Sitting of 1 July 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Government of New Caledonia; Judgments (Ireland) Act Amendment; Admiralty Court; Superannuation Law Amendment.
2o Chelsea Bridge Act Amendment; Bishops' Trusts Substitution.
3o, New General Post Office (Edinburgh).

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 13.
  MR. BOUVERIEreminded the Committee that on Tuesday last he had moved an Amendment to the clause, that after the words "officer thereof" there should be added the words "or any body corporate or public body, or any part thereof," and he would now again move it. The effect of the Amendment would be to take away from the town council of Edinburgh, or any other public body, the right of appointing University professors.
  MR. E. ELLICEsaid, he did not think that any sufficient ground had been alleged for their taking the strong step of depriving the Town Council of Edinburgh of the right of nomination they had hitherto exercised in that matter. They had, as far as he could learn, used the right in a manner which had given rise to no complaint on the part of the public. He was aware, however, that the present practice was open to the objection that a Town Council was not the fittest body in the world to which that patronage could be committed; and, after having given to the subject the best consideration in his power, he had arrived at the conclusion that the best thing they could then do would be to adopt an intermediate course by which they would partially recognize the claim of the Town Council to be continued in the possession of a right which they had hitherto probably used, while some partial restriction would be imposed on the unchecked power which they had

  731
  hitherto enjoyed upon that subject. He believed that the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir W. Dunbar) would enable them to effect a compromise of that description, and he trusted that that Amendment, or some similar proposal, would receive the sanction of the Committee.
  MR. BLACKsaid, he did not believe that the House had a right, under any circumstances, to deprive the Town Council of Edinburgh of the patronage they had exercised so long and in so judicious a manner. He should, however, be ready to give his best consideration to any compromise that might be proposed for the settlement of that question; but he would not offer an opinion upon any particular suggestion until it should have been brought under the notice of the Committee.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that the proposal he had made was one of a general character, but it would, no doubt, chiefly effect the patronage of the Corporation of Edinburgh; but it would also have the effect of abrogating that small amount of patronage which was possessed in the University of Aberdeen by the Town Council and by the Synod of that city. He was ready to acknowledge that, as regarded the patronage of the Town Council of Edinburgh, the proposal put on the paper by the hon. Member for the Wigton Burghs, possessed some advantage over that he had himself submitted to the Committee, inasmuch as it would be much less sweeping in its operation. In the abstract he preferred his own Amendment, but for the sake of peace and in order to conciliate his hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, he should not be indisposed to substitute for it the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. He should add that he thought the Committee, in any measure they might adopt, ought not to have the patronage of the Town Council and of the Synod of Aberdeen restricted, while they interfered with similar patronage in Edinburgh.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he should enter his protest against the abolition of a patronage which had existed for so long a time, unless it could be proved that from the manner in which it had been applied, or from some other cause, it had failed in securing the objects for which it had been instituted. As far as he could judge, there had been no such failure in that case; and he did not see why any change should be made in the matter.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, be thought it would be unwise and unjust on the part of the Committee to adopt the sweeping proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). There were two public bodies in Edinburgh which exercised patronage of that description, and which manifestly ought not to be deprived of the right. He alluded to the Faculty of Advocates, which virtually, by means of their recommendation to the Town Council, nominated the Professor of Law, and the Writers to the Signet who nominated the Professor of Conveyancing. It was easy to see that these two bodies were better qualified to make a proper choice in those cases than any University Council. He was not indisposed to be a party to some compromise upon that subject; but he should offer his most strenuous opposition to the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was somewhat unwilling to take any part in that discussion, which seemed to have originated in a desire on the part of the representatives of the various parties into which Scotland was divided upon this subject, to arrive at a settlement of the question by means of a compromise, which they stated all consider more or less satisfactory. If they could succeed in that point, he should be most happy to give his assent to any suggestion for carrying into effect their wishes. He was anxious, however, to observe that the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock was clearly open to the objection which had been made to it by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop). It should be observed that the Bill as it stood dealt with no large patronage, except that which had hitherto been exercised by the Senatus Academicus, or some portion of their body, and that it left all their patronage untouched. He understood that neither his right hon. Friend nor any other Member of the Committee wished to interfere with what was called private patronage—that was to say, the right of presentation to chairs vested in individuals who represented the founders. The right so acquired was considered too sacred to be abolished. But the Amendment of his right hon. Friend would invade rights of a similar kind, although they were vested not in individuals, but in corporate bodies. For example, in one of the cases to which his hon. and learned Friend

