton pilots were allowed to enter any port of the Isle of Wight, the Isle of Wight pilots were obliged to leave the ship they were piloting the moment it entered Southampton Water. The remuneration given to the Plymouth pilots was considerably larger than that given to the Southampton pilots. For piloting a ship drawing fourteen feet water the distance of three miles and a half into Plymouth harbour, the Plymouth pilots wore paid 5s. per foot or £3 10 s., while the Isle of Wight pilots got only 3s. 9d. per foot or £2 12 s. for piloting such a vessel from the Needles to the Motherbank, a distance of twenty-two miles. With respect to the Merchant Shipping Act of 1853, he admitted that it ought to be considered as a monument of the ability and industry of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Cardwell); but unfortunately words had crept into it which were never intended to be introduced—aliquando dormitat Homerus. He believed it was the intention of the President of the Board of Trade at that time to leave the law as to the exemptions of personal pilotage in the same state as it stood previous to that
  1838
  measure. But the introduction of three little words—inserted, he believed, in forgetfulness that the Isle of Wight came within their operation—had suddenly deprived the Isle of Wight pilots of the ad-vantage of the boat trade. Another regulation of which the pilots complained was that by the terms of the Merchant Ship-ping Act the conditions of any agreement they might enter into with the captain of a ship must he entered in the log-book of the merchantman and in that of the pilot-boat; but in stormy weather, when the pilots were most wanted, it was physically impossible to comply with that condition, and thus they were left at the mercy of the captain as to whether they should be paid. The remuneration to the pilots was now so small, owing to their great number, that he thought it would be advantageous if the Government in future would put some limit to the number employed. His license cost the pilot £2 2s., and his net earnings were little more than 12 s. a week, being just the wages of an agricultural labourer. A more gallant, more industrious body of men than the pilots did not exist. They were ever ready to face danger in the pursuit of their vocation or for the preservation of life and property, and he thought that no class had a better claim on the favour of those hon. Gentlemen "who live at home at ease" than those whose cause he was then advocating. If the Government would take up the question and look into it, he felt assured they would come to the determination that something ought to be done to put these men on a better footing than they were at present. The hon. Member concluded by moving for returns of the profits of the pilots of the Isle of Wight and the Portsmouth districts distinguishing the gross from the net profits.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he would not then enter into any examination of the minute details raised by the Motion of the hon. Member. He had no objection to make to the production of those Returns, as far as they could be furnished by the Trinity House; and, indeed, he doubted whether the hon. Gentleman might not find the greater portion of the information he desired to obtain in documents which had already been laid before Parliament. He believed the real reason why those men earned a less sum than could be desired was, that there were too many of them for the work they had to perform. In the four rears ending in 1857 the number of

  1839
  those pilots had actually been increased, for twenty of them had been appointed during that time, while only seventeen vacancies in their business had occurred. It certainly seemed to him to add in that way to the number of persons engaged in a pursuit in which the sum earned had previously been too small.
  Motion agreed to.
  Returns ordered,—
  "From the Trinity House, showing the rate of profits accruing to the Pilots in the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth Districts; distinguishing gross profits and net profits."

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.

  LEAVE.—FIRST READING.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend an Act of the 5th & 6th years of King William IV., c. 63, relating to Weights and Measures. The object of the Bill was, in the first place, to provide that corn and all other grain should be sold by measure. In the next, he desired to correct an error which had been committed in the framing of the Act of William IV., which Act, although intended to abolish all local measures, nevertheless contained provisions by which its main object was defeated. 13y the 6th and 11th sections of that Act it was enacted that articles should be sold by imperial weights and measures, and if it had stopped there no objection could be taken to it; but the 6th section, went on to provide that persons might sell by vessels which were neither imperial nor local, nor customary measures, and by a proviso in the 11th section any sale by a multiple or aliquot part of a pound might be made. In consequence of these provisos, and some decisions of the Courts upon them, the Act was entirely broken into, and at the present time there were all sorts of weights and measures in use throughout the country. Great inconvenience was occasioned to purchasers in ascertaining the proportion which these measures bore to the imperial bushel, and he believed, judging from the petitions which had been presented on the subject, that an alteration of the system was most anxiously desired. With respect to grain, he believed that the advantages of selling by measure were very great, and, above all things, such an arrangement was calculated to close the door against fraud.
  1840
  They were all, he believed, agreed in favour of uniformity in the system of weights and measures throughout the country. Some, however, contended for a system of uniformity by weight; others, like himself, for uniformity by measure in the sale of corn. Mr. Page, an eminent authority upon the question, and who wrote to The Times under the name of "Jacob Hardcastle," was examined before the Committee on the sale of corn which sat in 1834, when he stated that the proper mode of regulating the sale of grain was by measurement, although the most perfect mode would be measurement tested by weight. However, he only proposed to make it compulsory by the present Bill, that the sale should take place by measurement, and that was quite in accordance with the evidence of Mr. Page. What the Committee of 1834 recommended was, that corn should be sold by measure, tested by weight; and undoubtedly, by that plan, the purchaser arrived in the most certain manner at the quality of the grain; for, although a pound of bad corn might weigh as heavy as a pound of good corn, a bushel of bad corn would not weigh as heavy as a bushel of good corn. He did not, however, wish to attempt more than there was a probability of carrying out. He proposed, in the next place, that the copies of all weights and measures used for public purposes should be reverified from time to time; and the 3rd section of the Bill imposed a penalty upon all persons making or selling false beams and scales, or weights and measures, a provision strangely enough omitted from the Act of William IV. By the 4th clause of the Bill inspectors were empowered to examine the beams, scales, weights and measures used by persons huckstering in the streets, in the same manner as they were authorised to inspect those used in regular shops. Another section of the Bill provides that the owners of the market should supply beams, scales, balances, weights, and measures for the use of the market. That, he believed, was done at present in the case of Covent Garden Market, but nowhere else. Trusting, then, that the measure contained no provision in any way interfering with the liberty of the subject in the conduct of his trade, he should commit it to the indulgent consideration of the House.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, he did not mean to oppose the Motion; but, in his opinion, corn ought to be sold by weight, and not

  1841
  by measure, and, indeed, that was the general practice throughout the country, and consequently those who advocated the adoption of the measure in the sale of corn really wished to make nine-tenths of the people of this country conform to practices of the remaining one-tenth. His hon. and learned Friend himself would, in reality, introduce a system of selling by weight, and not by measure. [Mr. LOCKE: By measure, tested by weight.] He really could not understand how selling by measure to ascertain the weight was not selling by weight. In a Bill which he (Mr. M'Cann) intended to introduce he proposed that corn should be sold by a pound avoirdupois, its multiples and its aliquot parts; and this he thought would be the most convenient system.
  MR. BASSbelieved that the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was calculated as nearly as possible to procure for the country an uniform system of weights and measures. The House must bear in mind that the sale by measure did not preclude any one from ascertaining at the same time what was the weight of the contents of that measure.
  MR. MILESsaid, he was very glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced the Bill, and he wished him well through with it. At the same time he thought the question was surrounded with great practical difficulties, for he had heard many discussions upon similar questions, and never had he heard more dissonance of opinion than upon this subject. For his own part, he thought that the arguments in favour of the measure were fallacious, inasmuch as where, in some instances, 60lb. weight of corn went to a bushel, his own often weighed 64lb, or 65lb. Therefore, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow himself plenty of time to mature his scheme.
  MR. EGERTONsaid, he thought the attempt to reconcile two things so opposite as weight and measurement must be vain, he believed, also, that all schemes to produce uniformity of weights and measures throughout the country must be futile.
  Leave given.
  Bill to amend the Act of the fifth and sixth years of King William the Fourth, chapter sixty-three, relating to Weights and Measures, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN LOCKE, Sir JOHN SHELLEY, Mr. BRYDGES WILLIAMS, and Mr. SCHNEIDER.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.

EJECTMENTS (IRELAND).—CASE OF JOHN BYRNE.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. P. O'BRIENpaid, he rose to move for copies of the Civil Bill Ejectment tried before James Major, Esquire, Q.C., Assistant Barrister for the county of Monaghan, at Castleblaney, at the last January Quarter Sessions, wherein Colonel Lewis was plaintiff and John Byrne was defendant; and, of the entry in the book of the clerk of the peace in relation to said ejectment, containing the names of the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff and of the defendant. The defendant, John Byrne, was a tenant on certain property called Inniskeen, which was purchased by Colonel Lewis in the Incumbered Estates Court in 1855. Colonel Lewis, not content with devoting his attention to his duties as a landlord in the improvement of the industrial habits of his tenants, conceived he had another duty to perform, and introduced among them the religious and sectarian element. At the time of the purchase there was on the estate a national school, which, from all he (Mr. O'Brien) could learn, was conducted in a manner that gave the greatest satisfaction. This Gentleman, however, established another school on his own estates, and placed over it a scripture reader; and hero was the first invasion of the peace which reigned in the county of Monaghan. His tenant, John Byrne, was afflicted with a family of nine children, and Colonel Lewis made it a sine qua non that the children of this man, who was a Roman Catholic, should be sent for instruction— and religious instruction—to that school, from which he had excluded not only the Roman Catholic clergyman, but the Protestant clergyman of the district. John Byrne declined to allow them to be proselytised, and refused to send them to the school, and thereupon Colonel Lewis brought an action of ejectment against him at the sessions, and succeeded in evicting him from his farm. He (Mr. P. O'Brien) had given notice of his intention to bring this subject under the attention of the House before the recent change of Government; but when that event took place he allowed the matter to rest, in hopes that Colonel Lewis would be converted to a better frame of mind by the expression of public opinion. As that was not the ease, and as it was a case of great hardship, he thought it was right that the

  1843
  House should have an opportunity of declaring that it would not tolerate such proceedings.
  MR. M'MAHONseconded the Motion.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—
  " That there be laid before this House, Copies of the Civil Bill Ejectment tried before James Major, esquire, Q.C., Assistant Barrister for the county of Monaghan, at Castleblaney, at the last January Quarter Sessions, wherein Colonel Lewis was plaintiff and John Byrne was defendant:
  " And, of the Entry in the Book of the Clerk of the Peace in relation to said Ejectment, containg the names of the witnesses examined on behalf if the plaintiff and of the defendant."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the transaction took place in his own immediate neighbourhood in Ireland, and having inquired into the circumstances, he could confirm in the main the statement of the hon. Member. He believed it to be a very gross and most unfortunate case of the abuse of the legal power possessed by landlords in that country. The agent of Colonel Lewis fully admitted in a court of justice that the cause of the tenant's eviction was nothing more nor less than his refusal to take his children from the national school and to send them to the school established by his landlord. If there was a country in the world where the abuse of a landlord's power was more dangerous than another, it was Ireland, and if there was one district in Ireland whore it was likely to lead to more serious consequences than another, that was the district where this transaction took place. Indeed public meetings had already taken place and a good deal of excitement prevailed in the neighbourhood on this matter. The only way to remedy such abuses was to bring public opinion to bear upon them; and he trusted that one effect of this discussion would be to make landlords in Ireland exercise their rights in a more fair and temperate spirit.
  MR. GROGANsaid, he thought a great deal had been made of a very short and simple case, and he was glad that the subject had been brought forward in that House, where it could be discussed with- out that excitement to which the last speaker had alluded as existing in Ireland. The simple question was whether a gentleman, who provided gratuitously the means of education for the children of his tenantry was to be coerced by a mob headed by a Roman Catholic priest, and prevented disposing of his property as he liked. Colonel Lewis had built three
  1844
  schools on his estates; he maintained them entirely at his own expense; and, to avoid any appearance of undue influence upon the children of the peasantry, he refused to place them either under the Church Education Society or the National Board; and they remained entirely under his own control and supervision. With respect to the particular school now in question Colonel Lewis was invited by his tenants to build it, they offering, as in other cases, to assist by drawing materials. He agreed, and when the day came for opening the school Colonel Lewis was present, and was met, not by his own tenantry, but by a mob collected for the purpose of intimidating him, and headed, as he had already said, by a Roman Catholic clergyman— this "injured innocence," John Byrne, who had been made the stalking-horse, for the collection of money in all parts of Ireland, forming one of the party. The mob asked Colonel Lewis if he would put the school under the National Board, and he declared that he would not. Then this innocent man said, "Well, you may take your land; I will not live under you as tenant another day." As a matter of course the patriot was loudly cheered by the crowd; but afterwards, when he found that Colonel Lewis was not to be bullied, and began to think that be had done a very foolish thing, he changed his mind and wished to remain. But Colonel Lewis, having been defied before the world, thought it advisable to take him at his word; he therefore served him with a notice to quit his holding, not considering that he was a fit tenant to remain on the estates. An ejectment was brought and in due course was brought to a close, and the man was removed from his farm. He had no one to blame but himself for what had happened, unless it could be said that a tenant was to browbeat and injure his landlord, and set a bad example to all the other tenants.
  MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, that Colonel Lewis was in court when the declaration was made, but although challenged to give evidence he did not come forward to do so. At the trial of the appeal the J udge said that it was too late for him to make any explanation.
  LORD NAASstated, that no practical result would follow the production of these papers.
  MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, that he did not press for them.
  Motion by leave withdrawn,

CHURCHES AND CHURCHYARDS.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he rose to move that the House should on the following day resolve itself into a Committee to consider the expediency of providing for the repair of churches and the maintenance of churchyards by substituting for church rates such an annual renteharge upon all hereditaments, in respect of which church rates might now be lawfully assessed upon the occupiers thereof, as would most fairly represent the total annual amount now raised by church rates, such renteharge to he a fixed and uniform poundage on the rateable value of the hereditaments, and to be made a charge on the owners of the same. He had originally given notice of his intention to move this Resolution as an instruction to the Committee upon the Bill of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny); but, to his regret, the forms of the House had pre-vented his taking that course, and consequently he was compelled to adopt the present mode of bringing it forward. The main principle of his Motion was to substitute for the present liability of the occupiers of lands and houses a renteharge upon the owners, confining the application of the money so raised to the repair of the fabric of the churches and the maintenance of the churchyards. During his canvass at the last general election he was, like most other hon. Members, much catechised upon the subject of church rates; but, although he had declared that he could not vote for their simple and total abolition, he received much support from the Dissenters. When he asked the opponents of those rates if they were desirous of seeing the sacred edifices in their parishes suffered to go to ruin, the reply was almost invariably in the negative; but when he asked how they were to be maintained in repair he received no satisfactory answer. There was in this country hardly any class of buildings more deserving of support than the churches. Unlike the mansions of the landowners, which were the property of individuals, and the use and enjoyment of which were confined to individuals, the parish church was the common property of all the inhabitants of the parish, for the most sacred and beneficial purposes, the worship of Almighty God and the teaching of his word. Those churches were scattered over the face of the land, they had been given, most of them ages ago, by pious and generous in-
  1846
  dividuals to their respective parishes, and their preservation had been duo to this, that by the law of the land the inhabitants of each parish had, as was declared in the Braintree case, the undoubted right to maintain and repair their church by taxing the property of the parish. He might here be met with a legal maxim, which was frequently referred to in this question, that the liability to maintain the fabric was a charge not on the land, but on the occupier in respect of the land. To his mind, however, this was only a specimen of legal dust, because, except in cafe of insolvency, it made no difference whether the charge was on the land or on the owner in respect of it. The burden and the incidence of the burden were exactly the same, whether the remedy for non-payment was against the land, as in the case of tithes, or by proceeding against the occupier, as in the case of poor rate. Mr. Rogers said, speaking of chinch rates, "Generally the property ought to be rated, and, though in form the rate is upon the person in respect of the land, yet in substance it is the land which is chargeable." That doctrine, the truth of which no reasonable man could doubt, received the fullest Parliamentary recognition in the Church Building Act, passed in the 58th year of the reign of George III., which provided that money should not be borrowed upon the security of the church rates without the consent of two-thirds in value of the owners of land being first obtained. This point, however, needed neither legal argument nor statutory authority. Could any man doubt that the owners of the land did, by receiving so much less rent, hour the burden of the church rate? It had been said that the amount was so small that it made no difference. That meant that if church rates were abolished the landlords throughout the country would not immediately raise their rents 2d. or 3d. in the pound. Probably they would not. They were most of them too generous and too careless to do anything of the kind, but in the course of time the thing would work itself out. Suppose any gentleman were about to purchase lay tithes, would he not, before making an offer, ask whether the tithes involved the maintenance of the chancel? and if they did, would he not then ascertain the average annual amount of that burden, and multiplying it by twenty or twenty-five, as the case might be, strike it off from the gross value of the tithes. And precisely

  1847
  the same was the case with a tenant before taking land; he naturally inquired what were the charges upon it, and he would consider the poor rates, church rates, and other outgoings before he determined what rent he ought to give. The law had been from time immemorial—namely, from before the Conquest—that the poor people of this country should have their churches repaired at the charge of the property of the parish, and the practical results was that the owners of that property bore the burden of these repairs. But by the Bill now before the House it was proposed to deprive the poor inhabitants of that ancient right, and to relieve the owners of property from their ancient burden. By returns before the House, it appeared that the money value of this right of the poor was £300,000 a year, which it was now proposed to make a present of to the landowners, who did not want it, had never asked for it, had done nothing to deserve it, and ninety-nine out of one hundred of whom objected to the abolition of church rates. His opinion on this subject—whether right or wrong—was shared in by a large number of the most eminent authorities in the country, although he was quite aware that a different view of this question was hold by the Dissenters of England. They naturally regarded the principle of religious equality involved in it and their own interests, which he admitted would be entitled to great respect and consideration if they were now forming a constitution and were acting independently of all those ancient habits and traditions under which we had grown up, and which were associated with the history of the country. If, then, such a division of opinion prevailed, was it fair, just, or reasonable, to assert that there was only one solution of the matter? The question was, in fact, one which admitted of a reasonable compromise, and it ought not to be settled in such a way as to give one party a triumph over the other. He admitted, that at present Dissenters had a reasonable ground of complaint. The burden being, generally speaking, a charge upon the owner, the manner in which the law had been worked out made it a practical grievance upon the Dissenters, because every shilling being raised by a vestry, which fixed not only the quantum to be levied, but also the application of it when levied, the vote was one in which the majority taxed the minority. That was in itself a perpetual
  1848
  vexation, and one advantage of the substitution which he asked the House to sanction was, that they would get rid of this occasion of strife and make the tax a fixed charge upon the owner of property. Such trifling things as the washing of surplices and other petty items of expense ought to be paid by the voluntary contributions of the congregation, and he did not wonder that Dissenters objected to provide them; but when a large outlay for repairs, or the reconstruction of an ancient church, had to be met in some poor country parish without a resident gentleman in it, the question assumed a totally different complexion. He was sure there was not a man in that House who did not feel that if church rates were unconditionally abolished, there would be great difficulty in maintaining the fabric of the Church in thousands of our country parishes. The question then arose, how the substitution of a charge or tax upon the landlord, instead of a rate made and paid by the occupier, was to be practically carried into effect. Three points were to be kept in view—first, that the change should be made with as little injury as possible to the owners of land; secondly, that efficient provision should be made for providing for the wants which it was proposed to meet; and, thirdly, that there should be as little interference as possible with the institutions of the country. One mode which suggested itself, was to ascertain the actual amount raised for the last year, and to commute that for a rentcharge of corresponding amount, payable by the landlord. But, although that plan had been successful in the ease of tithes, it could not be applied to church rates without combining the two faults of injury to the owner and inefficiency in providing for the wants of the Church, because, where the landowners and the inhabitants had most efficiently discharged their duty, and had maintained their church in good repair, the amount that had been raised would be the greatest, and the amount to be paid in future under the commutation would be the greatest also. On the other hand, in a parish where the church had been allowed to fall into decay for want of adequate rates, inasmuch as the levies had been small, the rentcharge would in future be small also, and the means of maintaining the church would therefore be in the inverse proportion to the requirements of the locality. If the plan of commutation were not adopted, they must resort to something in the way of substitution. It would be a

  1849
  hopeless task to attempt to untie every knot. The House, if they did anything at all, must take a broad view of the subject, preferring that plan which could be worked out in the fairest manner to all parties. If they substituted a tax upon the owner, that tax might be of two kinds. It might be an elastic charge, varying according to the wants of the parish, so that in some years there might be no demand at all made upon the owners; while in others it might be considerable in amount. That was the plan adopted in the Church of Scotland. In Scotland the repairs, and, if necessary, the rebuilding of a church and manse were provided for by a charge on the heritors of a parish; there being a legal power on the part of the local presbytery, which comprised the ministers and certain elected lay ciders of the district, to compel the heritors to discharge their duty in this respect if they neglected it. That method, however, would hardly be applicable to England; we had no such machinery, and our landowners were hardly prepared for the imposition of so stringent a system. A better mode of dealing with the question was to lay on all property now liable to church rates, a tax or rentcharge of fixed and uniform amount—that amount being such, that the sum collected over the whole of England would fairly represent the total sum raised in the form of church rates according to the last returns. The total sum thus raised was now £314,000 a year; but that amount included the interest and instalments annually payable on a debt of rather more than £300,000 borrowed on the security of the rates. Until the debt was liquidated, there must be, it was agreed, a power in the vestry to continue levying the rates. Deducting the interest and instalments, there would remain about £280,000 a year to be provided for. The latest returns showed the total annual value of the rateable property of the country assessed to poor rates to be £67,000,600 in 1850; and if he reckoned that it had increased by this time to £70,000,000, he would probably be within the mark. Striking off from this, the property charged for the maintenance of the chancel, and which could not be justly charged also for the maintenance of the nave, there would be between £65,000,000 and £66,000,000 of property liable to the impost left, on which a tax of 1d. in the pound would produce £270,000 per annum. The task of providing for an expenditure which varied so much from year to year as that belonging to the necessary repair of a parish church
  1850
  from a uniform charge of 1d. in the pound upon the lands and houses might not, at first sight, appear to be a very easy one. But he proposed to follow a principle very familiar to the House, and which was adopted in all friendly societies, in all assurance societies, and in the government of this country itself—the principle of throwing small fixed annual sums into a, common fund, out of which those who paid in should draw out larger sums from time to time as occasion might require. He understood there was an objection on the part of some hon. Members to that principle, and that they would prefer placing the payments, whether large or small, of each parish to a separate fund. That, however, was a matter of detail which might be fairly considered in Committee. In submitting the Motion of which he had given notice he proposed to omit the last four lines, which provided that the proceeds of the rent charge in each diocese should form a central fund from which grants might be made fur the repair of churches and the maintenance of churchyards, as he thought that part of his plan could be bettor discussed in the Committee if the Mouse thought fit to grant him one. An objection had been raised to his plan on account of its effect on parishes which had for some time refused to make church rates. The claim of particular parishes to withdraw themselves from the operation of a general tax, to be levied on the whole country for the benefit of the poorer inhabitants, did not appear to him to be a reasonable one. The body by whom church rates had been discontinued was practically a vestry of occupiers; and the body on whom the new tax would be imposed would be the owners. The occupiers had but a transitory interest in the property, and dissent prevailed to a larger extent among them than among the owners, and it might very well happen that the owners would not be disposed to resist the charge if the decision were left in their hands. But this, again, was a matter of detail, and it would be open to every member who thought that a particular class of parishes ought to be exempted from the proposed rent charge, to propose that in Committee, by way of exception, to the general measure. He earnestly hoped that both sides of the House would give a full and candid consideration to this question. The subject was one on which it was most desirable in the interest of all parties that peace should be restored. Nothing could be so injurious as the local agitation to

  1851
  which it now gave rise, and the mixing up of matters touching so closely on religion with the debates of that House was seriously to be deprecated. It could not be expected that the churchmen of England, with their earnest convictions that they were in the right, would all at once give way to the views of their opponents, however strongly entertained. Both sides must make up their minds to one of two things —either to accept a fair and reasonable compromise, or be prepared for a continuance of the existing strife and dissension. If twenty or thirty years ago the rate had been made in form as well as in reality a charge on the landlord, and had been confined to the maintenance of the fabric, did any single Member believe that we should ever have heard a syllable of objection to it from owner or occupier or any one else? The hon. Gentleman concluded by his Motion.
  MR. WIGRAMseconded the Motion.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—
  "That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee, for the purpose of considering the expediency of providing for the repair of Churches and the maintenance of Churchyards, by substituting for Church Rates such an annual rentcharge upon all hereditaments in respect of which Church Rates may now be lawfully assessed upon the occupiers thereof, as will most fairly represent the total annual amount now raised by Church Rates; such rentcharge to be a fixed and uniform poundage on the rateable value of such hereditaments, and to be made a charge on the owners of the same; the proceeds of such rent-charge in each diocese to form a central fund from which grants may be made towards the repair of Churches and the maintenance of Churchyards, and to be administered by a body of persons elected for that purpose."
  MR. BUXTON:* It has appeared in the debates on this Bill that the resistance to it arises chiefly from the feeling that, if we did away with church rates, we should be robbing the Church of her property, and that our next step will be to rob her of tithe as well. If that were so, it ought to be, and I think it would be, fatal to this Bill. Nothing could be more disastrous than that Parliament should trample on the sacred and inviolable rights of property. But are church rates the property of the Church? Surely not. It seems to me that no two things can stand further asunder than tithe and church rates. With respect to tithe, the law undoubtedly regards the rector of a parish as part owner of the land. Whatever right the landlord has to his rents, such precisely is the rector's right to his rent-charge. But does the law look upon the
  1852
  parish church as if it were a human being endowed with a lien upon the parish property? The law does not indulge in any romance or sentiment of the kind. With the plain good sense which marks English law, it merely takes the parish church for what it is; the law regards it as the property, as one of the goods and chattels, of the people in the parish. They are welcome to let that property down, or to keep it up; the sum total of what the law does is to cause the parish to act as a whole. That is to say, in this as in other parochial concerns, the lesser is made to yield to the greater number. As far as church rates go, the law takes no cognizance of the Church; it only recognizes and enforces parish self-government. Surely there is here no property, no possession of any kind, except indeed the legal enjoyment of a privileges by the majority of ratepayers. We need not, then, feel uneasy lost, in taking away that privilege from the ratepayers, we should be stripping the Church of wealth that belongs to her, or should be setting a precedent for the confiscation of tithes. This difficulty fades away when it is looked into, and we are left free to discuss the question as one of expediency; and, as a matter of expediency, it seems to me that, so far from dealing a blow to the Church by this measure, we shall root her more firmly in the hearts of the people. I am not one of those friends of the Church who would rather see her rich in money than rich in love; and in this matter we have to choose between the two. At the same time one cannot but feel some regret in pulling down an institution which has stood for ages. Nor can I help wondering at the heat of the Radical party on the matter, seeing that the church-rate system is both low church and democratic. It is low church, in that it treats the churches as the chattels of the people. It is democratic, in that it recognizes the power of majorities; in that it entrusts the care of the House of God to the people themselves; in that it allows the right of the poor man to be found by his richer neighbours in the means and appliances for worship, and not only for worship, but for the performance of the rites of baptism, marriage, and burial. Sir, one might have rejoiced had this holy trust been still regarded as rather a delight than a burden. But that is so no longer. In a vast number of parishes church rates are an unfailing spring of bitterness and ill-will. I have been surprised

  1853
  at the stress that has been laid on the fact (if it be a fact) that church rates have been carried in nine-tenths of the, parishes in which they have been asked. Why, Sir, we must know little of village politics, if we are unaware that the great mischief is not done where the opponents of church rates have got their way, but where they have been defeated. It is there that you find a grumbling and growling minority, who are made sore against the Church, and not only against the Church but against their clergyman, by having their money wrung from them. Now, I do not believe that the irritation caused by church rates usually springs from any conscientious horror about aiding a false religion. Some Dissenters may have scruples of that kind, but nowadays most of them are willing to look on the Church as their fellow-worker rather than their foe, and their objection to church rates has more sense in it. They dislike paying for our buildings and our services, not because it is a sin, but from a reluctance which, in the corrupt state of human nature, is not surprising—a reluctance to pay other people's bills for them. They say, and there is a kind of wild justice about it, that if we don't like catching cold in church, we had better send for the bricklayer to stop the holes up, but not charge the cost to them. They have their own chapels on their hands, and their own ministers, and they hardly see why they are to look after our comforts. For, after all, it is not a question of spreading the Gospel abroad, it is simply a question of comfort. And I really doubt whether it it not wrong, absolutely wrong, for us to squeeze other people's money out to pay for things with which they have no concern. We were told indeed, that it is the sacred indefeasible light of majorities to tax minorities; but surely that is only so for purposes common to the whole, not for those which touch the majority alone. So far then as Dissenters go, it is open to doubt, whether church rates are not the triumph of might over right; and I feel no doubt that it would be worth more than all the silver and gold we screw from them, that our Church should stand clean handed before them, instead of looking like a plunderer. But now, Sir, we must not fancy the whole clamour against church rates to be of this fair and respectable land. A large part of the outcry comes from those who belong to the Church of England—from those who share in the good things for which church
  1854
  rates pay. That outcry comes in some from principle; in more from mean stinginess. Notwithstanding, it would be well to stop it, for nothing, no, not even the feeling of ill-usage on the part of the Dissenters, does so much to keep the Church in hot water and set the pastor at loggerheads with his sheep. This, then, is the state of things that we have to deal with. Not only to those without her pale, but to those within it, these rates give our Church an ugly look of greediness and grasping, and, therefore, I cannot but wish the system of church rates to be swept away. But though we yield so far, still I think we are bound to weigh calmly and thoughtfully, whether any of the plans for raising money in the place of church rates are not worthy to be approved. It is a very nice thing, of course, to talk of not drawing money from people who don't like paying it; yet somehow or other the money must be got, and the question is, how to get it. The pleasant thing for us would be to put a vague trust in voluntary subscriptions, and let the matter take its chance. Surely that course would be more easy than right. It may be feared that, in many rural parishes, the churches would fall into disrepair; in many more into ruin. Most often, however, the work would be done. But by whom would it be done? It would be done mainly by the clergyman. Now, already the clergy spend far more on their neighbours than any other men do, in the way of schools, reading-rooms, clothing-clubs, and direct relief. I shrink from burdening them still more; I shrink for their own sake; and I shrink too lest those schools and charities should be skimped by this further claim. But above all, because it seems to me to set the matter on an utterly wrong footing. It is not for the clergyman's good, it is for the good of the laity that they should worship God; it is not the clergyman's matter, it is the laity's matter, that their churches should be snug, and the services well done. And yet, if we make a clean sweep of church rates, without setting up anything in their stead, we shall in reality force the clergyman to do for the laity, what the laity ought to do for themselves. On these accounts, and on many others, we are bound not to throw overboard the schemes that have been brought forward, without looking into them fairly, and thoroughly; and especially is such consideration due to the proposal to leave a share of the maintenance of the churches on the owners of

  1855
  land. This seems to me perfectly just, fair, and wise. No economist, I believe, denies that the church rate is reckoned in the rent paid for land. The bulk of it then has realty lain upon the shoulders of the landlord, and to abolish it would be to put money in the pocket of every squire in England. Of course if our farmers had not to pay church rates we should raise their rents. The hon. Baronet who moved this Bill dwelt on this, and he called on the landowners of England to aid him in passing it, because it would put money in their purses. Sir, I too would impress the same truth on what my hon. Friend the Member for Sandwich called the bucolic mind in this House. I would again remind the landowners in the House, that the abolition of the church rates will send into their pockets the money which used to go to keep up the parish churches; and I remind them of it, because I am persuaded that most of them would scorn to catch a penny in any such way. They might hold, as I do, that the present way of raising these funds is a vexatious and hurtful way; but the proposal not to readjust, but to repudiate, a burden which has lain for ages on their land, and to make a profit—a profit to which they have no claim—by the transaction—this proposal would not, I think, meet with acceptance. It would then be a fair and convenient settlement of the church-rate question, just as it was a fair and convenient settlement of the tithe question, to levy the money at once from those who have really to pay it in the long run, without first wringing it from the tenantry. It may be asked, how we shall do with a dissenting landlord? Those cases might be easily met. Experience has shown in the case of tithe that no practical difficulty arises on that point. Such cases in fact would not he very common, for there is no such persuasive eloquence to faith in the Thirty-nine Articles as that of broad acres. If, therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Herts had proposed that in rural parishes, and in them alone, a small addition should be made to tithe for this purpose, I should have withdrawn the first of the Amendments of which I have given notice, and should have given this Motion my humble support. But, Sir, this Motion seems to be, not for merely making an addition to the tithe paid by landowners in the counties, but for throwing on the possessors of house property in towns a perfectly novel charge. And to that course
  1856
  there is this fatal objection, that it would stir up that very strife, that very exasperation, which it is our express object to allay. Sir, it seems to me that if we are not willing to trust the parish churches in towns to voluntary subscriptions, then there is no legitimate way of raising the money except by allowing pew-rents to be levied in the parish churches, just as they are already in most district churches. People seem to think pew-rents a strange and new tiling. Why, Sir, I do not hesitate to say, that there are thousands and thousands of churches in which pew-rents are raised, without the smallest difficulty or annoyance of any sort or kind. I know there is a feeling against them in the minds of many persons. But it seems to me that all the sound objections to them would fall to the ground, if, say a third of the sittings, were left free for the very poor, another portion were let at a rate low enough to be within the reach of respect-able working-men, and the remainder at the usual price. Those gentlemen who are most intimate with the working class in towns will agree with me in believing, that a low pew-rent would not keep them away from church, but would draw them to it. A main reason why the Dissenting chapel is more popular with town mechanics than the parish church is, that they pay for their sittings, and so feel a right to them. Nothing is so distasteful to the working-men of the better class as to be treated like paupers; nothing would attach them more to the Church than to feel that they had seats of their own; and this would be still more the case, if every man who paid for a sitting had a share in electing the committee who should lay out the money thus raised. The man who paid half-a-crown for his sitting might have one vote; the man who paid a pound might have eight votes. Thus the Church and its services would be kept up by those who would enjoy them, without any vexing declaration as to their being Dissenters or Churchmen. It seems to me that by such a plan two sound principles would be brought into action: those would pay for the commodities who used the commodities; those would manage the funds who provided the funds. I believe that by a small addition to the rent-charge in rural districts, and by graduated pew-rents in town, enough money would be raised to meet the running expenses. But, Sir, I would just add that many of our parish churches are not mere places of worship for the parishioners, but

  1857
  are architectural monuments of great value to the country. It is not fair to them, nor is it fair to the parishes in which they stand, that the whole weight of their repairs and restorations, which is much the heavier, because of their architectural splendour, that the whole of that burden should fall on the people of the place. It would be a fair equalization of the burden, and it would do much to preserve or to restore those architectural monuments, if a part of the cost were defrayed from the wealth of the whole Church; and I am persuaded that ample funds for such a purpose would be forthcoming, if the vast real property in lands, mines, and houses, belonging to the Church of England, and now administered by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, were all sold off and the proceeds invested in the funds. There is enormous waste, there is enormous pecuniary loss, in the attempt of the Church to play the part of landlord to property scattered throughout the country, the mere supervision of which involves a great outlay. If all those properties were brought to the hammer, and the money got for them were more judiciously invested, the Church would be very far richer than she is now, and might spend that extra income on the preservation of those ancient buildings, which ought to be her glory, but too often are her shame.
  The sum of what I have been saying is, that, by doing away with the church rates, we should not be trampling on the rights of property, or laying a stepping-stone to the confiscation of tithe. And that, although one cannot but fuel regret in laying the axe to such a time-honoured institution, this must be done, because church rates are not fair towards those without the Church, nor wise towards those within it. But that, if we leave the thing to be done by voluntary subscription alone, we shall lay upon a few generous men, and above all upon the clergy, a burden which it is the duty of all churchmen to bear. And that it would be set upon the right shoulders, if in country districts a small addition were made to the rentcharge; and in towns pew-rents were affixed in the parish as well as in the district churches; and if the extraordinary outlay, required by extraordinary architectural splendour, were partly met by a wiser investment of the wealth of the Church of England.
  GENERAL THOMPSONsaid, he saw an objection to the original Motion, which bore upon the propriety of an Amendment.
  1858
  They were told that church rates fell upon the landlords or owners. So they did, and those were the very men who complained, or who would complain; for the owners were many of them Dissenters. It was very likely that the man who at present saw his chair or table taken for church rates, had a more lively sense of suffering than the landlord who had only a dim and misty notion that 7s. 6d. might be ultimately deducted from his rent-roll. But let the landlords once sec the thing in the shape of a direct impost, and they would quickly be heard of in this House, with power greatly superior to that of the present complainants. The original Motion, if carried, would only be a phase through which they would pass to an increased resistance to church rates; and therefore he would second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,—
  To leave out from the first word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that in some parishes power should be given to make an addition, to a limited amount, to the Tithe, in order to maintain the fabric of the churches; and that in some parishes in towns power should be given to the churchwardens or the vestry to place a rental on a certain proportion of the sittings," instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, it was his intention to negative the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He must first, however, congratulate the Government on the fact that assistance in their difficulties had been thrown out to them from the opposition side of the House; for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Puller) was of the same nature as the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member fur London with regard to the India Bill, and it must have been quite a godsend. With regard to the plan of the hon. Gentleman, he did not think that it could be entertained, fur so far from providing a remedy for the existing state of things, it fixed the injustice still deeper. Church rates were at present a contingent tax, but the hon. Gentleman wished to make them permanent. In five years church rates would abolish themselves, whereas the hon. Gentleman now sought to make them perpetual. He did wonder then that hon. Gentlemen opposite should have received the plan of the hon. Gentleman with so much favour. As proposed, however, it was open to much criticism and, in his opinion, would never work.