  733
  the Member for Greenock had referred, the Writers to the Signet in Edinburgh nominated to the Professorship of Conveyancing in the University of that city, and members of their body, had contributed funds for that endowment; so that it would manifestly be unfair to deprive them of that patronage. He could not, therefore, support the proposal of his right hon. Friend; and with regard to the patronage exercised by a corporation of Edinburgh, he would only say that he would not then enter into that subject, because it had not yet been brought formally under the consideration of the Committee.
  MR. ELLICEsaid, he was much gratified with the statement of the Lord Advocate. In these days people seemed to aim too much at merely Utopian perfection. If his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock could prove that any of these bodies had abused the power which had been vested in them, he should willingly join him in any attempt to remedy the evil. He would go further, and say, that if he were then asked for the first time to vest that patronage in corporate bodies, he should most probably refuse his assent to such a proposal. But as it had not been shown that any abuse had arisen in that case, he was not prepared to deprive men of a privilege which they had enjoyed from remote times, and which they had exercised to the general satisfaction of their fellow-countrymen. He was very happy to find that the Lord Advocate was prepared to adhere to the principle laid down in the Bill; and he would ask his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock to consider the position in which they were then placed. They were making a great experiment for the improvement of education in Scotland. He entirely approved of that experiment; but he thought it was desirable that, in carrying it out, they should conciliate as many interests as they could, consistently with the attainment of the object which they had in view.
  MR. FINLAYsaid, that the Town Council of Edinburgh were not the founders of those professorships. The fact was, that they were merely trustees for royal grants given in the time of James VI. They could not, therefore, be at all placed in the sumo category with private individuals who had given, or whose ancestors had given, their own money for the purpose of creating educational endowments. Then, again, as regarded the mode in which the
  734
  patronage had been exercised by the Town Councils, he entirely differed from those gentlemen who had spoken upon that subject in terms of such unqualified approval. He was prepared to maintain, that in many cases that patronage had been exercised in a manner which had given very great dissatisfaction; and that the public felt no confidence in the ability of those to whom that trust was committed to appoint the fittest men. He did not mean to say that all the appointments were bad; but he believed that many of them were open to great objection; and he should, therefore, be very sorry to see that patronage continued in the Town Council of Edinburgh.
  MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, that he too could not admit that the Town Council of Edinburgh had never abused that patronage; but he believed that that question was not then formally before the Committee.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that after what had fallen from the Lord Advocate and from his hon. Friends around him, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on his Amendment. He should say, however, that he drew a broad distinction between the rights of private patronage and of patronage vested in a public body such as the Town Council of Edinburgh. Private individuals had an absolute right in such a case, and could use it as they might please without a responsibility to any parties. But corporations, on the contrary, were mere trustees acting in behalf of the public, to whom they were responsible for the mode in which they discharged their duties; and the Legislature could transfer those duties to other hands at any moment they might think proper.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that when the members of a corporation were mere trustees for the public, Parliament might take away their right. But the case of the Writers to the Signet who nominated to the Professorship of Conveyancing in the University of Edinburgh was of a different character. That body had a special interest in the nominations to that professorship, which had been founded for the benefit of the profession to which they belonged.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he entirely approved of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock; but he could not of course prevent the right hon. Gentleman from withdrawing it. He did not see how they could take away the patronage in this case from any existing body, unless all the holders of

  735
  the privilege, including the Corporation of Edinburgh, were to be regarded as mere trustees for the public.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR W. DUNBAR SIR W. DUNBAR moved the following Amendment to the clause:—
  "Clause 13, line 15, at the end insert, 'Provided always, that before exercising such right of nomination or presentation to any professorship, the University Court shall, in each case, require the Senatus Academicus to examine the testimonials, if any, and report upon the qualifications of the candidate or candidates for such professorship; and the right of nomination or presentation to all professorships in the University of Edinburgh, in times past and presently exercised by the Town Council of Edinburgh, or by one or more of the members thereof, shall be transferred to, and in all time coming be exercised by, seven curators to be nominated as follows; within two months from and after the date at which this Act shall come into operation, as hereinafter provided, the Town Council shall nominate four curators, and the University Court of the said University shall nominate the remaining three curators: and the curators shall continue in office for three years; and in the event of vacancies in the office of curator occurring from death, resignation, or any other cause, the vacancies shall, as respects the four nominations made by the Town Council, be filled up by the Town Council, and shall, as respects the other nominations, be filled up by the University Court, for the remainder of the period unexpired.'"
  The hon. Baronet said, that that Amendment differed in two points from that which he had placed on the notice paper by his hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling). In the first place, he had omitted certain words by which no Member of the Town Council or of the University Court, except the Lord Provost could have been eligible as a curator; and in the next place he wished to limit the term of office by the curators to three years, instead of four years, as he had originally proposed. He brought forward that proposal as a compromise, to which he believed all the parties interested need have no hesitation in assenting. It would put an end to that degrading system of canvassing of which candidates at present complained. He thought that was a system which it was impossible to defend. No one could defend a mode of proceeding under which appointments were bestowed by forty men, the great majority of whom were, to say the least of it, inferior in point of intellectual attainments, to those who solicited their support. He believed that the Amendment would further have the effect of removing that sectarian bias which was supposed by many persons to operate to some extent in the selection of
  736
  candidates. It might be satisfactory to the Committee to know, that the proposal was in principle the same as one which had been suggested some five or six years ago by the late Sir William Hamilton. He trusted that it would then meet with the approval of the hon. Members for Edinburgh, and he could state that it had been framed with a sincere desire upon his part to do justice to the Town Council of the city which they represented.
  MR. COWANsaid, he could not help regretting that any attempt was made to interfere with the patronage at present exercised in the appointment to professorships in the Scotch Universities. He found that the Bill, as it had been framed by the Lord Advocate, sanctioned no such interference. There was a proverb in the North, that "a man ought not to put his foot farther than he could draw it in again." He thought it would be well if the lesson conveyed in that maxim had not been forgotten in the present instance, and if the main experiment proposed in the Bill were allowed to have a fair trial, without any attempt being made to alter the mode of making appointments to the Scotch University chairs, he could afford the House a most satisfactory illustration of the admirable manner in which the patronage in that case was at present exercised. Not later than Monday last a Professor of Chemistry had to be nominated in the University of Edinburgh; there were three or four candidates, and the one chosen—and chosen by 25 to 9—was Dr. Lyon Playfair, with whose professional reputation they were all acquainted. He had to state, however, that if it was the feeling of the Committee generally, that the compromise proposed by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the Wigton Burghs, ought to be adopted, he would not stand in the way of its acceptance.
  MR. STIRLINGsaid, that as he believed the Committee generally were disposed to adopt the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for the Wigton Burghs, he should not press his own Amendment.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, he believed there was nothing to justify their adoption of the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wigton Burghs; but as the Committee generally were manifestly of a different opinion, he should, under the compulsion thus placed upon him, cease to oppose it.
  MR. J. S. WORTLEYsaid, that the