  1859
  Who was to have the control of the central fund which must be established? Its distribution would cause continued squabbles among the clergy of different opinions in the Church as to who were to get the most of it; its management would be bad and be liable to jobbery. In fact, the speech of the hon. Gentleman answered itself. The hon. Gentleman proposed to make a present of church rates to the landlords. But the main objection was that the Motion was inconsistent with a solemn Resolution to which the House had come. No plan which involved anything but the entire abolition of the tax would succeed, and feeling that it was necessary to get rid of church rates altogether the House came to the Resolution which had been recently agreed to. The hon. Gentleman then came with his Motion which was a complete anachronism, and which went hack to the mediæval age of this question. If the same form of religion prevailed throughout the whole population, there might be something like justification for it; but where the number of Dissenters from the Established religion was so great, it was a great hardship to impose a general rate. With regard to the architecture of churches, he would contend that so far from church rates having tended to improve it, all that had been done in the way of the advancement of church architecture was duo to the voluntary principle. In fact he knew one church where, under the system of church rates, granite pillars had been whitewashed over, and he could mention another where the water came down into the pulpit in such abundance, that the unfortunate clergyman who preached last Sunday was almost washed away. He objected to the levying of pew rates—believing it to be desirable that churches should be open and free to all classes. It was said that the church rates were a fixed charge, and could not be abolished; but how did they differ from ministers' money, which had been abolished? He felt it incumbent on him, as having charge of the Bill for the abolition of church rates, to oppose the Motion.
  MR. LYGONsaid, he wished in a few words to recall to the recollection of the House the present position of this question. On Wednesday the House went into Committee on the Bill of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny), when able speeches were delivered by men of the greatest weight in that House, and there seemed to be a disposition on all sides to
  1860
  come to some understanding on the subject. They were precluded, however, from amending the Bill before the House, or from dealing with the question of church rates, except in the way of simply abolishing them according to the principle of that measure. That was, no doubt, a very simple, but it was at the same time a very dangerous mode of dealing with the subject, and was not likely to be satisfactory to a large body of the Members of that House. There were, however, other courses which it was open to the House to pursue. There was the proposition of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller), which might be described as a commutation. Another plan was that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey), which proposed to recognize the confiscation of church rates in all parishes where for a certain term of years the rate had been refused. But there was another mode of dealing with the subject which he thought entitled to the respectful consideration of the House, and that was the exemption of Dissenters from the payment of the rate. They were told that the Dissenters had conscientious scruples against paying the rate, and, though not willing to admit the force of the objection, he still thought it entitled to respect. He thought that on a person making a declaration and promising to take no part in the ecclesiastical business of the vestry for a year he should be exempted from church rates. He would not be denied the right of attending the church or receiving the consolations of religion, but he would be prevented from holding the office of churchwarden and interfering in the management of the church rate. It was his intention to bring in a Bill embodying this provision, which he thought, if carefully and dispassionately considered, would, without any sweeping innovation, relieve conscientious scruples and allay all ill-feelings.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he wished to state shortly why he could not support either the Motion or the Amendment. The Motion of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller) sought to impose a compulsory charge on the general property of the country for the maintenance of the Church; but the present church rates were a parochial charge, levied by the majority of a vestry only. Practically speaking, for a number of years, in 10 per cent of the parishes of the kingdom, including one-half of the population of the kingdom, church rates had been practically abolish-

  1861
  ed; but the hon. Gentleman sought to convert what was now a voluntary charge, levied partially, into a general compulsory charge. He proposed also to deprive the rate of its parochial character and make it into a diocesan charge, so that a parish might possibly not obtain the benefit of the whole sum which was collected within its limits. For these reasons he could not give his support to the Motion. The form in which the Amendment was put before the House was not quite correct. The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Buxton), by an addition to the tithe charge, sought also to put an additional charge on property; but to effect that it would be necessary to move first, that the House resolve itself into a Committee on a certain day to consider the subject, which the hon. Gentleman had not proposed to do. Certainly, if the House should resolve to go into Committee on the Motion of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, it would be competent for the hon. Member for Newport to move his Amendment; but as it stood at present it was not in order. Apart, however, from the question of form, he was not prepared to agree to the solution of this question as proposed in the Amendment. Either the House must make up its mind to abolish church rates altogether, or it must agree to some modification of them. It would never do to supply their place by an entirely new charge. The proposition made last year by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth to abolish church rates de jure in parishes where they had been practically abolished for a certain time, and in the other parishes to permit persons dissenting from the church of England to have their names struck off the rate, would have removed most of the objections to the present system. It was accepted by Sir William Clay, who had then had charge of the Church Rates Abolition Bill, as satisfactory to the Dissenters with whom he was acting, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite, who now seemed to wish for such a solution, had then consented to it, in all probability it would have become law.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that it appeared to him that the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the proposal was, that nothing should be done to interrupt the course of the House in abolishing church rates. He believed there was a large number of hon. Members anxious to consider the proposal of the hon. Member for Herts, For himself,
  1862
  he entertained a full conviction that, either now or hereafter, some such proposal as this, supported, he believed, by the great body of landowners, would afford the solution which the House desired—would remove the inconveniences incidental to the collection of church rates, while at the same time the fabric of the Church would be maintained, but maintained not out of pew rents, but out of the land. He did not think that the House would represent the interests or the feelings of the people if they rashly cast aside what must be considered as a direct offer on the part of a landowner, representing no doubt many landowners, on this question. It would not be a popular ground on which to go to their constituents, to tell them that they had refused to consider a proposal which would have relieved those who conscientiously objected to church rates, and at the same time would have furnished a fund from the land for the maintenance of the Church. He did not approve of that part of the proposal which related to a diocesan collection for the fund, but he had understood the hon. Member to say that he would consent to a modification of that part of his proposal in Committee, so as to reserve to each parish the amount levied from the proprietors within it. That would meet the objections of many Members on that side. He should not think that the House, acting with the circumspection and liberality which ought to characterise it, would refuse the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of submitting his plan to their consideration. There was a party in the House determined to abolish church rates as a stepping stone to the disestablishment of the Church, but he did not think that was the intention of the great number of Members who wished a settlement of this question. He believed they desired to maintain the Church for the poor, an object which the voluntary principle could not permanently effect, and he hoped they would not be so illiberal as to refuse to the hon. Member for Hertford the opportunity he wished to obtain.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, when they were discussing the subject of church rates on Wednesday last he stated he thought the proposal of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller) a fair matter for deliberation. He had now heard the discussion on this subject and had examined the proposition of the hon. Member, and he must say the two objections which had been taken by the right hon. Gentle-

  1863
  man the Member for the Radnor district appeared to him to be sound objections against the proposal of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire. He thought it objectionable to impose a rent charge upon property which had been for a long time exempted from the payment of church rates. He also considered it objectionable to place the control of the rate in the hands of a body in each diocese. As long as the charge existed, it ought to be a parochial one. With regard to the subject itself, he had only to say that he really could not understand how they could have a national Church Establishment without some provision or other for repairing its places of worship. They had such a provision both in Scotland and in Ireland, and it did seem to him that it was unreasonable to say, that they should have a provision to maintain the minister, but no provision to maintain the churches. He was ready to listen to any reasonable proposal for a substitute for church rates. Although he felt great objections to the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey), he would be ready to consent to it rather than leave the matter as it had been, an occasion of strife. He was willing, he repeated, to consider any fair proposal on the subject, but if they came to the question of an absolute abolition of the rate he must vote against that as a violation of the principle of a Church Establishment.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the whole question was, whether they should go into Committee. He thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller), in his able speech had demonstrated in the plainest terms that to abolish church rates was, in other words, to put money into the pockets of the landlords which did not belong to them. But, at the same time he could not but feel that the objection taken to the specific proposition of his hon. Friend by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Radnor district (Sir G. C. Lewis) was really an unanswerable one. Whatever they did as a compromise, he thought they ought not to put a new charge on property. As the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) was not in his place, would the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Radnor allow him (Mr. Walpole) to request him to press on his late Colleague the propriety of bringing forward substantially the proposition which he announced when he occupied a seat on the Treasury Bench? With part of that proposition he (Mr. Walpole)
  1864
  agreed, and with part of it he could not agree. As to that part of it which said absolutely that they were to abolish church rates because they had not been levied, he thought that was wrong in principle. That part of the plan which said where church rates had not been levied for two years they were not to be levied hereafter, he considered would be holding out a mere premium to agitation, and therefore he could not consent to it. But that part of it which provided that an opportunity should be afforded to proprietors notwithstanding the mortmain laws, of voluntarily charging their land with the amount of the church rates which had been paid in respect of that land, so as to raise a fund for the maintenance of the fabric, was a proposition so reasonable and just in itself, that he could not but regret that it had never been put to the vote in that House. He thought that would be a reasonable and just form of compromise; and he could never see the reason why, conjointly with that plan, a person entertaining a conscientious objection to the payment of church rates should not be absolved from them, provided he was willing to forego the privileges which belonged to a member of the Established Church. Some such plan as that would be to his (Mr. Walpole's) mind a proper settlement of this question. The question, certainly, was one of great difficulty; but that difficulty arose rather from the manner in which it had been treated in that Mouse than from any inherent difficulty in itself. In the meantime he could only say that, while opposing the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Puller), he certainly never could consent simply and solely to vote with the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trelawny) that church rates should be abolished without an equivalent, which was merely putting money into the pockets of those to whom it never belonged. He believed Parliament was now prepared to accept a compromise in this matter, and he hoped the House would resolutely apply their minds to make it a just and equitable one.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the occupants of the Treasury Bench were so much accustomed to derive aid from hon. Members on the Opposition side, that he was not surprised at the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had made to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Radnor to get them out of trouble. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) thought that the Church Rate Abolition Bill, which had passed a second

  1865
  reading, was in itself so very detrimental, why did he not, in his character of a Minister of the Crown, come forward with a proposition agreeable to his own feelings and in accordance with the principle of his objections? From that straight forward course the right hon. Gentleman shrank, and then came to that (the Opposition) side of the House to ask them to assist him in the performance of his duty. He (Mr. Roebuck) was not inclined to do the duty of anybody. And when the right hon. Gentleman said the House had not discussed this question, did he recollect that, when the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton was in office, the House passed the second reading of this Bill, which involved its principle? What was the principle of the Bill? Why, that church rates should be abolished. That they were to he abolished he (Mr. Roebuck) was convinced; and he and those with whom he acted were determined that they should be abolished. They did not intend to enter into any compromise. Compromise was the very breath on which the occupants of that (the Treasury) Bench existed. The promoters of this Bill would have nothing to do with compromise. They were determined to get rid of church rates, and during the present Session too. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) said that the speech of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire had not been answered; but at that hour—twelve o'clock—what time was there for answering it? No grounds had been shown why church rates should be made a distinct charge on the land. The charge was in the individual will of the parishioner; and if that seal could not be broken off the bond, it would be impossible to support the proposition of the hon. Member. One-half of the parishioners of the country had refused to pay church rates, and now the hon. Member came forward to ask the House to make them a permanent charge on the rental of the land. Was nut this, then, a new tax; and could this new proposition be brought in aid of the old law? Not a hit of it; and they were determined that it should not be. He did not intend at that time to occupy the attention of the House; but if the question were to be argued as a politico-economical question, he should be prepared to go into it, if brought forward at a time when it could be argued. The principle was already before the House; it had passed a second reading, and it was in Committee, and in that Committee it
  1866
  should be decided whether it should go out as a Bill or not.
  MR. WIGRAMsaid, he rose only for the purpose of expressing a hope that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire would take the opinion of the House upon the Resolution. He thought it was not open to the objection urged against it by the right hon. Member opposite (Sir G. C. Lewis) because the obligation was at present on the parish to provide the necessary funds. The principle of the Resolution was nothing more than to substitute for the existing common-law obligation a certain nominal pecuniary charge, which would be less in amount than the existing charge. It had been said that the effect of it would be to revive the charge where it had become virtually extinct. This objection might be met and provided against in Committee. He should vote for the proposal of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire or for the Amendment, as he believed that the clergy of the country would welcome any proposal that would provide for the maintenance of the parish churches.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISexplained that in the remarks he made with respect to the state of the law, he referred to the decision of the House of Lords in the Braintree case, which was to the effect that, legally, church rates could only be made by a majority of the vestry; and, if they refused, there was no power to compel them to make them.
  MR. WIGRAMsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman would find that in the Braintree case the law was also laid down by the Judges as he (Mr. Wig-ram) had stated.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  MR. PULLERin reply said, he wished to make one remark in reference to an observation made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny), to the effect that the present Motion was a godsend for the Government. All he could say in reference to that observation was, that it was not he, but the hon. Baronet himself, who contributed to seat the present Ministers in office. Having a clear opinion that there should be a reasonable and fair compromise between different parties in the Church of England holding strong opinions on this question, he thought himself justified in bringing forward the proposition now before the House; but after the manner in which the Motion had been received by the Government and

  1867
  by the noble Lord the Member for London, he felt that, as far as he was concerned, he should be wrong in putting the House to the trouble of dividing, and therefore he was billing to withdraw his Motion.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 317: Majority 263.

  List of the AYES.

  Baring, T.

  Maxwell, hon. Col.

  Bathurst, A. A.

  Miller, T. J.

  Bennet, P.

  Miller, S. B.

  Bentinck, G. W. P.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Bovill, W.

  Packe, C. W.

  Bramley-Moore, J.

  Pakenham, Col.

  Burghley, Lord

  Pennant, hon. Col.

  Carnac, Sir J. R.

  Philipps, J. H.

  Cecil, Lord R.

  Repton, G. W. J.

  Cobbold, J. C.

  Robertson, P. F.

  Deedes, W.

  Rolt, J.

  Dobbs, W. C.

  Rust, J.

  Du Cane, C.

  Sandon, Visct.

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Scott, hon. F.

  Egerton, Sir P. G.

  Scott, Major

  Emlyn, Visct.

  Shirley, K. P.

  Farnham, E. B.

  Stanbope, J. B.

  Fellowes, E.

  Steuart, A.

  Gard, R. S.

  Tollemache, J.

  Goddard, A. L.

  Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.

  Heathcote, Sir W.

  Vansittart, W.

  Holford, R. S.

  Wigram, L. T.

  Ingestre, Visct.

  Wyndham, H.

  Knatchbull, W. F.

  Wynn, Col.

  Knightley, R.

  Yorke, hon. E. T.

  Langton, W. G.

  Lygon, hon. F.

  TELLERS.

  Mainwaring, T.

  Puller, C. W.

  March, Earl of

  Spooner, R.

  List of the NOES.

  Adair, H. E.

  Brand, hon. H.

  Adderley, rt. hn. C. B.

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Agar-Ellis, hn. L. G. F.

  Brocklehurst, J.

  Agnew, Sir A.

  Bruce, H. A.

  Akroyd, E.

  Bruen, H.

  Alexander, J.

  Buchanan, W.

  Antrobus, E.

  Buller, J. W.

  Ashley, Lord

  Bury, Visct.

  Atherton, W.

  Butler, C. S.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Buxton, C.

  Bagwell, J.

  Buxton, Sir E. N.

  Bailey, C.

  Byng, hon. G.

  Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

  Cairns, Sir H. M'C.

  Ball, E.

  Calcutt, F. M.

  Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

  Campbell, R. J. R.

  Baring, T. G.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Barnard, T.

  Cartwright. H.

  Bass, M. T.

  Cavendish, hon. W.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Charlesworth, J. C. D.

  Beale, S.

  Cheetham, J.

  Beecroft, G. S.

  Cholmeley, Sir M. J.

  Berkeley, F. W. F.

  Christy, S.

  Biddulph, R. M.

  Churchill, Lord A. S.

  Biggs, J.

  Clark, J. J.

  Black, A.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Blackburn, P.

  Clifford, Col.

  Boldero, Col.

  Clive, G.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Clive, hon. R, W.

  Brady, J.

  Close, M. C.

  1868

  Cogan, W. H. F.

  Hadfield, G.

  Cole, hon. H. A.

  Hall, rt. hon. Sir B.

  Collier, R. P.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Collins, T.

  Hamilton, G. A.

  Conyngham, Lord F.

  Hanbury, R.

  Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

  Handley, J.

  Cowan, C.

  Hankey, T.

  Cox, W.

  Hanmer, Sir J.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Crawford, R. W.

  Hardy, G.

  Crook, J.

  Harris, J. D.

  Cross, R. A.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Crossley, F.

  Hassard, M.

  Curzon, Visct.

  Hatchell, J.

  Dalglish, R.

  Hayter, rt. hn. Sir W. G.

  Davey, R.

  Headlam, T. E.

  Davie, Sir H. R. F.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Davison, R.

  Hill, hon. R. O.

  Deasy, R.

  Hodgson, K. D.

  Denison, hon. W. H. F.

  Hodgson, W. N.

  Dent, J. D.

  Hope, A. J. B. B.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

  Horsfall, T. B.

  Divett, E.

  Hudson, G.

  Dodd, J. W.

  Hunt, G. W.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Hutt, W.

  Duke, Sir J.

  Ingham, R.

  Dunbar, Sir W.

  Inglis, J.

  Duncombe, hon. A.

  Ingram, H.

  Dunkellin, Lord

  Jackson, W.

  Dunne, M.

  Jervoise, Sir J. C.

  Dutton, hon. R. H.

  Johnstone, hon. H. B.

  Ebrington, Visct.

  Johnstone, Sir J.

  Edwards, H.

  Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

  Egerton, E. C.

  Jolliffe, H. H.

  Ellice, rt. hon. E.

  Kendall, N.

  Ellice, E.

  Kerrison, Sir E. C.

  Elphinstone, Sir J.

  Kershaw, J.

  Elton, Sir A. H.

  King, hon. P. J. L.

  Esmonde, J.

  King, J. K.

  Estcourt, rt. hn. T. H. S.

  Kinglake, A. W.

  Evans, T. W.

  Kinglake, J. A.

  Ewart, W.

  Kingscote, R. N. F.

  Ewart, J. C.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Ewing, H. E. C.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, E

  Fagan, W.

  Knight, F. W.

  FitzGerald, rt. hn. J. D.

  Knox, Col.

  FitzRoy, rt. hon. H.

  Laslett, W.

  Foley, H. J. W.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Levinge, Sir R.

  Forde, Col.

  Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.

  Forester, rt. hon. Col.

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Forster, C.

  Lindsay, W. S.

  Foster, W. O.

  Lisburne, Earl of

  Fortescue, hon. F. D.

  Locke, J.

  Freestun, Col.

  Locke, J.

  Gallwey, Sir W. P.

  Lovaine, Lord

  Galway, Visct.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Garnett, W. J.

  Lyall, G.

  Gaskell, J. M.

  Macarthy, A.

  Glyn, G. C.

  Macartney, G.

  Glyn, G. G.

  M'Cann, J.

  Goderich, Visct.

  Mackie, J.

  Greaves, E.

  M'Clintock, J.

  Greene, J.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Greenwood, J.

  Mangles, R. D.

  Greer, S. M'C.

  Mangles, C. E.

  Gregory, W. H.

  Manners, Lord J.

  Gray, C.

  Marjoribanks, D. C.

  Grogan, E.

  Marsh, M. H.

  Grosvenor, Earl

  Martin, C. W.

  Gurdon, B.

  Martin, P. W.

  Gurney, S.

  Martin, J.

  1869

  Massey, W. N.

  Smith, M. T.

  Melgund, Visct.

  Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

  Mellor, J.

  Smith, A.

  Miles, W.

  Smith, Sir F.

  Mills, T.

  Smollett, A.

  Moffatt, G.

  Somerset, Col.

  Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

  Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

  Montgomery, Sir G.

  Stafford, Marq. of

  Morris, D.

  Stanley, Lord

  Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

  Stapleton, J.

  Naas, Lord

  Steel, J.

  Napier, Sir C.

  Stewart, Sir M. R. S.

  Newport, Visct.

  Stuart, Col.

  Nicoll, D.

  Sturt, H. G.

  Nisbet, R. P.

  Sturt, N.

  Noel, hon. G. J.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Norris, J. T.

  Taylor, Col.

  North, Col.

  Taylor, S. W.

  North, F.

  Tempest, Lord A. V.

  O'Brien, P.

  Thompson, Gen.

  Ogilvy, Sir J.

  Thornely, T.

  Osborne, R.

  Thornhill, W. P.

  Paget, C.

  Tito, W.

  Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

  Tomline, G.

  Palmer, R.

  Tottenham, C.

  Pechell, Sir G. B.

  Trueman, C.

  Peel, Sir R.

  Turner, J. A.

  Peel, rt. hon. Gen.

  Verner, Sir VV.

  Perry, Sir T. E.

  Vivian, H. H.

  Philips, R. N.

  Waddington, H. S.

  Pilkington, J.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Pinney. Col.

  Warren, S.

  Portman, hon. W. H. B.

  Weguelin, T. M.

  Powell, F. S.

  Welby, W. E.

  Power, N.

  Western, S.

  Price, W. P.

  Westhead, J. P. B.

  Proby, hon. G. L.

  Whatman, J.

  Pugh, D.

  Whitbread, S.

  Ramsay, Sir A.

  White, J.

  Rawlinson, Sir H. C.

  Whiteside, rt. hon. J.

  Rebow, J. G.

  Whitmore, H.

  Ricarde, O.

  Wickham, H. W.

  Richardson, J.

  Williams, W.

  Ridley, G.

  Willyams, E. W. B.

  Robartes, T. J. A.

  Willson, A.

  Roebuck. J. A.

  Wilson, J.

  Roupell, W.

  Wingfield, R. B.

  Russell, Lord J.

  Wilmington, Sir T. E.

  Russell, H.

  Wood, W.

  Russell, A.

  Woods, H.

  Salisbury, E. G.

  Wortley, Maj. S.

  Schneider, H. W.

  Wyndham, Gen.

  Scholefield, W.

  Wynne, W. W. E.

  Seymer, H. K.

  Young, A. W.

  Seymour, H. D.

  Shafto, R. D.

  TELLERS.

  Shelley, Sir J. V.

  Trelawny, Sir J.

  Sibthorp, M.

  Gilpin, C.

  Smith, J. B.

  CHURCH RATES.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that he wished to move the adjournment of the House, and he should persist in that Motion if he should not receive from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Lygon), who had given notice of his intention to move for leave to introduce a Bill for the amendment of the law of church rates, an assurance that he would not do more, if the sitting were continued, than merely bring
  1870
  forward his Motion without any comment, for the purpose of having the measure introduced and printed.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  MR. LYGONsaid, he did not wish to do more upon that occasion than to move, without entering into any explanation, for leave to introduce his Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) would not persist in his Motion for the adjournment of the House, but would allow them to proceed with the Orders of the day, to which he believed no opposition would be offered, and which it was very desirable that they should at once advance a stage.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, that if the hon. Member for Tewkesbury were to introduce his Bill, he should rather that hon. Gentleman accompanied his Motion with an explanation. He was not disposed to take any unfair advantage of the hon. Gentleman, although he could not think that he and his friends had been well treated on Wednesday last, when the debate on the Church Rate Abolition Bill was prolonged until an hour when it became impossible to take a division upon it.
  MR. LYGONsaid, he rose to offer an explanation of the course he had pursued on Wednesday last, but was met by cries of "Spoke."
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he thought there was nothing unfair in the course taken on Wednesday last by the opponents of the Church Rate Abolition Bill. They had merely sought to afford the House an opportunity of considering on a future day a compromise of that question, founded on principles which had received the approval of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for the Home Department.
  MR. STEUARTsaid, that if the opponents of church rates pressed the Motion for the adjournment, in order to prevent the introduction of this Bill, they would prove that their object was to prevent the settlement of this question.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the House, and suggested that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury should select another day for the introduction of his Bill.
  MR. ROEBUCK MR. ROEBUCK, who had seconded the Motion for the adjournment of the House,

  1871
  said, that he was quite willing to consent to its withdrawal, provided it was understood that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Lygon) was not to introduce his Bill without discussion.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would call attention to the fact that it was then twenty minutes to one o'clock, and remind his hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury that if this Motion was defeated, it might be repeated as soon as he had addressed the House.
  MR. LYGONsaid, he would consent to postpone his Motion until Wednesday, with the view of finding some day on which he might bring it forward; at the same time he wished to disclaim having been actuated by factious motives on Wednesday last.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL.—1a Exchequer Bills (£20,911,500).

OATHS BILL—COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read. House in Committee accordingly.
Clause 1, (Oath to be taken instead of Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration.)
THE EARL OF WICKLOWrose, pursuant to notice, to move an Amendment on this clause; but before entering upon that subject he wished to recall to their Lordships' recollection what took place on the second reading of the Bill. On that occasion the noble and learned Lord who had charge of the Bill (Lord Lyndhurst) stated that in conformity with the expressed wishes of the noble Earl at the head of the Government—the noble Earl having expressed his opinion that the two provisions —one for altering the oaths, and the other for introducing Jews into Parliament—were such as ought not to be united together. This Bill had been so framed that the question of the admission of the Jews to Parliament could be separated from the other portion of the Bill. He was somewhat surprised at that declaration of the noble and learned Lord, but he did not then feel that he had sufficient recollection of the subject to express any doubt as to its accuracy. He had since then looked into the matter, and he found that in 1849, when a measure for the relief of the Jews was first introduced into their Lordships' House, it was framed in precisely the same manner, and with the same division of subject as that now under consideration; so much so that in that Bill, as in the present one, the question of admitting the Jews into Parliament was raised in the fifth clause. He did not believe, when the noble Earl at the head of the Government ex-
1750
pressed his opinion that the two subjects— the question of the oaths and the question of admitting Jews to Parliament—ought not to be mixed up together, that his meaning was that they should be united in the same Bill, and only separated into different clauses; his real meaning must have been that both subjects, of the alteration of the oaths and of the admission of the Jews to Parliament were of such great importance that each ought to have a Bill to itself. It was impossible for any one who reflected upon the subject not to be of that opinion. The two subjects were absolutely incompatible with one another, and could not with any propriety be joined together. And now with regard to the Amendment he was about to propose—he would ask their Lordships to consider what was the nature of an oath, and how oaths ought to be regarded by the public mind. When they were called upon to take an oath, whether in a court of justice or at the Table of their Lordships' House, they performed a solemn act of devotion—they invoked the Deity to witness to the truth of the language they used. He must say, further, that upon the respect which the people entertained for the sanctity of an oath depended, in a great degree, the security of property and the maintenance of the institutions of the country. It behaved their Lordships, therefore, well to consider whether it would not excite in the minds of the people a disrespect for all oaths to find their Lordships, Session after Session, trifling with this important subject of oaths, and, under pretence of making an alteration in those oaths, to cloak and cover their design to effect another political and infinitely less important object; and when that other object failed, then the whole measure was rejected and cast aside. If the Jews were to be admitted into Parliament let it be done by a Bill brought in for the express purpose, as was done in 1829, when the measure for admitting the Roman Catholics to Parliament was introduced. He believed the only reason why those who were anxious for the admission of the Jews did not take the same course was that they knew the feeling of the country was not in their favour. But as they had a Bill upon this subject, he would entreat their Lordships so to frame it as to render it acceptable to the feelings of the country. He would admit that, to a certain extent, the measure as it stood did effect a great improvement; but, it retained the most objectionable part of the three oaths, namely, that part of

1751
the Oath of Supremacy which affirmed that no foreign prince, prelate, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, spiritual or temporal, within the realm. The objections to the portions in the other oaths which were proposed to be removed were that they were useless and absurd; but the objection to this part of the Oath of Supremacy was that it was decidedly false; and he would endeavour to prove to their Lordships the justice of this observation. In doing so he must express his regret to have for his opponent the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) who in the other House of Parliament had been the champion and the hero of this particular oath. As he understood the noble and learned Lord's argument, it amounted to this, that though the words, if taken in their literal sense, were not true, yet they were not to be construed according to their literal interpretation, but they were to be taken in a legal sense. Now, in reply to that reasoning, he asked, was it fit that the language of an oath should be so framed that the person who was to take it could not clearly understand it? Could the noble and learned Lord produce him a single oath out of the Statute Book which was so framed except this one? Was an oath a thing to require the interpretation of a lawyer, or ought it to be so obscure that the person taking it required a lawyer at his elbow, like a father confessor, to explain to him its precise legal interpretation? If the words at the end of the Oath of Abjuration were appended at the end of the Oath of Supremacy—if, after declaring that the Pope had not, nor ought to have, any spiritual jurisdiction within the realm, they were also called upon to say that they took this oath in its plain, literal, common-sense meaning, without any evasion, restriction, or mental reservation whatever—would the noble and learned Lord himself then venture to take the oath? And though these words did not occur in the Oath of Supremacy, but in the Oath of Abjuration, yet as that oath came the last of the three, he was not sure that the clause to which he had referred did not refer to and embrace all that went before. He had said that the Oath of Supremacy taken literally was false; but when it was first created in the reign of Queen Elizabeth it was literally true, and he knew of nothing which had occurred in the history of the country to sanction the opinion that the words were to be taken in a different sense—though he admitted that
1752
the march of opinion in this country had been so gradual that it would be difficult to say at what period it had become necessary to alter the oath. But so many changes had of late taken place with the full sanction of the Legislature, that it had now become necessary to consider whether the oath also ought not to be altered. One of the changes to which he referred was the endowment of the College of Maynooth for the express purpose of educating the youth of Ireland for the ministry of the Church of Rome, and with the full knowledge that the Church of Home could not exist in Ireland except under the spiritual supervision and authority of the Pope. A still more decided step in this direction was taken by the Charitable Bequests Bill in Ireland, which was carried not many years ago, and by which the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland were expressly stated, by virtue of their office as bishops, to be trustees under that Act. He would also refer to the Dublin Cemetery Act, in which it was stated that his Grace the Archbishop Murray should regulate and control the funerals of the Roman Catholics. Could anything be more clear than that by these Acts the Legislature admitted the spiritual authority of the Pope who appointed those bishops? And yet their Lordships were required to swear that the Pope had no spiritual or ecclesiastical authority within the realm. He might add, that he had personally attended the levee which George IV. held in the Castle of Dublin, in 1821, at which he received the Roman Catholic bishops in a body; and it was well understood that no attendance at the levee gave greater satisfaction to His Majesty and to the Ministers, because it denoted the degree of popularity with which His Majesty was received. The recognition of the bishops was carried still further when the late Sir Robert Peel established the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. At that time the noble Lord who held the office of Lord Lieutenant (Earl of Clarendon)—and he did not mean to blame him for it—addressed a letter to Archbishop Murray, in which he said—
"Tour Grace had the goodness to promise that you would convey to Rome, for the consideration of the Pope, the amended statutes of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland, as the British Government has no official organ in that city."
He then went on to say—and their Lordships must remember that this referred to a Bill then passing through the Legislature—

1753
"The list of visitors is not yet settled, but I can have no hesitation in stating that it will include the Catholic archbishop of the province and the bishop of the diocese in which the college is situated, and that in the professorships and other posts the Catholic religion will be fully represented."
He might misunderstand all these things, but it did appear to him that, bearing them in mind, it was impossible to argue with candour and fairness that even under the law the Pope had no ecclesiastical authority in these kingdoms; and, therefore, that this oath could not be justified and maintained. More than this, he was informed that a Roman Catholic bishop or clergyman who might be converted to the Anglican religion would, in virtue of his original ordination, become a priest or bishop of that Church. But while he condemned this oath he did not think that in taking it he was taking a false oath. An oath must be taken animo imponentis—in the sense in which it was imposed; and all that he understood to be meant by the Legislature when it established this oath was that it should be a declaration that the person taking it was not a Roman Catholic. In taking it, therefore, he did not feel that he was perjuring himself or taking a false oath. How absurd was it, however, that while one portion of their Lorships took their seats upon a declaration that they were not Roman Catholics, another portion made an equally solemn statement that they were of that religion? He knew how unwilling the Legislature was to change ancient institutions; but he would remind them that if the present Bill passed then the oath contained in it would not be the oath of Queen Elizabeth or King William III., but the oath of Queen Victoria; and was it right or decent that in establishing a new oath they should so frame it that those who took it should not understand its meaning. I wish to view it through my own understanding, not through the distorted medium of forensic sophistry. Why did not the oath now proposed follow the phraseology of that contained in the Bill of 1849? That oath contained all that was necessary and no more. It was to this effect—
"I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and will maintain the succession to the Crown as established by an Act entitled ' An Act for the further limitation of the Crown and the better security of the rights and liberties of the subject.' And I do take this declaration and promise heartily, willingly, and on the true faith of a Christian."
That oath was framed by the authors of the present Bill; but they had now intro-
1754
duced an oath which, in its reference to the supremacy, was, in his opinion, highly objectionable, and which contained words offensive to a large portion of the community. He had heard no reason avowed why these words should now be introduced. There was nothing, however, to prevent those who desired it from inserting certain words to be taken by Roman Catholics, although, if such a proposition was made, he should most decidedly object to it. If, also, there were words in the Oath of Abjuration which were now absurd, ridiculous, and therefore profane, the obligation of taking them ought not to be imposed on Roman Catholics any more than on Protestants. The noble Earl concluded by moving his Amendment.
Moved—To omit from the First Clause the words—
("And I do declare, that no Foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre-eminence, or Authority, Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within this Realm").
LORD LYNDHURSTMy Lords, it is not my intention in rising on this occasion to enter at large upon the various topics to which my noble Friend has alluded, but to confine myself strictly to the terms of Amendment which he has moved. As I understand his Amendment, my noble Friend wishes to strike out of the first clause of this Bill all those words which relate to the Oath of Supremacy, because he regards those words as being in contradiction to the actual state of things in this country; inasmuch as he thinks that a foreign Power does exercise some authority within the moaning of the oath. That I conceive is the question distinctly raised by my noble Friend, though he has contrived to mix it up with a great variety of topics which appear to me to have no relation whatever to the question. I regret that my noble Friend has proposed this Amendment, because if he should succeed in carrying it, when this Bill goes down to the other House, as from its form it necessarily must, further difficulty will be added to a subject already involved in very great difficulty. If my noble Friend would condescend to look into the history of the oath, all the doubts which he has raised, and which operate on his own mind and apparently also on the minds of other persons, would at once vanish, and he would see that no uncertainty whatever can exist as to what is its real meaning. The oath does not relate to any vague, spiritual, or merely moral and ideal power over the