  737
  arrangement proposed by the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, the Member for the Wigton Burghs, appeared to him to be one of a very admirable character. Before the proposal of the hon. Member for Perthshire was withdrawn, he should be glad to know what was the opinion of the other Member for Edinburgh upon the subject.
  MR. BLACKsaid, he wished to state the exact position in which he was placed. He felt lie was like a captain of a ship in a storm, and in danger of being totally submerged; and he was prepared to save as much as he could out of the wreck. He believed he could not obtain more than was proposed in the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, the Member for the Wigton Burghs.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BLACKmoved an Amendment, providing that it should not be competent to elect any member of the University Court to any office in the University while a member of the said Court, or within twelve months after he had ceased to be a member thereof. He thought some check ought be imposed of that description.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEcould not conceive the grounds on which such a proposal was made; and if there had been any reason for depriving the members of the Court from offices in the University during the time they remained in office, there was no reason to continue such restriction twelve months after they had ceased to be members of that Court. He should oppose the Motion.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEproposed to fill up the blank left for the names of the Commissioners with the following names:
  "His Grace JOHN GEORGE DOUGLAS CAMPBELL, Duke of Argyll; the Right Hon. GEORGE HAMILTON GORDON, Earl of Aberdeen; the Right Hon. WILLIAM DAVID MURRAY, Earl of Mansfield; the Right Hon. DUNCAN MCNEIL, Lord Justice General and Lord President of the Court of Session; Sir WILLIAM GIBSON CRAIG, of Riccarton, Baronet; JOHN INGLIS, Esquire, Lord Advocate for Scotland; JAMES CRAUFURD, Esquire, one of the Senators of the College of Justice; WILLIAM STIRLING, Esquire, of Keir; JAMES MONCREIFF, Esquire; ALEXANDER HASTIE, Esquire."
  LORD ELCHOexpressed a doubt whether the state of the Earl of Aberdeen's health would allow him to devote his attention to the subject. He thought it would be very desirable to have some man of in-
  738
  fluence among the Commissioners connected with the north of Scotland.
  MR. J. ELLICEsuggested, that the name of Earl Stanhope should be added to the list of Commissioners. Although his Lordship was an Englishman, he was much respected in Scotland, and he was sure it would give great satisfaction if he were made a Commissioner. He thought, however, it would be better to leave the whole question to the learned Earl, in whose judgment he had the most perfect confidence.
  COLONEL SYKESconcurred in that suggestion; but, at the same time, he might take the opportunity of stating that the name of Earl Stanhope would be received with the greatest respect in Aberdeen.
  Motion agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Commissioners' Power to Revise Endowments).
  MR. BOUVERIEmoved the insertion of a provision, that any such alterations should be in consonance with the main design of the founder.
  MR. ELLICEthought, that more power was conferred upon these Commissioners than the Home Secretary would be allowed to confer upon any similar body in England. Many of the endowments were very small; and if the Commissioners, in the exercise of the powers granted them by this Bill, choose to say that a larger sum of money than was now paid was necessary to enable the young men to subsist with dignity and comfort at college, the effect might be very detrimental. The small bursaries at these Colleges had been of great assistance to the sons of farmers, country ministers, and others, and if they were interfered with, great danger would be done.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, there were similar powers given in both the Oxford and Cambridge Acts; but, by subsequent clauses, restrictions were placed upon the arbitrary exercise of those powers; and that the Lord Advocate would insert similar restrictions in this Bill on bringing up the Report.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that as they had now come to the end of the powers of the Commissioners, this was the time at which he ought to submit to the notice of the Committee a point which a friendly interest in the welfare of the Scotch Universities induced him to believe was one of the greatest importance. As a person connected immediately with one of the English

  739
  Universities, he ought perhaps to make some apology for introducing himself on this question. He had felt great reluctance in interfering in matters which were sharply contested by persons belonging to, or interested in, the Scotch Universities, and had felt it to be rather his duty to abstain from entering on the discussion; and the only reason he did so now was, because lie felt a desire to place the Scotch Universities in a position of greater prominence than they had hitherto occupied. The proposition he had to submit to the favourable consideration of the right hon. Gentleman was this. The Lord Advocate had framed, with great care and ability, a Bill for improving the present condition of those Universities. He quite concurred in the general eulogium bestowed upon the Bill; but, at the same time, he wished to make a remark upon its effect—not in the way of hostile criticism, but as an instance of what he thought could not be denied—namely, that up to the present day there had been a great distinction between the value, in public estimation, of the degrees conferred by Scotch and English Universities. The principal functions of Scotch Universities had hitherto been to ascertain qualifications, and that of the Colleges to operate as teaching bodies. This Bill, undoubtedly, tended to obliterate what remained of the distinction between the Colleges and Universities. Up to the present time it was doubtful whether, in law, the University of Edinburgh was a University at all, and whether a proper view of it was not that it was a College which had acquired a prescriptive right to grant degrees. On the other hand as respected the University and the Colleges in Glasgow, the distinction could be undoubtedly traced in the records between those portions of the machinery which belonged to the functions of a University, and those which belonged to the functions of a College; while, of course, it was very marked as regarded St. Andrews. He did not allude to this as a mere matter of antiquarian interest, but as one in which he had for many years felt a deep interest; mid it being his duty, in common with other Members of the House, to take into consideration whatever tended to advance the interests of literature, and to produce high intellectual qualifications, he could not help asking himself whether by this Bill they were doing all they could do to produce a high class of education in the
  740
  Universities of Scotland. He owned frankly that he wanted to see the degrees conferred in Scotland—not merely on medicine, or any particular school dependent upon their excellence upon any favourable circumstances like those existing at Edinburgh—but the Scotch degrees generally, brought fully up to a par in point of dignity and social effect with the University degrees granted in England. The question was, how could they ensure that? He had a strong impression that that could not be done effectively so long as Scotland maintained four Universities. He fully admitted his belief that no other country upon the face of the earth, the population and natural advantages being equal, could show such an amount of intellectual power as could Scotland. At the same time, he did not think that it was possible it could maintain four Universities, and in his opinion, so long as it did, do what they could to encourage and foster them, it was not possible that the degrees which they granted could be brought up to the point he desired. The very effect of what they were doing now was to some degree adverse to the permanent elevation of Scotch degrees, for it was most essential that the examining and certifying power should be as distinct from the College machinery as possible. The more closely they united the College machinery and the University certifying power, upon which the value of the degree depended, the more they were trying to assimilate functions which were not alike in kind. Their object should be not to bring the University and the Colleges as nearly together as possible, but to keep them clearly and widely apart, in order that those who taught the young men might teach them subject to the supervision of an independent power which was not mixed up with the teaching machinery. With that view he was anxious that they should do everything for the ultimate consolidation of the four Universities of Scotland into one great national University; leaving them to rule themselves under that national University as a central body, at which they should be duly represented; but essentially maintaining the character of Colleges, and discharging the functions of Colleges in educating and teaching. He could not help thinking that, presuming a willingness was found to combine in this way, it was most desirable that such a combination should take place. There need be no cry of surrender to be made, for the Universities would be deprived of nothing