1755
mind of man, but to a substantial power to be exercised by a jurisdiction which can enforce its decrees. Let me direct your Lordships' attention to the history of this oath. In ancient times, the jurisdiction over temporal as well as over spiritual and ecclesiastical causes was vested exclusively in the Crown. And how was it exercised? By means of courts of justice appointed by the Sovereign to carry his authority into effect. And thus the constitution existed for several ages. What followed afterwards? A part of this jurisdiction—this substantial jurisdiction—was usurped by the Pope of Rome. That usurpation was carried on precisely in the same form by means of courts of justice, exercising not an ideal authority—an authority in words, a mere vague influence—but a substantial power put into effect through their decrees and operations. Thus the matter rested until the Reformation. And what took place then? Why, this jurisdiction, power, authority, or pre-eminence was again united to the Crown. It was united to the Crown finally by an Act of Elizabeth passed in the first year of her reign, and the first chapter. That Act was entitled "An Act to restore to the Crown its ancient Jurisdiction over the Estate Ecclesiastical and Spiritual," and further "and abolishing all foreign Powers repugnant to the same." What are the enactments of that statute? It speaks constantly of "the usurped power," the "usurped authority," of the Court of Rome, and it extinguished that authority, which was not a vague power, I repeat, but a power exercised by courts of justice. The object of this Act of Parliament, then, was to abolish a usurped power—a power detracting from the authority of the Crown and setting up a corresponding authority in opposition to that of the Crown. Next, my Lords, comes the Oath of Supremacy, which had its origin in the Act of Parliament to which I have referred. It consists of two parts, one affirmative the other negative. What does the affirmative part state? Why, that the authority, the power, of Government in ecclesiastical, spiritual, and temporal affairs is vested solely in the Crown. And in the negative part it makes use of the very words to which my noble Friend has adverted. It denies that any other Power, any other State or Potentate, has any jurisdiction, authority, power, or pre-eminence in this realm. What does that relate to? Clearly, to the usurped authority which had been assumed by the Pope of Rome. It is impossible to read
1756
this Act without seeing that the authority affirmatively vested in the Crown is directly opposed to the authority negatived by the oath. The words "jurisdiction, power, authority and pre-eminence," therefore, do not refer to a vague power—a mere moral influence only, but to a substantive authority exerted and enforced by courts of justice. That is the obvious meaning of the very terms of the oath itself, and it is confirmed by every passage in the Act of Parliament which I have quoted. Thus the case stood in the reign of Elizabeth; and the oath bore that form until the time of William III., when a change occurred. What was that change? It struck out the affirmative and left the negative part of the oath. And because the affirmative part was so struck out, throwing as it did so clear a light upon the sense of the negative part, my noble Friend holds that the meaning of the negative part has been entirely altered. I say that its meaning has undergone no such alteration, and that the construction now to be put upon these words is the same as they bore in the 1st of Elizabeth, and as they have borne from the reign of William III. down to the present time. The oath has always been administered in that sense, in the meaning both of the persons imposing and the persons taking it; and it is only within the last few years that some modern caviller has thought of placing a different interpretation upon it. I trust, then, that what I have just stated, bringing to my noble Friend's recollection the history of the oath and the circumstances under which it was framed, will satisfy his mind that when he talks of jurisdiction, power, authority, and pre-eminence, these words mean a jurisdiction to be exercised by courts of justice—a power to be enforced by authority of law—not a vague, moral, ideal, or spiritual influence such as that to which he has referred as throwing doubt upon the meaning and force of this oath. With these explanations I shall conclude by expressing a hope that your Lordships will not consent to the Amendment of my noble Friend.
EARL GRANVILLEI rise, my Lords, to make an appeal to my noble Friend not to divide your Lordships upon this question. My noble Friend has stated with great fairness the arguments by which he wished to enforce his views, and I am not prepared altogether to deny that there is some force in some of the arguments which he has adduced. At the same time my noble

1757
Friend has failed to show that any practical inconvenience exists, and he has explained the reasons which induced him to consent to take the oaths as they are at present framed. My noble and learned Friend opposite has shown upon strong legal grounds the manner in which we may interpret this oath, and the view which my noble and learned Friend has enunciated has, I believe, been adopted by the most eminent lawyers and statesmen. Were it not so, I do not think that we should see this House as full as it at present is. A short time ago there was a practical grievance, which arose from two Peers objecting to take this oath; but they yielded to the sense of this and of the other House of Parliament, and took the oath, and now no practical inconvenience exists. To divide your Lordships upon this question, I am afraid, would obstruct the progress of a measure of general importance, and I trust, therefore, that my noble Friend will be content with having stated his conscientious objection to this form of oath, and will consent to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he earnestly joined in the appeal which had been made to the noble Earl. The highest authorities had concurred in the propriety of the form of the oath as it at present stood, and to divide the House upon the subject might tend to obstruct a measure of the greatest importance.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that all the persons he had ever talked to upon the subject had agreed with the views which he entertained, with the exception of the lawyers. They, however, not taking, as other persons did, a rational and sensible view of the question, disagreed with him upon the subject. He should not, after the appeal which had been made to him, divide the House. Had his Amendment been carried he should have supported the proposal to admit the Jews to Parliament; but as it was, as he could not support the Bill, he should abstain from voting upon the Motion of the noble and learned Lord opposite (the Lord Chancellor) to omit the 5th clause, hoping that the result of that evening would be that matters would be left in the same state in which they stood at present; so that if the subject were again brought before their Lordships, the two questions of the admission of Jews to Parliament and of the alteration of the oaths might be dealt with separately and distinctly.
Amendment negatived without a division.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2, 3, and 4, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Form of Oath for Persons professing the Jewish Religion).
On Motion for agreeing to the fifth clause, which proposed to omit from the Oath the words "upon the true faith of a Christian,"
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid: My Lords, as I have for many years offered a consistent, and I hope I may add a conscientious opposition to every measure, which has been proposed for the admission of the Jews to the Legislature, your Lordships will not be surprised that I should present myself on the present occasion for the maintenance of opinions which I have so long cherished. While admiring, in common with the rest of your Lordships, the eloquence of my noble and learned Friend who moved the second reading of this Bill—while entertaining for him sentiments of the highest regard, and a respect almost amounting to reverence, I must confess that I cannot see the full force of his arguments in support of his present proposition. I cannot but feel highly flattered at receiving from my noble and learned Friend the gratifying testimony that in every instance in which I have conducted the opposition to what are called "the claims of the Jews," I have exhibited the most perfect fairness and good-feeling. I hope, my Lords, I shall ever persevere in that same spirit. There is no reason indeed why I should pursue a different course. I need scarcely assure your Lordships that I am influenced by no personal feeling—that I am actuated by no prejudice upon this question. I feel only an earnest desire to support a principle which I believe to be necessary to maintain in order to secure the welfare and even the character of this country. I think, my Lords, that justice has not been fully done to this great question by the advocates of the present measure. Discussions have, no doubt, frequently taken place upon it; but there has always been an express or tacit reference to one or two individuals who are distinguished members of the Jewish persuasion, who are regarded as types of the whole Jewish people. The persons to whom I allude are, no doubt, gentlemen of the highest character and respectability; they are gentlemen who live in social intercourse with their Christian fellow subjects, and who possess none of that exclusive spirit which is considered to be characteristic of the

1759
religion which they profess; but to discuss a question of this importance, with reference to the admission or exclusion of gentlemen of this character, is, in fact, to substitute personal considerations for the free and impartial consideration of a great and general principle. There is another difficulty also, my Lords, which embarrasses me in dealing with this subject, and that is, that there is no debateable ground common to those who oppose and those who support the admission of the Jews to Parliament, upon which both of the contending parties can fairly meet. On the one hand, it is insisted that the religious character of the Legislature is deeply involved in the result; while, on the other, it is maintained, with equal pertinacity, that religion has nothing to do with the subject, and that the question is one simply of civil rights and political expediency. If I could consent to take that view of the question, it would be a matter of perfect indifference to me whether two or three members of the Jewish persuasion should become members of our Legislature. But I cannot, my Lords, consent to consider this question on that low ground. Much higher considerations have influenced my feelings and motives in regard to this subject; and I must still be allowed to press them most earnestly on your Lordships' attention. At the same time, my Lords, I have never declined to meet the advocates of the Jews on their own ground. I have always been ready to descend with them to the field which they have chosen; and I shall now, with your Lordships' permission, very briefly glance at the different arguments they have used and which do not appear to my mind so strong and so conclusive as they, no doubt, do to those who employ them. I must apologise to your Lordships, in the first instance, for going over a ground which has so often been trodden before that it is impossible to place your foot upon a spot where you do not find a previous impression. Old arguments must be met by old answers; and I cannot, therefore, pretend to offer anything new to your Lordships on this occasion. Indeed, the very suggestion of novelty on a subject which has been so long considered, and so often debated, would at once justify the suspicion, that the argument was unsound. The foundation generally laid, my Lords, for the right of admission of the Jews to the Legislature is, that in every free State the citizens
1760
are all entitled to a perfect equality of civil rights. I think that there is a fallacy lurking under that argument, arising out of an ambiguity of the term. If, by the term "civil rights," be meant what is ordinarily understood by it—namely, the right of enjoying property, of personal security; or, in short, of everything which can be comprehended in the words "civil and religious freedom," within the limits of the constitution—then, I say, I entirely agree with the proposition. But if, by the term "civil rights," be meant a claim to be admitted to political office or to Parliament, then I take it on myself to deny its accuracy. I contend, my Lords, that no such rights exist indiscriminately for all citizens. The right to political office is one conferred by the State with certain conditions and qualifications and which it thinks proper to impose; and you have only to glance at the qualifications and disabilities that exist, in relation to the various offices of the country, to see that I am perfectly right in the view which I am taking as to the qualification of this proposition. It can never be denied that it is competent to a Christian country to impose as a qualification for office, and especially for the highest offices of the State, the profession of the Christian faith, and to relax or to retain that qualification, in respect to different offices, according to its view of what is right and proper. I must, my Lords, have read very imperfectly the history of my own country, if I have not found throughout its pages traces of the particular qualification of the profession of Christianity being imposed as a condition, especially for the possession of supreme power, or for a seat in the Legislature. But it is said, that this is entirely a misapprehension of the facts, so far as the Jew is concerned—that there never has been an intention on the part of the Legislature to exclude the Jew from a share of legislative authority; that it is entirely owing to an accident and not to design, that he is at present excluded from taking his seat in Parliament. Now, my Lords, I think that the misapprehension on this point, is not on the side of those who are opposed to the claims of the Jews. I quite admit the historical account of the original insertion of those important words—"On the true faith of a Christian" in the oath; I quite admit the whole history of the discovery of that celebrated treatise on equivocation which was revised by the Jesuit Garnett; and that in conse-

1761
quence of the discovery then made, these words were inserted in the oath with the view of rendering it more binding upon the consciences of Roman Catholics, But taking the words themselves do they not stamp unmistakably upon the oath the intention of the Legislature to declare that every person seeking to be admitted into the Legislature of our country must be a Christian? It is true that there was at that time no intention to direct the terms of the oath against the Jews, for the purpose of excluding them from the Legislature; because it so happened that there was not then, I believe, a single Jew in England. The Jews were banished from this country in the reign of Edward I., as your Lordships well know; and they only returned here after the Restoration. It is a curious historical fact, that in 1663 there were no more than twelve Jews in England. When they returned to this country, they were regarded entirely as aliens—alien duties were imposed on them; and my noble and learned Friend knows very well that, in the reign of James II., they were relieved from the export customs duties. But in the reign of William III., in 1690, on the remonstrance of the merchants of the City of London, those duties were reimposed. My noble and learned Friend remembers too, full well, the statute which was passed in the 26th George II., to enable Jews to he naturalized without taking the sacrament. That statute was, however, repealed almost by popular clamour in the following year. [Here Lords LYNDHURST and CAMBPELL remarked that the statute only referred to foreign Jews.] With great deference to my noble and learned Friends, I believe that that is not the true intention of the Act. But observe the condition of the Jews at this time, and see how entirely it disables the argument which has been urged by their advocates as to their position in the reign of William III. It happens, curiously enough, that when the 1st of William III. was passed, the words "on the true faith of a Christian" formed no portion of the oath; and it might be contended with equal justice, by the advocates of the Jews, that from the 1st to the 13th of William III., it was competent to the Jew to obtain admission into our Legislature. However, when we find what was the condition of the Jew then—that he was regarded as an alien and that an alien duty was imposed upon him—surely no such
1762
argument as that could be maintained. Or can it be supposed that even at a much later period, even so late as 1836, when the Jews were incapable even of civil or military employments or of being members of corporations, it was possible for them to enter the Legislature even though there were no such words as those in question in the oath? Such an idea as this cannot be entertained for a moment. These important words "on the true faith of a Christian" were re-inserted in the 13th William III., and this appears to me to be one of the most striking legislative declarations of the intention of Parliament to provide against any person having a seat in the Legislature who could not profess himself to he a Christian. The Legislature bound up with the Protestant succession the acknowledgment of the faith of Christianity. I wish, my Lords, to correct a misapprehension which appears to prevail very generally on this subject. It has been supposed that the Legislature has been gradually widening its doors to the admission of persons of all religious denominations; and it is contended that the full recognition of civil and religious liberty is only incomplete by the want of this last crowning act which is to bring the Jews into Parliament. My Lords, it is a misapprehension to suppose that there has been any such gradual relaxation of the rules which excluded the members of different religions from Parliament. The only instance in which the Legislature has directly interfered, for the purpose of giving the right of sitting in Parliament, is with respect to our Roman Catholic fellow Christians. The Dissenters have always sat in Parliament although they wore excluded from corporations by the Test and Corporation Acts. The Unitarian never refused to take the oath "on the true faith of a Christian." There was no particular law passed to allow Quakers into Parliament. On the first occasion that a Quaker was returned to Parliament a search was made amongst the statutes; and it was discovered that there wore some Acts which contained language so wide and comprehensive as to admit the members of the Society of Friends to seats in the House. I think that these facts are not unworthy of Your Lordships' attention, at a time when you are called upon to break through the rule that has been ever recognized by a Christian Legislature. It is important to remember that by Bills of this description

1763
now under consideration, your Lordships have been called upon for the first time to declare that the faith of a Christian shall not be a passport to a seat in the Legislature; and you have been invited to take an immense stride over the gulf that has hitherto separated the Jewish faith from the Christian belief; and to place the Jews by our side as Members of the British Parliament. My Lords, it is said that we have already given sentence against our exclusive system; because you have admitted the Jew to the elective franchise, and permitted him to enjoy the office of Mayor, of Sheriff, and of Magistrate; and this has been accounted a powerful and unanswerable argument in favour of their admission to Parliament. But, with great deference to those who use that argument, I cannot concur in its force. Take the case of the elective franchise, and how is it possible to establish any analogy between the case of giving him perhaps the twenty thousandth part of a choice in the election of a Christian representative, and giving him power himself to take a part in making laws for the country. I cannot myself perceive any analogy between the two cases. Then, my Lords, with regard to his exercising the different magisterial offices, I will say that, to the honour of those Jews who have been placed in those positions, they have filled them with the greatest respectability, and with the highest credit to themselves. But whilst acting in these capacities the Jew is under the law; and if he breaks the law he subjects himself to punishment. However, place the Jew, my Lords, amongst the Legislators of the country, and there is no law he has to submit to but the law of his own conscience; otherwise he is irresponsible, though he is part of the governing body of the country, and is to take part in the important function of making laws for a Christian people. It has been frequently urged upon us that we ought to respect the wishes of the large and important constituency of the City of London, who have chosen to select, more than once, a Jew for their representative; that their wishes ought to be regarded and that the law ought to give way before them. My Lords, I cannot conceive a principle more unconstitutional and more dangerous. The citizens of London know full well that in the present state of the law, when they return a Jew to Parliament, it is impossible for him to take his seat in the Legislature. Nevertheless, in defiance of the
1764
law, they choose, over and over again, to make a Jew the object of their selection. The first duty of good citizens is to obey the law; and it appears to me that this great constituency is setting a very bad example to the other constituencies of the country. They have set their affections upon a Jew. Suppose other constituencies should desire to have a minor, or a clergyman, or a custom-house officer, or an alien to represent them, are the different statutes which have been enacted for the purpose of disabling persons of these various descriptions to sit in the Legislature to be all abrogated—to be all repealed at the will of these different constituencies? The citizens of London may feel that they are— as in truth they are—a very numerous and a very powerful body; but they are only a small portion of the great constituencies of the country. They choose a representative for themselves; but they choose him to be a Member of Parliament. They have no right to violate the law. The other constituencies have a right to expect from them a proper choice in submission to the law; and I believe it would be a most disastrous circumstance if the electors of London should ultimately be enabled to overcome the Legislature by a defiance of the law, and thus compel it to yield to their wishes.
My Lords, I have hitherto been arguing this question on the lower ground generally occupied by the advocates of this measure, but I cannot consent to continue longer upon it. I must, my Lords, ascend to the higher one upon which those who feel deeply and conscientiously on this subject always desire to place this question. I trust, however, it will not for a moment be supposed that because I think this a purely religious question, I therefore attribute to those who are opposed to me any absence of proper religious feeling. I know that there are many good and excellent men, who are thoroughly persnaded that there is nothing of religion in this question, and who, upon that ground, are warm and consistent advocates of the admission of Jews to Parliament. To those persons I would most earnestly and anxiously address myself. I ask them to bear with my convictions, and to allow me fairly, but firmly, to press them upon their attention. The arguments which I shall venture to address to your Lordships on the ground which I now assume will, I trust, entitle themselves to your Lordships' consideration and approval. My Lords, it

1765
is an old and a true maxim, but one which commends itself to the hearts of our people, that Christianity is part of the law of England. Whatever else may he the meaning of the expression, it certainly must be understood to convey this important truth—that Christianity is thoroughly and essentially bound up with our Constitution. Your Lordships will find that it pervades almost every institution of the country. You will find that homage is paid to it by frequent observances, and in no place more strikingly than in the Houses of the Legislature. We begin our deliberations daily, by invoking the blessing of Almighty God upon our labours; and we do so through that Holy Name, by which alone we believe our prayers will be rendered acceptable. We go forth thus consecrated to our duties; and what are those duties? Not merely the control and direction of matters of low worldly policy, of earthly power, or commercial prosperity; but the eternal welfare of the people is committed to our legislative guardianship. The highest—the most important—the most essential of our legislative functions is the cause of religion. I assert this, not upon my own, but upon much higher authority, and I shall venture to trespass upon your Lordships' attention by reading a few extracts from writers of eminence who have turned their attention to this subject and whose opinions are entitled to far more weight than anything of my own. I will quote first the opinion of that great statesman, philosopher, and Christian, Mr. Burke. He says:—
"Religion is so far, in my opinion, from being out of the province or duty of a Christian Magistrate"—and he uses this term to express the supreme authority—"that it is and it ought to be, not only his care, but the principal thing in his care; because it is one of the great bonds of human society and its object the supreme good, the ultimate end and object of man himself."
These are the words of that great and good man, Dr. Arnold:—
"The moral character of Government seems to follow necessarily from its sovereign power. This is the simple ground of what I will venture to call the moral theory of its objects. For as in each individual man there is a higher object than the preservation of his body and goods; so if he be subjected in the last resort to a power incapable of appreciating this higher object, his social and political relations, instead of being the perfection of his being must be its corruption; the voice of law can only agree accidentally with that of his conscience, and yet on this voice of law, his life and death are to depend."
One quotation more from a living author of high intellectual power. Dr. Whewell says:—
1766
"The tenet of the separation of Church and State divests the nation of its religious character to which, as we hold, it is its highest business to aspire. We cannot assent to any view which reduces the objects of the State to this low level, which represents it as having no concern with anything higher than the gross material interests of the people—the preservation of person and property. The part of Government which attends to them is not polity, only police. A State which has no views beyond these is only in the first stage of national progress."
My Lords, I entirely agree in the sentiments expressed in these extracts; and if these are the most essential functions of a Christian Legislative body, what are the rules and the motives which ought to guide each Christian legislator in the discharge of his duty? The great moral of the Gospel is the rule and standard to which he ought to conform his judgment, and by which everything he does ought to be governed. My Lords, I have another authority on this subject, and one which is of the highest value, because it is the authority of one of the most powerful advocates of the Jew; and yet it is entirely in favour of the view which I am now submitting to your Lordships. It is that of Lord John Russell, who says:—
"In speaking of the Legislature where Members have to dispose of and control the various interests, ecclesiastical and secular of the country, religion ought to influence and control their decisions."
Now, my Lords, the only question that could possibly be raised upon this is— what religion dues the noble Lord mean? Does he mean the Christian religion, or does he mean any religion? The noble Lord is a, sincere Christian; and he never could have intended that any other religion than the Christian religion should guide the conscience of the Legislature. Then how can the noble Lord think it consistent with these principles and these notions to propose to admit to the Legislature an individual who can be governed by no such high sanction, whoso conduct must be regulated by an inferior rule, and a lower standard? Attempts have been made to cast ridicule upon an expression—which has passed, perhaps, into a by-word—that the admission of Jews to Parliament would "unchristianize" it. That, my Lords, is, I think, a convenient and compendious form of expressing what would be the real effect of passing a law of this description. It is true, my Lords, that the admission of Jews to Parliament would not deprive each individual Member of the faith which he professes; but as a body—as a national

1767
body—that tie which has hitherto bound them together would be loosened, and the Legislature, as a Legislature, would cease to be Christian, because no test of Christianity would be exacted from its Members. Although we are here standing in defence of our religion and of policy—not of low policy or expediency, but of the highest policy—let us not disdain to borrow wisdom from the conduct of persons who, as members of an inferior society, might be called upon to admit some one who was opposed to the ends of its institution. If the society were large there might be no danger, and, therefore, no objection to permit him to become a member; but if he were known to be hostile to one of the great principles upon which it was established, would any one dream of placing him amongst the governing body? Apply that principle here. The Jew, if he be sincere—if he be what he has always been represented—if we are to take the Jewish people in general, and not selected specimens,—must have the most inveterate hostility to the Christian religion. Then, if I am right in saying that the highest functions of a Christian Legislature is the care of the Christian religion and its extension among the people, can you place within it a person who is hostile to the highest principles by which it ought to be governed? These reasons have always pressed upon my mind in the part which I have taken in resisting the admission of even a single Jew to Parliament. My Lords, in some observations addressed to your Lordships when this Bill came before us for a second reading, a noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) warned your Lordships as to the consequences which might arise from a collision between the two Houses, and between the House of Commons and the Courts of Law. That noble Earl is a great constitutional authority, and everything that falls from him is entitled to the greatest consideration and respect; but I cannot help thinking that in his desire to avert this danger, he has been provoking another and a much more formidable one. According to the doctrine laid down by the noble Earl, the House of Commons has only to determine to carry some object upon which it has set its heart and to persevere. [Lord CAMPBELL: "No!"] My noble and learned Friend says "No," but I say "Yes." The House of Commons has only to persevere; it has only to knock at our doors sufficiently long and in a sufficiently loud and threatening manner to render it prudent and proper for
1768
us to submit, and to surrender at discretion. My Lords, this appears to me to be reducing your Lordships to a state of complete dependency. I can well understand that on a nicely balanced question of ordinary policy or expediency, if you can catch the views of the people, and find them reflected by their representatives, you might be disposed to yield your judgment to their views and wishes; but, my Lords, we are on no such question here; we are upon a question of conscience and religious duty, and, my Lords, whatever may be the threats by which your Lordships are sought to be intimidated, I trust you will proceed fearlessly and steadily in what you consider to be the path of duty. My Lords, I cannot think so ill of the House of Commons, from which I have been so lately taken, as to suppose that for the accomplishment of any object, however bent they might be on its attainment, they would violate the Constitution; but if unhappily they should do so, I say with the greatest respect that they must incur all the responsibility; on their heads must be all the consequences of their fatal act. If we are to yield against our judgment and our consciences, it would have been better to do so at an earlier period, when concession would have had the grace of a voluntary act, and would not have been a forced submission. It would appear to me that the doctrine of the noble Earl (Earl Grey) by which he would persuade us to abandon our functions and abdicate our duties would, if reduced to practice, leave us nothing more than a registry office for the decrees of the House of Commons. My Lords, whatever may be the impatience or even the violence used in respect of the measure, I trust your Lordships will not be intimidated. But, my Lords, I trust you will always stand firm upon every good path. That you will not fear still to pronounce that our "Lord is King be the people never so impatient," and that you will hold fast the profession of your faith without wavering. I am persuaded that by thus acting—by thus maintaining your unshaken defence of the Christianity of your country, you will promote the highest interest of the people, and thus and thus, alone, secure that not only "peace and happiness, and truth and justice," but that "religion and piety shall be established among us for all generations."
Amendment moved to omit Clause 5.
LORD LYNDHURSTI have to congratulate your Lordships on the accession

1769
to this House of so much eloquence and talent as have just been exhibited by my noble and learned Friend. That eloquence and talent cannot fail to add to the importance and weight of our deliberations—sincerely and most deeply do I regret that those abilities have been directed against the cause which I feel it my duty to maintain in this House. Your Lordships must feel, I think, if you advert to circumstances which have frequently occurred, that this question is brought forward on the present occasion under a state of things more serious and more grave than formerly existed. I listened to the speech made by a noble Karl opposite (Earl Grey), on the Motion for the second reading of this Bill, with great attention and anxiety, and I felt, and still feel that the observations made by that noble Earl, to which my noble and learned Friend referred, cannot fail to have made the deepest impression on your Lordships' minds. It would be idle to attempt to deceive ourselves as to the position in which we are now placed with respect to this question. Noble Lords are fully aware of what has passed in the other House of Parliament on this subject, not recently merely, but during the last Session, when a Member of the present Cabinet pledged himself to bring forward certain Resolutions for the purpose of carrying into effect a proposition with respect to this question in opposition to the decision of your Lordships' House; and your Lordships have no doubt observed that a Member of the other House of Parliament, of great weight and superior talents—the late Attorney General—has pledged himself most solemnly to adopt that course of proceeding, and bring it under the consideration of the House of Commons, in the event of such a measure as that now before your Lordships failing of success during the present Session. The result might be that conflicts would arise between this and the other House of Parliament, and also between the other House and the courts of law. Nay, more than that, an appeal from the decision of a court of law on the question to which I advert may be brought to this House, and we ourselves may be placed, in our judicial capacity, in a position adverse to the legislative authority of that House. When I mention these facts I draw no inference, but I think it proper that, in considering a question of this magnitude, all the circumstances of our position should be distinctly brought under your Lordships' notice. It is hardly necessary
1770
for me to call to your Lordships' recollection that in many successive Parliaments measures having the same object as the present have passed through the other House with great and increasing majorities, and on no occasion with a greater majority than when the present Bill was passed. Contrast that with what has taken place in this House, and I beg to call your Lordships' attention to the importance of the fact in this respect. I have told you that Bills for the admission of the Jews have been passed in the other House with great and increasing majorities; but in this House those Measures have been from time to time rejected by very small and inconsiderable majorities; in no instance being more than one-tenth of the number of persons who were called on to vote on the subject. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will not pay much attention to mere numbers on such a question. But your Lordships will also bear in mind that men of the highest character and of the most eminent position, of great knowledge and research, of the warmest and most ardent religious feelings have been found in those minorities—even right rev. and most rev. Prelates have supported those Bills in this House, and I believe that on one occasion also my noble Friend near me ((he Earl of Derby). All these arc matters for your Lordships' consideration, because we are not to be governed entirely by the discussion of this evening, during which I feel I can scarcely carry on an equal combat with my noble and learned Friend; but I refer to those facts to call back your Lordships' recollection to past circumstances in order that you may weigh them before you come to a decision on this very important question. Our Legislature is a species of progressive machine; it consists of three independent powers; and if each power adhere rigidly to its own opinion the machinery of legislation would on many occasions come to a standstill; it is by mutual forbearance and concession that the machine practically works out the great objects of the constitution. I desire to impress this consideration most strongly upon your Lordships, and I have on more than one occasion expressed my opinion with respect to the particular position and duty of the House of Lords. It is part of our duty to originate legislation, but it is also a most important part of our duty to check the inconsiderate, rash, hasty, and undigested legislation of the other House; to give time for consideration; and for con-

1771
suiting, and perhaps modifying the opinions of the constituencies; but I never understood, nor could such a principle be acted upon, that we were to make a firm, determined, and persevering stand against the opinion of the other House of Parliament, when that opinion is backed by the opinion of the people, and least of all, on questions affecting, in a certain degree, the constitution of that House and popular rights. If we do make such a stand, we ought to take care that we stand on a rock and we ought to be cautious not to place ourselves in such a position when we have nothing to rely on but the fragment of an Act of Parliament diverted from its original purpose to one it was never intended to apply to.
Now, my Lords, with respect to this fifth clause, which is the subject of our immediate consideration, the provision is founded on a principle which has been uniformly acted upon in a great variety of Acts of Parliament. The abiding rule which governs us with respect to the administration of oaths is this,—that the oath should be framed in such a way as is most binding on the conscience of the person to whom it is tendered. Accordingly, we propose by this Bill to strike out of the oath the words "on the true faith of a Christian" when the oath is to be administered to a person of the Jewish persuasion. But my noble and learned Friend says, that if you strike out those words you admit members of the Jewish religion to seats as representatives in Parliament. I ask, why should they not be so admitted? Are they not our fellow-subjects and the native subjects of this realm, and entitled to the same privileges as are enjoyed by other native subjects? On what foundation can their exclusion be maintained? Is there any specific Act of Parliament depriving them of their right to sit in Parliament? My noble and learned Friend has referred to a kind of supposition that Jews were in former days considered aliens in this country; and it was supposed that on account of the alien character inherent in the Jewish religion, Jews were incapable of properly qualifying themselves for scats in Parliament. On this point all I have to say is, that the highest authority in ancient time—Bracton—states that they were not aliens. But I shall pass from those ancient to more modern times, and come to the periods referred to by my noble and learned Friend. The Jews had been absent from this country more than 300 years, and when they returned they were, of course,
1772
aliens; they were born abroad; their fathers, their grandfathers, all their predecessors for many generations had been born abroad; and they had no rights or privileges as natural-born subjects of this realm. That continued for a considerable period; but in the following century—in 1720—the, question was submitted to men of the highest eminence in the legal profession, and Lord Chancellor Talbot, Sir Thomas Raymond, Chief Justice Reeve, the Solicitor General for the time being, and six or seven other distinguished lawyers, expressed the opinion that the Jews were not to be regarded in any other light or in any inferior capacity to any other class of British subjects. From that time to the present no lawyer, no person who has carefully studied the subject, has for a moment entertained any serious doubt upon the question.
My noble and learned Friend has referred to an observation I made on a former occasion, that in the time of William III., before the Act imposing the oath containing the words "on the true faith of a Christian," there was nothing to prevent a member of the Jewish persuasion from taking his seat in the House of Commons. He seems to suppose that at that period the Jews were all aliens. Undoubtedly a large proportion of them were aliens, but a considerable number did not come under that description, and those who did not might at any time during the reign of William III. have been elected members of the House of Commons and have taken their seats as such. My noble and learned Friend again made a great mistake when he said that a Bill was subsequently introduced for the purpose of naturalizing the Jews; that it passed the Houses of Parliament, but was so extremely unpopular, that it had to be repealed in the following Session. What, however, was the nature of that measure? It was to naturalize foreign Jews, and had nothing whatever to do with native Jews. The Jews are natural-born subjects of this country; they have the same birthright that we have; they do not partake of the character of aliens; and I ask any constitutional lawyer, any friend of the constitution, whether persons in that situation can be stripped of their rights as British subjects, except by some Act of Parliament framed and intended for that purpose, and without the intention of Parliament being specifically expressed upon the subject? I put the question fairly upon that issue. Will any person pretend to say that there is any

1773
such Act? Recourse is had to an Act of Parliament containing the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," passed for a different object, having no reference whatever to the Jews; and this indirect course of proceeding—I shall not call it fraudulent, although it has been so stigmatized— is to supply the want of an Act directed expressly against the Jews. What do our lawyers—what do our courts of justice say? Taking Baron Martin for my authority, in construing an Act of Parliament we are not always to adhere to the exact words of the Act, but are to discover what is the object of the Act—what was the intention of the Legislature in passing it,—and we ought to give effect to that intention even if we overrule the words! of the Act. I? that is the rule by which we ought to he governed in the administration of justice, how much more ought we to he governed by it when discussing questions of legislation and of public policy? It is extraordinary that while we have repealed the Act as far as it relates to those parties —the Roman Catholics—against whom it was directed, we have given force to it against a class of persons—the Jews—who were not in the contemplation of the Legislature at the time the Act was passed. What a monstrous injustice ! Upon such occasions as the present I always like to inquire what opinion able, intelligent, and impartial men, at a distance from party strife, have formed on the subject under discussion. Baron Alderson, when called upon to express an opinion in the Court of Exchequer, said, that if the Jews were to be deprived of the right of sitting in Parliament, it would be more worthy of the country to effect that object by an Act of direct legislation than to make use of an Act which was never intended to be directed against Jews, but which was passed to control a very different class of persons. The same opinion, almost in the same words, but still more strongly expressed, was given by Baron Martin on the same occasion. The noble Earl at the head of the Government has pressed an argumentum ad hominem against me and has accused me of inconsistency, he-cause in 1828, in repealing the Test and Corporation Act, I agreed to the introduction of the words "upon the true faith of a Christian." It was of the utmost consequence at that time that we should accomplish the object we had in view, the abolition of the odious Test and Corporation Acts; but what happened in the
1774
course of the Bill? A learned person, whose bigotry exceeded even his learning —I mean Lord Tenterden—insisted upon the insertion of the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," I believe at the suggestion of Lord Eldon. The Ministry of the day found that if we did not accede to that proposal the Bill would in all probability be lost, and we therefore agreed to the introduction of the words; but my noble Friend at the head of the Government should have done me the justice to add, that a few years after, when I found myself in a position to carry out my views, I proposed the repeal of the objectionable clause in the Act of 1828, and carried a Bill for that purpose triumphantly through both Houses of Parliament. So much for the charge against myself. My noble and learned Friend has said, that the present is not a question of religious toleration or religious liberty, but a question of power and privilege, and that the Legislature, therefore, is entitled to deal with it. The Legislature, I admit, can do what it thinks proper in conferring power and privilege; but my noble and learned Friend has taken a very narrow and insufficient view of religious liberty. Religious liberty I hold to be this—that every man with respect to office, power, or emolument should be put on a footing of perfect equality with his neighbour, without regard to his religious opinions, unless those opinions arc such as to disqualify him for the proper performance of the duties of his office. Is there any other principle upon which in this enlightened age religious liberty can be founded? It is true that you do not fine men or imprison them on account of their religious opinions; but if you deny them the fair emoluments of office and fair objects of ambition, you inflict upon them an injury greater than fine, and, in many instances, greater even than imprisonment. You violate the very principle of religious freedom, and establish a rule which would justify persecution. Where are you to stop? Men may possess certain religious opinions —are they harmless? If so, why do you punish them? Why should not those men be on an equality with their fellow subjects?
But my noble and learned Friend goes to another argument, that you would "unchristianize" the Legislature by introducing a few Jews into it—an old and favourite argument of those who oppose Bills of this description. When that argument was first used in this House it met with an entire and complete refutation

1775
from a most reverend Prelate, then a Member of this House—Archbishop Whately. How did he answer it? He asked, "Is England a Christian country? You answer in the affirmative; but, though a Christian country, it does not consist exclusively of Christians: it is composed of Christians and a small number of Jews; but still you call it a Christian country. What is the constitution of Parliament? It represents the country. If it is to represent the country fairly, how can you for a moment contend that, if there were a small number of Jews in Parliament, therefore the Legislature would be unchristian?" To that no answer has ever been given. Allow me to go a little further. Are your courts of justice, arc your municipal corporations Christian? But you have Jews in your corporations—you admit Jews to your tribunals; and who denies that your municipal corporations are Christian although Jews are members of them; nor that your tribunals are Christian though Jews sit there? How, then, is it possible that the introduction of a few Jews can unchristianize the Legislature? But my noble and learned Friend puts this upon principle, upon high principle. Now, principle should be acted upon uniformly. You cannot play fast and loose with it. But are not the people of your Colonies British colonists? —are not they entitled to protection against the spirit of "unchristianizing" to which my noble and learned Friend referred? Yet year after year Acts have passed your Lordships' House for confirming the establishment of constitutions in Canada, in Australia, and in New Zealand, according to which Jews are as eligible to sit in the legislative assemblies as are the members of any other religious persuasion; and did any one rise in the course of the debates and say that these would be unchristian Parliaments and unchristian assemblies? No one ventured to make such an assertion; and, accordingly, all these assemblies have been unchristianized, according to my noble and learned Friend, and Jews are members of them. Has that principle of equality been acted on? I know, from certain information, that a professor of the Jewish religion was for several years a Member of the Lower House of Representatives in Canada, exhibited great talents was extremely popular, and discharged his duties to the entire satisfaction of the people; and, I am told, that at this moment a Jew is a Member of one of the Legislatures of Australia. What, then,
1776
becomes of your principle—your high principle? You throw it to the wind; you think that British subjects in the Colonies are not worthy of its protection. My noble and learned Friend draws a distinction between the duties of a legislator and those of an administrator of justice. He says that there is no reason why a Jew should not administer justice, but you ought not therefore to admit him to the Legislature. How do I meet that argument? The qualities which you require for the administration of justice are intelligence, information, impartiality, and decision; and these are precisely the qualities which you require in a Member of the Legislature. The qualities which fit a man for the administration of justice qualify him to be a Member of the Legislature. Look at the extraordinary inconsistencies of intolerance. Prussia says to the Jews, "You may be Members of the Legislature, there is no harm in that; but you must not administer justice in the Courts." "On the contrary," says my noble and learned Friend," there is no harm in a Jew presiding in a court of justice, but he must not be permitted to be a legislator." Such are the consistencies, or rather the inconsistencies of intolerance and of extreme and extravagant opinions. Look to the continent of Europe; in almost every Protestant country, and in some Catholic ones, as for instance in France and Belgium, Jews are admitted to the Legislatures. But it is said that we are not bound to imitate other countries. I admit that we are not; I think that we ought to set an example, and not to follow in their train. But I refer to this for a practical object. Has the least inconvenience or the slightest disadvantage resulted from the admission of the Jews to the Legislature of foreign countries? If it has not, are you not called upon, on every principle of religious liberty to extend the same privilege to them in this country? One of the leading principles of Christianity is, that we should do to others what we expect them to do to us. What have we done in Turkey? I can conceive Lord Stratford saying to the Sultan, "How cruelly you act to the Christians; you do not admit them to office, to which they are as much entitled as the rest of your subjects, and to office of every description. We pursue a different course in England; we are an enlightened nation, and we call upon you to follow our example." What is the answer of the Turk? After consideration