  741
  which was of the least value to them. What they required was the efficiency of their teaching staff; and the sending young men up to a central University for examination would be a positive advantage instead of a loss. The real question was, whether there was an anxiety among the population in the Universities of Scotland to attain this end. If they were disposed to enter into such an arrangement he should not understand that any serious difficulty in carrying into effect could arise. He Was sure it would be a great encouragement to the authorities that now existed, and which were to be set in action by this Bill, if they could do something in the measure which should indicate the view it entertained upon the matter. Perhaps that could best be effected by making some addition to the powers of the Commissioners. The first point would be to give them a new object. They might be directed to inquire into the desirability and practicability of constituting one national University in Scotland. That would make it the duty of the Commissioners to inquire and report to the Crown, and so far the direction would be a positive one. But beyond that he would authorize the Commissioners to proceed and take measures for the purpose—dependent upon—dependent upon consent of parties—of constituting such national University. If the present Universities, and the parties connected with them, were desirous to array themselves as Colleges under a central University, who would be the examining body in Scotland, then he said, let the Commissioners, with the consent of the Universities, and subject to the restrictions provided in the ordinances proceed to the accomplishment of this object. He was persuaded that it would be a great work for Scotland, and that the whole business of education and learning in Scotland would derive advantages greater than they had ever yet possessed. He had put the proposition into words in order to convey the clearest idea of it which he possibly could. It would be presumptuous in him to press the proposal on the Committee, unless it met with such support, especially from hon. Members for Scotland, as would induce Her Majesty's Government to give it a favourable consideration. It was therefore not his intention to challenge any discussion upon the question until he was backed up with greater authority than his own in the matter. The form of words which he thought best suited to carry out
  742
  this suggestion, and which might come in at the end of the powers of the Commissioners, would be,—
  "That the said Commissioners also have power to inquire and report to Her Majesty how far it would be practicable or expedient that one University should be constituted, to be called the National University of Scotland; and in case Her Majesty should be pleased at any time within the duration of the Commission to grant a charter for the creation of such University, it shall be lawful for the Scottish University named in this Act, or any of them, to surrender the powers of examinations for and granting degrees with or without the exception of theological degrees, and become Colleges, one or more as the case may be, of the said National University. And it shall be lawful for the Commissioners, by and with the consent of such Universities respectively, to make arrangements for such conversion into Colleges, mid for the representation of such Colleges in the governing body of the National University. No such surrender or consent to be valid unless such consent is signified in writing from the Chancellor of the repective Universities, nor except it shall be declared by him that such surrender and consent has the approval of the Senatus Academicus. And any such scheme for converting such University into one or more Colleges shall be subject, before taking final effect, to the same conditions and forms as other statutes and ordinances."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEacknowledged with great pleasure the exceedingly friendly spirit with which this Motion had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, and was glad to hear that his (the Lord Advocate's) humble efforts in the cause of high-class education in Scotland were considered entitled to have the praise of the right hon. Gentleman. What be had now said was worthy of great consideration; but it was obvious that the insertion of such a clause as this would involve a great Many considerations which, even if the Committee agreed upon the general principle, would so delay the proceedings, that it would have the effect of throwing over the Bill. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Motion for the present, and bring it up on the presentation of the Report.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that be had no objection to the adoption of that course; at the smile time, as he believed that many Iron. Members took a deep interest in the proposition, he hoped they would give some expression of opinion upon it.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that he had long entertained the same idea upon this question, which had been enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman, but he wished to reserve anything which he had to say on the subject until it was brought up on the Report.
  The Question having been put,
  MR. DUNLOPthought, that it was not right that so important a proposition should be passed over without discussion. He rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman, who was entitled to speak with so much authority upon this subject, had brought it forward. He had a strong opinion that if in England they had committed the error of almost sinking the University in the Colleges, in Ireland they had fallen into the opposite one of sinking the Colleges in the University. He thought the course which had been suggested of having the Motion printed and brought up on the Report was the proper one, and he hoped upon that occasion it would be fully discussed.
  After a few words from Mr. STUART, Mr. STIRLING, Colonel SYKES, and Mr. E. ELLICE, in commendation of the proposal,
  Amendment withdrawn, upon the understanding that it is to be brought up upon the reading of the Report.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEthen moved an Amendment.
  "In page 8, Clause 15, line 33, to leave out from 'provided' to 'approved,' in line 41, and insert and all statutes and ordinances to be made by the Commissioners shall be laid before Her Majesty in Council without any unnecessary delay, and be forthwith published in the Edinburgh Gazette; and it shall be lawful for every University, or any College thereof, and for the trustees or patron of any foundation, mortification, bursary; donation, or endowment, and for any other person directly affected by such statutes or ordinances within one month after such publication as aforesaid, to petition Her Majesty in Council, praying her Majesty to withhold her approbation of the whole or any part thereof, and every such petition shall be referred by Her Majesty by Order in Council for the consideration and advice of five Members of Her Privy Council, of whom two, not including the Lord President, shall be Members of the Judicial Committee, who shall be named in such order, and such five members may, if they think fit, admit any petitioner or petitioners to be heard by Counsel in support of his or their petition."
  His simple object was to introduce into the present Bill the same checks as were adopted in the Oxford and Cambridge Acts in respect to the statutes or ordinances. There were no such checks in the Bill as it stood. It merely provided that the ordinances should be laid before Her Majesty for Her sanction; but it made no provision for giving effect to the objections of those who considered themselves aggrieved by those ordinances. The learned Lord Advocate merely provided a check of observation, and not a check of action. He maintained
  744
  if those strong powers were to be given to the Commissioners, if they were to have the power of dealing with the revenues of the colleges, they should be subject to the same checks as were adopted in the English Bill. He hoped that no serious objections would be raised against his propositions.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, as the clause now stood, the Committee would observe that it contained two excellent checks upon the proceedings of the Commissioners. The one was the obligation of publishing all the ordinances in the Gazette, and at the same time the necessity of laying them then before both Houses of Parliament. The other was the fact that they should be approved of by Her Majesty's Council before they could be acted upon. The effect of the latter requisition would be to make the Government responsible for them. It appeared to him that those were in themselves most important checks, and were quite sufficient to prevent any abuses on the part of the Commissioners, who would thus be restrained from exceeding their powers, or of misunderstanding the nature of their functions. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the precedent of the Oxford and Cambridge Act, he should recollect the great practical difference that existed between the subject with which they were now dealing, and that which the Oxford and Cambridge Act legislated for. If the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to establish a Court of Appeal in Scotland itself, he thought such a course would have been a great deal more consistent and far more analogous with what was done in the Oxford and Cambridge Act than the Amendment he had just moved. To say the least, he was of opinion that the system of appeal suggested by the right hon. Gentleman was wholly unnecessary, and that it would only have the effect of adding to the Bill a piece of useless machinery.
  Mr. DUNLOPconcurred in the principle of the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kilmarnock. He could not understand when it was considered that the powers to be given to the Commissioners under this Bill were even greater than those allowed under the Oxford and Cambridge Act, and why those gentlemen should not be placed under the same checks as those enacted with regard to the English Universities.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, if his proposition did not meet with the approbation of the

  745
  Committee, he would be unwilling to detain them with further discussion of it. But he looked upon the so-called checks in the present Bill as a perfect farce; and for all the good they could effect, he thought they might be struck out of the measure altogether. What was the use of requiring those ordinances being placed before Parliament, if Parliament were not to have the power of saying that they ought not to be approved of?
  MR. C. BRUCEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten this important fact, that if those matters were to be laid before Parliament, it would be competent for any hon. Member to call attention to the particular subject; and it would be quite open to him, when those documents were laid upon the table, to object to them, or to call the attention of the House to the subject, or to make an address to the Crown in relation thereto.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, it appeared to him that the Bill contained no real or proper check over the Commissioners, and seeing no reason why these parties should be placed upon a different footing than those discharging similar functions under the Cambridge and Oxford Act, he should certainly support the Amendment of his right hon. Friend.
  MR. WALPOLEwas of opinion that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman would not, if even adopted, carry out the objects which be had in view. The clause, as it stood, he believed would operate most effectually in preventing any abuses that might arise. The Crown must be consulted as to their ordinances, before they could become valid; and Her Majesty would, of course, be advised by the members of Her Privy Council, upon any points of a doubtful or objectionable character.
  MR. GLADSTONEagreed in the few observations made by his right hon. Friend opposite upon this question. He could bear testimony to the fact of the provisions in the Oxford and Cambridge Act being framed with the greatest care and attention to the great interests involved. He was quite certain that those provisions had, up to the present time, worked exceedingly well, and that they imposed the most salutary checks upon all parties. The functionaries under the English Universities Act conducted all their proceedings with a full knowledge that they were working, as it were, in the open day, and that their acts could
  746
  be brought before the special Motion of Parliament. It was true that those ordinances in the Oxford and Cambridge Universities had never as yet been brought before that House; but he took that fact to be a strong proof of the great success of the particular provision in question. The object of imposing those cheques upon the Commissioners was not to require information of their proceedings for the purpose of making them the subject of any contested or noisy discussion; but, in fact, that all parties should be induced to work to the best of their powers in the spirit of conciliation. Well, then, the object of the provision was thus carried out, and therefore the House had never considered it necessary to interfere. The question now was, whether it was also desirable to reserve in this Bill the power of interference by both Houses in extreme cases. He must confess he thought, with great submission, that it was desirable. They were now creating by this Bill a body of functionaries in whom a large amount of confidence would be reposed, and who would have to deal with a multitude of questions involving a variety of interests; and, therefore, in his opinion, it was the more important to establish the cheques provided for by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment negatived.
  COLONEL SYKES COLONEL SYKES moved an Amendment, compelling the Commissioners to make compensation to professors whose offices shall be abolished.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it might be convenient for him at that time to state the alteration he proposed to make in this clause. As regarded the first subdivision of the clause, he proposed to insert certain words to make it clear that the Commissioners should have the power, in such cases as they deemed necessary, to have a double chair in any of the branches or faculties prescribed. After the word hereby, in line 13, he should propose the insertion of certain words, giving the Commissioners such a discretion, and also the power of determining when and where the said professors shall assemble. Then again, in line 26, after the word "professorships," he would propose the insertion of the words "making full compensation to the owner or owners of such for the loss of their emoluments by such abolition," &c.
  MR. ELLICEexpressed his opinion that the propositions of the learned Lord would not remedy the mischief, especially in the colleges in Aberdeen. In the Marischal College it had been found that the most useful course of education had been the joint education in mathematics and physics. The learned Lord's proposition would probably establish single professorships, whereas he thought there ought to be double professorships for each college.
  COLONEL SYKESthought the learned Lord Advocate was going rather too fast, and was putting the cart before the horse.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEthen moved an Amendment, namely, in line 26, after the word "professorships," to insert "making full compensation to the holders of such offices for all losses of emoluments," &c.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BAXTERproposed to omit the words from the clause "the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom." He said he had strong objections, on principle, to such charges being placed upon the Consolidated Fund. He objected to any body of Commissioners, however respectable they might be, having it in their power to dispose of the funds of the United Kingdom without the direct sanction and control of Parliament. He might be fold that everything that would be done by the Commissioners might be brought before Parliament, and that any hon. Member might even propose an address to the Crown, condemnatory of any objectionable act upon their part. He did not, however, think that this was at all a sufficient check or control to have over them; and, therefore, in order to test the House or the opinions of Members generally upon this subject, he would move the insertion of the words in place of "the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom,"—"to be granted from time to time out of monies granted by Parliament for the purpose."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would at once disarm all opposition by stating that it was not the intention of the Government to place the charge upon the Consolidated Fund.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19, (Retiring Allowances, &c., charged on the Consolidated Fund.)
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that as
  748
  the Government did not propose to charge these payments on the Consolidated Fund, he would move a clause providing that the sums necessary should be laid before Parliament and voted in the Estimates.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that under this clause the Commissioners were authorised to accept the resignation of Principals and Professors, and to give reasonable compensation in the shape of retiring allowances, to such persons for the loss of their emoluments by such resignation. What he wanted to have clearly understood was, whether the proceedings of the Commissioners would be entirely conditional on Parliament, subsequently to voting the money to carry out their measures, or whether the proceedings of the Commissioners would take effect first, and then the Government would come to Parliament and take a vote of money in consequence of those proceedings. As he understood the Bill in its present form, the proceedings of the Commissioners would take effect immediately, and then, when the Government afterwards came to Parliament to ask for a vote, those who wished to oppose it would he told that it is of no use to do so; that the Professors had resigned on the faith of the arrangements which the Commissioners had made as they were authorised to do, and that there was nothing remaining but for that House to vote the money necessary to carry out those retirements, and to pay the retiring pension which the Commissioners had awarded to the Professors who had resigned, for he wished it to be clearly understood that, when a Vote is proposed, that House would have full freedom to say "aye" or "no" to it; and that they would not be embarrassed in their decision with respect to it, by the proceedings of the Commissioners appointed to regulate these matters.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that it was quite clear that the Lords of the Treasury could not pay money until Parliament had voted it. Of course it is quite competent fur Parliament to deal with any Vote that came before them in the Estimates with perfect freedom. According to the previous provisions of the Bill, these and all other arrangements were to be laid before Parliament, and it would then be competent for Parliament to deal with them as they thought fit.
  MR. BAXTER MR. BAXTER moved the addition of the following proviso:—
  "Provided always that it shall not be lawful for the Commissioners to apply any part of such