1777
he makes the concession and admits the Christian to all offices,—to those in which alterations of the law originate as well as to those which have for their object only the administration. Can you then, in this country, consistently refuse concessions which you have demanded from other nations? It is said that the Jews cannot be trusted to legislate when religion is in question. My answer is, that the objection comes too late. I remember when it was made with great force and effect. It used to he said, when we were fighting the Catholic Question, with respect to the Roman Catholics, "Oh, their principle is to make converts; they consider you as heretics and usurpers; they look up to a foreign Sovereign, and acknowledge him as their spiritual head." Therefore, we were told a Roman Catholic was incapacitated from performing his duty when questions of a religious character came under discussion. But, my Lords, has any practical inconvenience of this kind resulted from the admission of Roman Catholics into the Legislature? No one will pretend that there has been any such result. Do the Jews proselytize? No; on the contrary, they are opposed to proselytism. Is there any reasonable ground for supposing that if they were admitted into Parliament they would interfere with our Church? Not in the slightest degree. Do they look up to a foreign Power as their head? In no respect whatever can this be said of them. So far from being enemies of the Church you allow them to present to benefices, which you do not permit Roman Catholics to do, and in no instance has any complaint ever been made as to the exercise of their patronage. I have heard Lord Coke quoted in proof of the assertion that the Jews are the subjects of the devil; no doubt Lord Coke was a very great man, but probably his authority would not weigh much with their Lordships on this subject. My Lords, my attention has lately been drawn to a kind of bill of indictment, charging the commission of the greatest moral and social crimes against the Jews —an indictment which might have been framed in the dark ages of the Church. To my astonishment I learned that these charges—utterly unfounded and unsupported by evidence—proceeded from a gentleman of education and strong Christian feeling. But, my Lords, that hon. Gentleman should not have displayed so much credulity, and should have examined upon what evidence those charges were
1778
made. He asserts that the Jews were the originators of the Inquisition, and that they were the original Jesuits. And what is his authority for these assertions? He docs not refer us to Bernard, or Bayle, or to any such high authority, but says, "I find this in a romance—in a popular novel in circulation—the author of which is a member of the present Government." When asked the name of this novel, he said that it is Coningsby. It is sometimes said that the Jews form no part of the nation; that they are a separate nation in themselves, and only sojourners here, and that they look forward to their removal at some uncertain period; that they are an isolated people and a nation within a nation; that their sympathies are not with us or with any nation among whom they sojourn. lint the fact remains that they are as enterprising, as industrious, and as loyal as any other class of Her Majesty's subjects; and why, because of their religious opinions, should they be denied the rights of other British subjects? I believe that on all occasions when the Jews have been relieved from oppression they have displayed great talents and great virtues, and won for themselves great distinction. No more remarkable instance of this can be mentioned than is afforded by the Jewish inhaibitants of Germany. The moment they were relieved from the oppression in which they had been held for ages, they broke out and commenced a career of learning, science, and enterprise, in which they showed themselves equal at least to any other class of the community. In the old times, when the Moors held a part of Spain, the Jews greatly distinguished themselves in learning and science, and a great mass of the works in the Arabian libraries were the works of Jewish authors. But the Moors were expelled from Spain, the Papal tyranny was established, the Inquisition was founded, the Jews sank, and they became the victims of the most cruel, barbarous, and infamous persecution that ever disgraced any country. My Lords, I do not call upon you to remove "the last rag of intolerance," nor will I use similar phrases, but I must allude to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Walpole), when he expressed a hope that it was the last time this question would come before the House of Commons. My Lords, most earnestly, most sincerely, and most zealously do I hope that your Lordships will so decide that this may be

1779
the last time that I shall have the opportunity of addressing you on this subject.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that the noble and learned Lord upon the woolsack, in one of the most eloquent addresses he ever heard him deliver on this subject, came to a true conclusion when he declared that the true ground for the exclusion of the Jews was a religious ground. Away, then, with all the arguments by which it was sought to prove, that the Jews were not good citizens and not entitled to consideration on social grounds. No doubt they were among the most peaceful subjects of Her Majesty, and were entitled to confidence and respect in their secular and social relations. But there were other and more important, considerations which should not be lost sight of when they were discussing a measure which must vitally affect the character of the Legislature. What was the highest title of Her Majesty? That She owed Her Throne by the grace of God, and that She was the defender of the Faith. The highest act which the nation could perform, the coronation of the Sovereign, was a religious ceremony; and on that occasion the Queen promised to defend the Christian religion to the utmost of her power, and not to suffer any of the supports on which it rested to be undermined. Their Lordships had also been reminded that their proceedings were always inaugurated by a solemn invocation of a blessing on their deliberations in the name of the Divine Founder of our Faith. If, however, the measure before the House passed into a law, a most formidable step would be taken towards undermining the Christian character of the constitution. If any number of Jews should become Members of the Legislature, there was too much reason to fear that persons would be found to say, that the Christian prayers with which they commenced their deliberations offended the consciences of certain Members of either chamber, and ought therefore to be either wholly discontinued or altered to suit the opinions of those who disbelieved in our Saviour. Numerous inconveniences and dangers would result in every direction. A subscription list was lately opened, headed by an appeal to the "Christian sympathies" of the benevolent; but the use of the word "Christian" being objected to as hurtful to the feelings of the Jews, it was subsequently struck out to conciliate members of that persuasion. As straws thrown up showed how the wind
1780
blew, so this little incident betokened what might be the result of admitting to a Christian Legislature those who did not agree with its forms and observances. The supporters of this measure evinced a greater degree of confidence in the Jews than in the Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics were not allowed to hold certain offices in the State or the Universities— they could not present to benefices or advise the Crown as to ecclesiastical appointments; but the only one of these restrictions proposed to be enforced against the Jew was, that he should not hold certain offices under the Crown; but he might become Prime Minister, and in that capacity have to advise Her Majesty as to the appointment of the bishops and pastors of the Established Church; he might also become a Privy Councillor, having a voice in deciding most important questions of Christian doctrine. The other evening the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) had ridiculed with inimitable power a Bill which had been brought in by the Lord Chief Justice, because the Convocation would not be a lawful meeting assembled for a lawful purpose within the meaning of that Bill; but what would the noble and learned Lord have said, if he were an opponent of the present measure, to an enactment by which a Jew, as a Member of the Privy Council, might become a judge of Christian doctrine? It was equally amusing and instructive to reflect upon the various modes by which the advocates of this measure had endeavoured at different periods to pass it through Parliament. The noble and learned Lord who had spoken last, talked of the inconsistency of the opponents of the Bill; but in what respect bad its friends been consistent with themselves, except, indeed, in their uniform aim to overturn the Christian character of the Legislature? In 1847, their proposal was coupled with the condition that the Jew on admission to the Legislature should be required solemnly to disclaim and abjure any intention to disturb or weaken the Established Church and the Protestant constitution of this country. This safeguard was, however, omitted from the present Bill. The measures introduced in 1849 and in 1853 also contained provisions dissimilar from those in the Bill now before their Lordships. Religious liberty was closely associated with the prosperity of this country; but there were those who perverted that principle with a view to a separation between Church and State. The House should be

1781
on its guard against the ulterior objects of such men. He entreated their Lordships not to sanction a measure which would undermine one of the most vital elements of the constitution, and compromise the Christian character of the Legislature.
LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, he desired, in consequence of the reference which had been made to the country in which he had passed so largo a portion of his life, to offer a few observations upon the question before the House. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), with that sagacity and love of justice which distinguished him in so remarkable a manner, had brought to their Lordships' recollection that which was perfectly correct, namely, that in Turkey, where the great national reform that was now going on had occupied so much attention in this country, and indeed throughout the whole of Europe, for so many years, there was nothing more striking than to find that the just effects of representations which he had had the honour to make on behalf of this country, had often been checked by the knowledge possessed by the Government of Turkey of our policy upon the question now before the House—a question with regard to which, notwithstanding the progress we had made of late years, we were still in the rear of our neighbours. There was no doubt that the course pursued by this country with regard to the admission of the Jews into the Legislature had been the subject of remark in Turkey on occasions when he had had to press the immense importance of setting aside those religious differences which had so much retarded the progress of improvement in that country; and nothing would have afforded him greater pleasure than to have been able to show that we in this country had set aside ancient prejudices, which we had unfortunately so long cherished. He should have felt that he was wanting in his duty if he had not taken that opportunity of hearing witness in emphatic language to the truth, equally applicable in that House or elsewhere, of these great principles, which it had always been his duty to impress upon those with whom he had been | connected. With respect to the question so far as it related to this country, it was wholly unnecessary for him to go over ground which had been traversed with such consummate ability by the two noble and learned Lords. He deemed himself extremely fortunate to have been present at a debate which, if he mistook not, would
1782
long be remembered in the annals of the country. The contrast between the long experience and great talents of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), as opposed to the greater youthfulness of the noble and learned Lord who occupied the woolsack, had reminded him (Lord Stratford) of a contest which he had read of in his younger days between two illustrious professors of an art, for which this country was since as renowned as the nations of antiquity—a contest between a veteran professor of the pugilistic art and a young competitor who was just entering it with all the strength and vivacity of youth. Hut he should be very sorry if the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) who had so riveted their attention should, after having given, if he might say so, a knock down blow to the prejudices which had so long existed on this subject, be disposed to say —
"Hic victor cæstus artemque repono."
He hoped, on the contrary, their Lordships might long have the advantage of the noble and learned Lord's extraordinary powers, and that he (Lord Stratford) might long live to witness the effects of his wisdom upon their deliberations. He wished to say that the ground upon which he thought this question turned was a very simple one, and was, in fact, that principle which had been so well defined by the noble and learned Lord — he meant the great principle that every man was entitled to every political privilege our institutions afforded, unless there were something prohibitory, something inherent in his condition, which made it necessary to exercise that power which the State undoubtedly possessed of making an exception in his particular case. He was perfectly at a loss to understand what there was in the case of the Jew to justify such an exception. The noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) had done nothing but justice to the character of the Jew, in the history of some of their most distinguished men; but a distinction had been drawn by the noble and learned Lord between the body of the Jews and certain distinguished gentlemen whom he considered as their representatives, not upon any just ground. It was not a question of rights derived from the accomplishments or qualities belonging to the higher orders among them, but a question of rights which belonged to individuals in the lowest position; and if it were true that there was nothing to disqualify the Jews from filling the offices of the magistracy, in his opinion

1783
they were equally able to be returned for constituencies as any other person. He (Lord Stratford de Redcliffe) should be sorry to do anything to diminish the influence of Christianity in the country; that would be a result equally unfortunate to the country and disparaging to the House; but he did not in his conscience believe that there was anything in this proposal which could lead to any other but a satisfactory conclusion. He could not help stating with a satisfaction which he could hardly find words to express, that in a country whore despotism was established, as in Turkey, and where the will of the Sovereign was supreme, be had found, during a connection of a long series of years, a liberality of opinion and a generosity of disposition which had entitled him to speak with confidence of that country. What the Sovereign had himself done by his proclamations, by his love for national interests, by his humanity, and his desire for conciliation, deserved the fullest consideration at the hands of all who desired the welfare of that country. But he would remind their Lordships that so long as the results of negotiation remained on paper only, important as they might be to the interests not only of Turkey, but of humanity itself, they would want their proper consummation. A great deal must depend upon the advice of the Ministers who were on the spot; but a great deal must likewise depend upon the attention which Europe at large continued to apply to the subject, and more especially upon the attention which might be given to it by those who presided over the councils of Her Majesty. He should vote against the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he had always voted against the admission of Jews into Parliament, and he should do so now. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) had asked, why, if they admitted a few Jews into Parliament, Parliament would be less a Christian assembly than the country which they represented in which there were numerous Jews. Now, with the greatest deference to his noble and learned Friend, the reason why, though there were Jews in this country, it was still a Christian country, was, that we had a Christian Parliament, a Christian Sovereign, and all our high offices of State were filled by Christians. It had been urged as an argument in favour of the Bill that England had formerly a Protestant Parliament, that Roman Catholics had
1784
been admitted into it, and that now it was no longer a Protestant Parliament, and yet no great harm had resulted from it—ergo, no great harm would result from the admission of Jews into Parliament. It was unnecessary to remark upon the broad distinction existing between Roman Catholics and Jews: Roman Catholics professed the same belief as Protestants, while the Jews were the antagonists of Christianity. But it was said, what harm could result from the admission of a few Jews, as far as the Christianity of the House of Lords or the House of Commons was concerned? He would reply it was not so much the mischief which the Jews so admitted could themselves do as the moral effect upon the country of their admission that was to be deprecated. And even the power of doing mischief which that admission would confer upon them was very much underrated. Let their Lordships consider the case of Baron Rothschild, the Jewish representative of the City of London. Were the majority of the electors of the city Jews? By no means. They were Christians; but, through some cause or other, they bad elected not merely once, or twice, or thrice, but year after year, a Jew to represent them in Parliament. He would, therefore, beseech their Lordships not to underrate the importance of the question—what mischief could a few Jews do in Parliament? A noble Earl (Earl Grey) had the other evening advised their Lordships not to put themselves in collision with the House of Commons, whether they were right or wrong. The unconstitutional nature of that doctrine had been most ably treated by the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor); but one portion of it had not been met. It had been said that danger was to be apprehended from their Lordships' House coming into collision with the House of Commons supported by the people of this country; and that statement had been repeated; but he maintained that the House of Commons was not supported by the country. What conclusion was to be drawn from that? No doubt, the people of this country were apathetic on the subject of the admission of Jews into Parliament. But why were they apathetic? Because they trused to their Lordships to save the Christianity of the country intact. If the people of England thought that the House of Lords would be deterred by any consideration from doing its duty, petitions would fly in much quicker than they had done. He found that the total number of

1785
petitions in favour of the Bill was 50, and of signatures 2,793, while against the Bill 224 petitions, with 11,359 signatures had been presented. He, therefore, thought there was some reason for saying that the House of Commons was not supported by the people of the country in its determination to bring the Jew into Parliament. He would also refer to the speech of an hon. Gentleman in "another place"—a Gentleman of great talent, and possessing great means of acquiring knowledge on the subject (Mr. Bright) who had said that, compared with the zeal that was shown for the repeal of the church rales, a comparatively small number of people were anxious for the admission of Jews, into Parliament. But to return to the speech of the noble Earl to whom he had alluded. It continued with the exhortation to their Lordships—" Do not come into collision with the House of Commons; and also, do not bring the House of Commons into collision with the courts of law." It struck him when he heard those words that they should have been addressed to the House of Commons, and not to the House of Lords. But if the House of Commons ! put themselves in a false position, was that something that they ought to do, was that any reason why the House of Lords should be deterred from doing that which they considered needful for the country? He felt compelled to protest against such a doctrine, and should certainly give his vote in favour of the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), believing that in doing so he was not only maintaining one of the greatest principles of the British constitution, but also obeying the wishes and the feelings of the country at large.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDRRLEYsaid, he was unwilling that the debate should close before any Member on his side of the House had expressed his opinion. The party with which he was connected had for several years endeavoured to remove the obstacle to a Jew's admission into Parliament, and they looked upon this measure as the complement of the measures for the advancement of civil and religious liberty — the removal of the last disability from the statute book. The noble and learned Lord who commenced this discussion had put this question before the House as one of the highest principle, and said their Lordships would not be justified on any ground in agreeing to the Bill, because it would desecrate and
1786
unchristianize the Legislature. But what said the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) on the last occasion when this subject was before their Lordships? The noble Earl said that it was a question of principle; but that in practice they were to be guided, not by principle, but by expediency.
THE EARL OF DERBYexpressed his dissent.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in support of his assertion, quoted the following, as a report of the observations of the noble Earl on that occasion:—
"It is a question upon which we must act from principle, apart from all extraneous circumstances. I do not deny that there are times (and when they do occur they are much to be regretted) when the Legislature of this country may be disposed to sacrifice their own firm convictions, when great and fatal danger would attend an unflinching adherence to those convictions. That principle has been acted upon in former times, and it has guided the conduct of some of our most eminent statesmen. and amongst them the late Sir Robert Peel and the illustrious Duke of Wellington. I admit there are cases in which a sense of justice and right has been overborne by apprehended dangers from a persistence in our convictions; when there has been danger of collision between the two Houses of Parliament, of universal anarchy, of internal commotion, likely to ensue upon a determined adherence to our true opinion, then we have yielded. That feeling influenced the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel upon the occasion of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, when they acted, not according to what they considered to be right, but in consequence of the formidable dangers with which the country was threatened had a different course been pursued. I say the same thing of your Lordships in the case of the Reform Bill, and of a large portion of your Lordships on the question of the abolition of the corn laws. Upon those occasions your Lordships gave up your opinions, which you considered to be abstractedly right, in consequence of the formidable dangers which were threatened by your persisting in acting upon them. But I venture to ask your Lordships what is the formidable danger or inconvenience which my noble Friend expects will follow upon a persistence of this House in their repeatedly expressed views upon the question." [3 Hansard, cxlvi. 1235.]
Such was the language of the noble Earl upon that occasion, and such was the chivalry which he inculcated. The claims of the Jews were to be resisted if they were weak; they were to be conceded if they were strong. Because the Jews, therefore, were good and peaceable subjects, loyal to the Queen and obedient to the laws, their just demands were to be resisted; but if Baron Rothschild were like Daniel O'Connell, if the city of London were like the county of Clare, and if there were danger of an insurrection, the noble