  749
  money for the endowment of new Professors of Theology, or for additional endowment of existing Professors of Theology."
  He wished to take the sense of the House whether any of the public money should be expended in the endowment of theological chairs. He had considerable confidence in the Commissioners, yet he could not but see that out of ten seven were Churchmen, while three only represented the Dissenting and Nonconformist denomination of Scotland. Now, he spoke on behalf of two-thirds of the people of Scotland, who belonged to the Free Church, to the United Presbyterian Church, and to the Dissenting Churches, and he believed that they would strongly object to any portion of the money to be afterwards granted by Parliament being applied either to the additional endowment of the Professors of Theology already existing, or to the erection of additional chairs of such description. It is necessary that the gentlemen holding these chairs should be members of the Church of Scotland, and that they should take the test. Now, he held that that House, as representatives of the people, dealing with the money of the entire population of the United Kingdom, had no right to take any step which could influence Parliament in, at any future time, granting money for the further endowment of any particular religious denomination.
  MR. DALGLEISHseconded the Motion. He hoped that the House would support this Amendment, and prevent any portion of the public money being expended in the endowment of Theological Professors. The Free Church had now three Colleges, and thirteen Professors of Theology; the United Presbyterians had five Professors of Theology; the Independents had two Theological Professors of their own. While these bodies, possessing two-thirds of the population of Scotland, paid their Theological Professors out of their own pockets, he did not think that the Established Church ought to receive out of the public funds additional endowments for their Theological Professors.
  Amendment proposed,—
  At the end of the clause to add the words, "Provided, also, that it shall not be lawful for the Commissioners to apply any portion of such moneys for the endowment of new Professorships in Theology, or the additional endowment of existing Professorships in Theology."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he hardly thought that the hon. Gentlemen
  750
  who had moved and seconded the Amendment understood the necessary consequences of what they were doing; because, if the House inserted in this Bill an enactment to the effect that no portion of the public money voted by Parliament could, under any circumstances whatever, be applied either to the formation of new Professorships, or the improvement of existing Professorships in Theology; the legitimate and consistent course would be to direct the Commissioners so to remodel the Universities of Scotland, as there should not be in any one of them a Professor of Theology at all. Now, he (the Lord Advocate) could not consent to anything that led to such a consequence as that. He could not conceive anything more inconsistent with the nature and constitution of these institutions than to suppress that faculty which of all others was the most distinguishing feature of every University with which he was acquainted. Was there any of the ancient institutions of Europe which did not teach theology, not only as a faculty, but as the first faculty—the faculty of greatest dignity and importance? Was it not notorious that, as regarded the Universities of Scotland in particular, they were founded originally, mainly for the purpose of teaching theology, so that it would be subverting the primary objects for which they were founded if the faculty of theology were taken away. Such would be the necessary and legitimate consequence of the proposal which had been made; for, of course, when his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) proposed to tie up the hands of the Commissioners and Parliament from hereafter giving any money for the endowment of new professorships in that faculty, or in improving existing chairs, he must contemplate this, that the Commissioners might find in the course of their inquiries that some one or more of the theological chairs in the Universities were inadequately endowed? Were they, then, to go on keeping up that half professorship in the University, and would not the more consistent course be to say, "It is insufficiently endowed, and therefore let it be suppressed." The two propositions appeared to depend on the same reasoning, and he opposed one for the same reason as he should the other. The Motion of the hon. Gentleman, and those who agreed with him, appeared to be, that by assenting to the endowment of