1787
Earl would advise their Lordships at once to yield. The penalty, then, which was imposed upon those who were among the best subjects of Her Majesty, because they were weak, was to be excluded from that which, if they were powerful, they would easily obtain. They were peaceable or duly conservative citizens. They might have been turbulent democratic revolutionists. But there was no great Association in these days to urge their claims, as in the agitation for Catholic emancipation; no Birmingham Political Union, as in the time of the Reform Bill; there was no Anti-Corn-Law League, as in the struggle for the repeal of the Corn Laws; there was no organized machinery or appeal to popular prejudices, to influence the public mind or to exercise a pressure upon the Legislature. He asked their Lordships calmly to consider the position in which they were now placed; if it could be shown that there was danger and inconvenience in the course they were at present following, perhaps they might think it expedient to follow the advice which the noble Earl had before given them. It was now more than a quarter of a century since the other House of Parliament had declared its opinion that the time had come when all disabilities should be removed from our Jewish fellow-subjects. From that time to this the question had been repeatedly brought before them, and by continued and increasing majorities that opinion had been confirmed. For ten years, the citizens of London, the first constituency in the country—a constituency on whom the noble Earl proposed to confer the right of electing councillors for India—had thought fit to choose one of their own fellow-citizens of the Jewish persuasion to represent them in Parliament. Five times had that hon. Gentleman been elected—for ten years he had been entitled to sit in Parliament—and the answer to the noble Duke, who said that the people of England were apathetic as to the admission of the Jews to Parliament, was that for thirty years the representatives of the people had gone on expressing a decided opinion in their behalf, and that for ten years the citizens of London had continued to return a Jew to represent them. These were significant and important signs of the times; but were there no other indications at the present moment, similar to those which had preceded concessions on similar occasions? Had we not seen converts to his side of
1788
the question from day to day; and did not the noble Earl himself experience the inconvenience of open questions and a divided Cabinet on this question? Among the most distinguished advocates of the claims of the Jews at the present day was the noble Earl's Chancellor of the Exchequer. On one occasion, the noble Earl, speaking of the enormity of admitting Jews to Parliament, said, "Why, we might have a Jewish Chancellor of the Exchequer !" and now the noble Earl had for his Chancellor a Gentleman who never attempted to conceal, but rather gloried in the fact of his descent from a Jewish ancestry. Another Member of the Cabinet who supported the claims of the Jews was the noble Earl's own son (Lord Stanley), who inherited the talent and ability of his father, and his father's earlier and better political opinions. The first law officer of the Crown (Sir F. Kelly) was also in favour of the admission of Jews to Parliament; and the fourth, and most recent, as well as one of the ablest converts, was Sir John Pakington, the noble Earl's First Lord of the Admiralty. That right hon. Gentleman felt to strongly the danger of continuing to refuse this concession to the Jews, that he last year gave notice, that if all other constitutional means failed of introducing the Jews into Parliament, he would himself move that the Act of William IV., which enabled the courts of law to accept a declaration instead of an oath, should be applied to Parliament, A similar measure was in contemplation now; and, should their Lordships decide upon rejecting these claims, the matter would be brought immediately to an issue, and it could not be long before the other House of Parliament would be brought into collision with the courts of law and the House itself. For these reasons, he thought that the danger was not imaginary, and the inconvenience was not slight, of continuing to pursue the course that had hitherto been persevered in. This House bad fulfilled one of its most important functions, it had delayed the passing of the measure for thirty years—it had prevented precipitate legislation—it had given time to calm consideration—it could not hope to present an eternal barrier against such repeated manifestations of the wish of the people; and he implored their Lordships, while there was yet time, and while they could concede with grace, to yield to the just claims of the Jew, for thus would they best maintain in the eyes of the

1789
public that character and position which, fur the best interests of the country, it was so desirable that they should ever maintain.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNON: My Lords, it has seldom been my lot to listen to a more unfair and unconstitutional speech than that which has been just addressed to you. It entirely loses sight of the moral principle and the high and important grounds on which many of your Lordships persist in opposing the measure for admitting the Jews to seats in Parliament. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) has to a certain extent followed the noble Earl (Earl Grey), who addressed you a few nights ago upon this subject, because he tells your Lordships that, although there may be no immediate danger from the rejection of the Bill, still the time is not distant when danger may threaten you; and he endeavoured, in a manner which was neither fair nor, as I think, constitutional, to play upon the personal fears and apprehensions of your Lordships. It is not, however, upon this House that the responsibility will rest, if the other House of Parliament think proper to commit an illegal act, and place themselves in collision with the courts of law. In considering this question there is one point of which I can never lose sight, and which is to my mind, an unanswerable argument against this proposition. Each day your Lordships commence your proceedings with prayer, and supplicate a blessing upon your deliberations in the name and through the mediation of the Saviour of mankind, the founder of our faith, whom the Jews deny. Now, I would ask whether, if you repealed that portion of the law which requires every Member of the Legislature to profess himself a Christian, you will not render your prayers a farce, a solemn mockery, and an insult to the Supreme Being. As to the argument that this measure has repeatedly passed the House of Commons, it has no weight with me. It has been well observed by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, and who in such an able manner has moved the rejection of this clause, that if, after the other House of Parliament have knocked for three or four years at your doors with a particular measure, you are therefore to be obliged to pass it, whatever may be your individual opinions with regard to the merits of the Bill, then this House will become neither more nor less than the registry of the
1790
acts of the other House of Parliament. I trust that the day is far distant when such a state of things will come to pass. I have long made up my own mind on this question; and if I have ever entertained doubts, those doubts have all been removed by the masterly speech of the noble and learned Lord, and the able address with which we have been favoured by the noble Duke. I have often expressed the opinion which I still entertain, that in voting for this Amendment I am voting in accordance with the opinion of by far the larger portion of the population of the United Kingdom. I believe that if the population were canvassed, there would he a majority of twenty to one adverse to this measure, because they consider that the admission of the Jews to Parliament would tend to the overthrow of the foundations of the Christian faith, and to our ceasing to be a Christian community and a Christian nation. I trust your Lordships will, by a large majority, reject this clause.
EARL GRANVILLE EARL GRANVILLE, who rose amid cries for a division, said, he regretted to find that their Lordships would not listen to argument in a case where it was so desirable to have it. He was happy, however, to be able to inform them that he should not occupy their attention for more than a few minutes. The Lord Chancellor had complained how painful it was to him to have to go over ground which had been before so often trodden. If such was the feeling of the noble and learned Lord, the champion of the opposition to the emancipation of the Jews—for although this was the first time he had had an opportunity of addressing the House on the subject, hitherto he had addressed the other House in the face of constantly-increasing majorities, and might naturally have derived some advantage from the feeling that the majority of his present audience had on former occasions been supporters of his views; but if such were the feelings of the noble and learned Lord, how much more painful must it be to those who had so often addressed their Lordships on the subject. But even if this were not so, and this was a perfectly new question, he thought that the exhaustive speech of the noble and learned Lord who spoke second in the debate (Lord Lyndhurst) must have put the opponents of the clause completely out of court, and convinced their Lordships that both justice and policy required them to adopt it. He wished, however, to say one or two words with regard to the posi-

1791
tion of the House. Very contrary opinions had been laid down that evening as to the constitutional duty of this House when proceeding in a course which was likely to lead to a difference between it and the other House. He believed the doctrine had been very clearly and correctly laid down in the extract from the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) which had been read to the House by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley). No doubt there were very many occasions when a resistance on the part of their Lordships to the decisions of the other House was of the greatest possible advantage to the country; more especially on occasions where the other House was backed up by the almost unanimous cry of the country. | He believed that if in such a moment of excitement their Lordships had the moral courage to interpose a delay, they gave the other House and the country the advantage of reconsideration. He thought, however, it would be difficult and dangerous to the House if they were for a length of time to go on putting themselves in opposition to the wishes, not of one Parliament, but of successive Parliaments coming fresh from their constituents. It was said the House of Commons were supported in this matter by the people; if they were not, it was a proof that they required the sweeping Reform Bill advocated by the first law officer of the Crown, himself a supporter of the Jewish claims. he thought that if at any time they found it necessary to place their votes in opposition to the other House, they should take the greatest care that the grounds on which they relied were perfectly sound. They had that night heard no arguments about the danger or political inconvenience of the admission of the Jews. The noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) who spoke first, entirely dismissed the idea that the Jews were not excellent citizens; the solo ground of opposition was the general character of Christianity pervading our institutions, and that to admit the Jews would unchristianize the Legislature. The noble and learned Lord who had charge of the Bill had put a question which had been put before, and which was utterly unanswered. He asked if the nation was Christian, if the courts of law were Christian, if the colonies were Christian, although the Jews could act in all capacities in them, how could it happen that their admission to Parliament would at once unchristianize the Legislature? He believed the argument as to unchristianizing the
1792
Legislature was, as the noble and learned Lord had characterized it, monstrous and untenable. He did not wish to deal in any round or sounding phrase—he only wished to point out that they could not expect to stand well with the country if this was the only argument they relied on. The noble Duke who spoke second (the Duke of Rutland) told them this was a Christian country, because it had a Christian Sovereign, a Christian Legislature, and all the high offices filled by Christians. He would like to ask the President of the Board of Control whether he considered that the 180,000,000 of our Indian fellow-subjects who were under a Christian Sovereign, with a Christian legislature, and the high offices filled by Christians, were for that reason a Christian nation? His noble Friend near him had shown that it was no theoretical danger which threatened us in the position in which affairs were now placed, and he thought they had a right to expect from the noble Earl at the head of the Government that he should clearly point out the course and manner in which he thought this measure was hereafter to be dealt with, He hoped their Lordships would not be led away by any flattering recommendation to stand on their independence. Independent he hoped they would always be, but he also hoped they would act upon the prudent and judicious compromise which the noble and learned Lord had recommended. In the meantime he thought it would be for the advantage of the House and country if the noble Earl would state his views.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid, it was remarkable that of all those right rev. Prelates to whom their Lordships were wont to look for lessons of improvement, instruction, and guidance, not one of them had addressed a word to their Lordships about the morality or the immorality, the propriety or the impropriety, of admitting Jews to Parliament. Let it not he said that this measure would unchristianize the Legislature, or that their prayers would become a farce if a Jew were admitted to the House, without some Member of the right rev. Bench rising to give his opinion on the question. For his part he would not allow his religion to he guided by statesmanship, neither would he receive lessons on this subject from any Peer till he had heard from those who ought to instruct him and this House what was their opinion on the matter. For his own part he felt for the Jew, and he felt for every man who was excluded by his

1793
religious opinions from sharing in political privileges; and that feeling would widen and extend—day by day the nation would perceive more clearly the anomaly of excluding from the Legislature men who discharged every office for which they were eligible with propriety and efficiency. Though he might be excluded for the present, he felt that not only would the Jew become a Member of the other House of Parliament, but when the fulness of time should come he would be a Member of their Lordships' House. He believed the Jewish people were under peculiar guidance, as had been sung by the poet—
"By day along the astonish'd lands
The fiery pillar glided slow;
By night Arabia's crimson sands
Return'd the fiery column's glow."
Under the same guidance he believed the Jew would be brought to become a Member of their Lordships' House. He was sure that the Jews had been, and that they would be again, God's chosen people. Their Lordships might do as they would— they would act according to their own judgment—it was sufficient for him to have the honour of standing up and recording his protest against this attempt to exclude the Jew from his political privileges.
THE BISHOP OF CASHEL: My Lords, I rise to answer the appeal which has just been addressed to this Bench by the noble Lord. I wish to say that, in voting against the clause for admitting the Jews, I am actuated by no unkind feeling towards them. I love them, and have perhaps a greater regard for them than many of those who vote for their admission to seats in the Legislature. I feel, I hope, towards them in the same spirit as the Apostle, who said they were enemies for the Gospel's sake, but beloved for their father's sake. They are the children of Abraham, but they are degenerate children who walk not in the steps of their father. It was said by our Lord himself that Abraham "rejoiced to see his day, and he saw it and was glad;" but the degenerate children of Abraham, in the day of the Saviour's humiliation, cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!" and the Jews of the present day show themselves the true children of their fallen fathers, by blaspheming that holy name and speaking evil of Him whom Christians love. I cannot, therefore, agree that they ought to be admitted to the Houses of Parliament. We have the authority of the beloved Apostle of the Lord,—" If there come any unto
1794
you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed." There is another reason why I cannot do so. It was declared from the earliest times, as the distinguishing character of the Jews,—" The people shall dwell alone, and they shall not be reckoned among the nations." They well stand among the nations of the earth as a separate people. I agree with the noble Lord that the Jews will again become the people of God; but that will not be till they, being converted to the faith of Christ, are brought to say,—" Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord." Then the prophecy will be fulfilled,—" The men of other nations will lay hold upon the skirts of him that is a Jew, and will say. We will go with you, for we sec that God is with you." That will be at the time to which the noble Marquess refers—the time of the conversion and restoration of Israel and Judah; but then the Jew will not seek to come to you; but those among you that shall be believers in the Lord Jesus will desire to join yourselves to the Jew, and have a share in that kingdom which shall be established on the throne of David. There is yet another reason for not consenting to that clause which shall admit them into Parliament. I believe that a good Jew would not come into this House. I believe so because, on that memorable occasion when their fathers cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him," it is written that they went not into the Roman Judgment Hall lost they should be defiled, but that they might eat the pass-over; but Pilate went out unto them. So I believe that a good, honest, conscientious Jew would not enter into your Lordships' House or the other House of Parliament. I have no doubt that the mere money-changing, money-brokering Jew would come in; but, to admit such, I am not willing to be a party to withdrawing the profession of the Christian faith. It is a remarkable fact that not a single petition has come from the Jews themselves, asking for admission to seats in Parliament. As the noble Marquess has called upon the right reverend Bench for an opinion on this question, I have thought it my duty to say these few words, and I thank the House for the patience with which it has heard me.
On Question, "Whether the said Clause shall stand part of the Bill?" their Lordships divided;—Contents 80; Not-Con-tents 119: Majority 39.

CONTENTS.

Cleveland, D.

Chaworth L.(E. Meath.)

Devonshire, D.

Chesham, L.

Newcastle, D.

Clandeboye, L.(L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

Norfolk, D.

Somerset, D.

Congleton, L.

Wellington, D.

Cranworth, L.

Anglesey, M.

Dacre, L.

Breadalbane, M.

Dartey, L. (L.Cremorne)

Lansdowne, M.

Townshend, M.

De Mauley, L.

Westminster, M.

Denman, L.

De Tabley, L.

Abingdon, E.

Ebury, L.

Airlie, E.

Foley, L. [Teller.]

Albemarle, E.

Glenelg, L.

Carlisle, E.

Hatherton, L.

Clarendon, E.

Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

Cowper, E.

Ducie, E.

Lyndhurst, L.

Durham, E.

Macaulay, L.

Essex, E.

Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Fitzwilliam, E.

Fortescue, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Granville, E.

Grey, E.

Mostyn, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene

Minto, E.

Munster, E.

Overstone, L.

St. Germans, E.

Petre, L.

Spencer, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough)[Teller.]

Zetland, E.

Portman, L.

Eversley, V.

Rivers L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore)

Saye and Sele, L.

Sefton. L.(E. Sefton)

Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

Skene, L.(E. fife)

Sydney, V.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Carlisle Bp.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hereford Bp.

Stewart of Steward's

St. David s Bp.

Court, L. (M. Londonderry.)

Ashburton, L.

Audley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Belper, L.

Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll).

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Truro. L.

Camoys, L.

Wensleydale, L.

Campbell, L.

Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, Archbp.

Bradford, E.

Chelmsford, L.(L. Chancellor.)

Brooke, and Warwick,

E.

Cadogan, E.

Beaufort, D.

Cardigan, E.

Buckingham and Chandos, D

Carnarvon, E.

Cawdor, E.

Manchester D

Chesterfield, E.

Maryborough, D.

Dartmouth, E

Northumberland, D.

De La Warr, E.

Rutland, D.

Denbigh, E.

Abercorn, M.

Derby, E.

Bath, M. [Teller.]

Desert, E.

Cholmondeley, M.

Doncaster, E. (D. of Buccleugh & Queensberry.

Exeter, M.

Salisbury, M.

Effingham, E.

Amherst, E,

Ellenborough, E.

Bantry, E.

Ferrers, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.

Belmore, E.

1796

Hardwicke, E.

Bateman, L.

Harrington, E.

Berners, L.

Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire,)

Blayney, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Howe, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Lanesborough, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Luean, E.

Castlemaine, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Churchill, L.

Mayo, E.

Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

Nelson, E.

Orkney, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.

Pomfret, E.

Romney, E.

Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.

Sandwich, E.

Seafield, E.

Clinton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Colchester, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Colville of Culcross, L.[Teller]

Stamford and Warrington, E.

Crewe, L.

Strathmore, E.

Crofton, L.

Talbot, E.

De Ros, L.

Verulam, E.

Digby, L.

Wilton, E.

Dinevor, L.

Bolingbroke and St. John. V.

Downes, L.

Feversham, L.

Combermere, V.

Forester, L.

De Vesci, V.

Grantley, L.

Doneraile, V.

Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

Dungannon, V.

Falmouth, V.

Kenyon, L

Hardinge, V.

Lovel and Holland, L.(E. Egmont.)

Hill, V.

Lifford, V.

Polwarth, L.

Melville, V.

Rayleigh, L.

St. Vincent, V.

Redesdale, L.

Sandys, L.

Bangor, Bp.

Scarsdale, L.

Cashel, &c. Bp.

Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield)

Chichester, Bp.

Exeter, Bp.

Sondes, L.

Llandaff Bp.

Southampton, L.

Oxford Bp.

Templemore, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Tenterden, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Teynham, L.

St. Asaph, Bp.

Walsingham, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Willoughby de Broke,

Abinger, L.

L.

Bagot, L.

Wynford, L.

Amendment agreed to; Clause struck out.
Clause 6 (Persons professing the Jewish Religion to make declaration in certain Cases).
THE LORD CHANCELLORstated his intention to reserve his opinion upon this clause until the bringing up of the report.
After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL,
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had no wish to throw any unnecessary difficulties in the way of the measure as it now stood. If his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) saw any objection to the principle contained in the present clause, he would state it on the bringing up of the Report.
Clause agreed to. Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 struck out.
Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
House adjourned at a quarter-before Ten o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.