  751
  the professorships they would be compromising their principles in regard to an Established Church or to an establishment for religious purposes out of the public funds. This, however, was quite a different thing from supporting an Established Church or a religious establishment, properly so called, out of the public funds. The institutions which he was now discussing were institutions for teaching a branch of learning—a branch of learning surely the most important of any, a branch of learning taught in all institutions that professed to diffuse a higher education; and the proposal now before the House would strike at the very foundation of the Scotch Universities, for it would destroy that religious teaching which was an essential part of every University—which had always been a constant part of a Scotch University—and without which the maintenance of a University would stand on a different ground from that on which it had ever before done.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYfeared that unless they agreed to the proposal of the hon. Member for Montrose, they would have a renewal of those acrimonious theological discussions which were so painful. It might be said that the grant to Maynooth College in Ireland stood on the same ground on which it was now proposed to grant additional endowments to the theological chairs in the Scotch Universities. But that was not so; for the Maynooth grant was supported on the ground that there is a highly-paid Established Church for the minority of the people, therefore a great minister endowed Maynooth for the majority. But that state of affairs did not exist in the present case. He did not know, indeed, whether, if it were now proposed to begin the Maynooth grant, he should support it, notwithstanding the argument to which he had alluded. That grant now existed, and it is one thing not to seek to disturb it, and another to ask the British Parliament, for the first time, to vote additional endowments for the Professors of Theology in the Scotch Universities. It did not follow, then, the Theologians would, after all, be teaching what is true, or, at all events, what they believed to be true in that House. It might be truth of the wrong kind, and he must say that he did not think it fair to call upon the inhabitants of the United Kingdom to pay for teaching that which a great portion of them must believe not to be true.
  752
  There is, moreover, a great danger of their Theological Professors inculcating views which were opposed to science. But admitting that it is right that theology should be taught, he questioned whether it is right to tax the people of this country for the inculcation of a particular kind of theology. He should, therefore, support the proviso.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEthought the hon. Baronet had misunderstood the question before the House. He had not made any proposal whatever. This is an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Montrose, to tie up the hands of Parliament on the question.
  MR. BLACKsaid, it was true that there was nothing in the Bill to say that money should be appropriated for professors in theology; but there was a clause in it directing the Commissioners to have great regard to the Report of the Royal Commissioners who had inquired into the state of the Scotch Universities. Now that Commission had recommended that the salaries of the Professors of theology should be increased, and it is most probable that that recommendation would be carried into effect. It is also recommended that the theological professors, including those of Hebrew and of the Oriental languages, should be ordained ministers of the Church of Scotland. Now, it should be recollected that other religious bodies, quite as numerous as the Church of Scotland, had theological professors, and were able to maintain them. Why, then, should that church seek assistance from the State? It is true that the salaries of their professorship were not large; but, nevertheless, one of them reached between £500 or £600, nor did he see why these salaries should not be augmented by students' fees, as is the case with other professors.
  MR. HADFIELDwas opposed altogether to State grants for religious purposes or to religious bodies. The bitterest opponents of the Maynooth grant were the people of Scotland, and they should be the last persons to put their hands into the public purse for the support of religion.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 102: Majority 8.
  Question put, "That Clause 19, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 76: Majority 49.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

THE WEEDON ESTABLISHMENT.

  HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  COLONEL FORESTERappeared at the Bar, and read the following Reply to the Address moved for [28th June] praying an inquiry into that establishment:—
  "I have received your Address, praying that a Royal Commission may be appointed to inquire into the system upon which the Books and Stock have been respectively kept at Weedon, as well as the general mode in which the business of the Establishment at Weedon has been conducted, the result of such mode of conducting the business, and the state of the Books and Stock of Stores.
  "And having taken your Address into consideration, I have directed that a Commission shall issue for the purposes which you have requested."

TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FAGANsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, since the Visitation lately held at Trinity College, Dublin, a Queen's Letter has been issued by the Government to the College Board, carrying out certain reforms in Trinity College, in pursuance of the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners; and whether he has any objection to state to the House the nature of the proposed reforms.
  LORD NAASsaid, that communications had lately taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Board of Trinity College, Dublin, and a conference had also been held between the Senior and Junior Fellows of that institution, in consequence of which he was happy to say a scheme had been agreed on by which considerable improvements were proposed to be effected, having reference to both educational and financial questions. He was also informed that the Draft of the Queen's letter would be submitted to the Government forthwith. There was every hope from the course which proceedings had taken that the most favourable results would be obtained, and such improvements
  754
  would be effected in the College itself as would remove the unfortunate differences which had lately occurred as well as promote, to a very great degree, the general efficiency of the establishment.
  MR. FAGANsaid, that in consequence of the answer which he had just received he should not bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice relative to this subject.

REWARDS TO THE GARRISON OF LUCKNOW.—QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to inquire of the Secretary of State for War how soon the Officers who composed the Garrison of Lucknow will be Gazetted to their Brevet Rank; and how soon the Medals promised for the patient endurance and bravery of that heroic band, as well as to the gallant captors of Delhi will be issued?
GENERAL PEELreplied, that the Officers composing the Garrison of Lucknow were Gazetted to their Brevet Rank on the 24th of March last. On that occasion five Captains of the 32nd Regiment were Gazetted to their satisfaction, and subsequently the senior lieutenants had been promoted to companies. In regard to the second portion of the question, his reply was, that Her Majesty had approved of the designs of the Medal in question, which had been forwarded to his noble friend the President of the Board of Control previous to distribution.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to know whether the Company's Officers have been treated on the same footing as Her Majesty's, and whether the Medal will be distributed to the whole of the Troops composing the Garrison of Lucknow, whether they were in the service of the East India Company or of Her Majesty?
GENERAL PEELreplied, that he had forwarded the names of all the Officers to Her Majesty that were sent to him whether they belonged to the one service or the other. Of course the Medal would be distributed equally to the Company's soldiers.

ARMY WARRANTS OF 1854.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPESTsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. Sidney Herbert) whether it is a fact that the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the operation of the Warrants of 1854 have declined to receive verbal evidence; and whether it is the case that no minutes are

  755
  made of the proceedings of the Commission, or the opinions of the individual Members of that Commission; whether, should the above be the case, he has any objection to state the reasons that had influenced the Commission to adopt such a course?
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he had no objection to answer the question. It was perfectly true that the Commission did not think it right to take oral evidence. Many matters referred to were only matters of opinion, not of fact, and they did not think it necessary to receive evidence upon them. Another reason was that many of the questions affected not only the Warrants of 1854, but fresh interests which were rising up every day. Commissions, as the noble Lord must know perfectly well, differed very materially from Committees. No record was taken in Commissions as to differences of opinion amongst the Members, but those Members who dissented from the Report could put in a Report of their own, as was done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellis) on the subject of the purchase of Commissions, and in another in which he (Mr. S. Herbert) presided. On both those occasions objections were put in in the way he had mentioned. He believed the Report from the Commission would be in the hands of the Secretary of State early next week.
  LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPESTsaid, he wished to inquire whether the course adopted by this Commission was the same as had been taken by Commissions in which the right hon. Gentleman had previously acted?
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTreplied, that it was exactly the same in every respect.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he would beg to inquire whether the evidence the Commission did take would be published, or any of the letters they received bearing on the subject would be appended to the Report.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, the Report would be in the hands of the Secretary of State next week, and no doubt he would deal with it in a judicious manner. The Appendix to the Report would contain all the information which the Commissioners thought necessary to justify the conclusion at which they had arrived.

LIEUTENANT SALKELD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KER SEYMOURsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of state for War, for an explanation of the circumstances
  756
  under which the Victoria Cross was withheld from the late Lieutenant Salkeld?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he regretted very much that his hon. Friend had not communicated with him before he placed his notice on the Paper. So far from the Victoria Cross being withheld from the gallant Officer, such a proceeding was never for a moment contemplated. On the contrary, he and Lieutenant Home were to have been the very first who should receive it from Her Majesty. Unfortunately he never lived to receive it, and that cross which, if he had lived, would have been presented to him, the Government now proposed to present to his relatives.

CLOTHING, ETC.—TROOPS IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALCOCKsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has made any fresh arrangements for the gratuitous supply of bedding and clothing adapted to the climate, to Her Majesty's Troops in India.
  GENERAL PEELreplied, that the gratuituous supply of bedding, &c., must rest with the East India Company. He had made application through the proper channel to endeavour to reduce, as far as possible, the expenses of our soldiers in India. He was happy to say that in future the expense of the soldier's kit on going out would be considerably reduced.

  LIGHTHOUSES.—QUESTION.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he wished, on behalf of the shipping interest, which was greatly interested in the matter, to know why the Commission upon lighthouses has not, as yet, been appointed?
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that there was no intention of delaying the appointment of the Commission upon Lighthouses, but that, in consequence of the press of public business, it had been difficult to bestow that care upon the Commission which it deserved, but there would be no unnecessary delay in appointing it.

LONDON CORPORATION BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he wished to have a definite answer with respect to the intention of Government in regard to the Bill for the reform of the Corporation of London?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that he would take the earliest opportunity of stating to the House

  757
  the course which Government would adopt with respect to the several Bills at present before Parliament; he therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton would not press his question.

CHELSEA BRIDGE.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he wished to know what were the intentions of the Government with respect to the Chelsea Bridge Bill?
SIR JOHN MANNERSsaid, that after the debate which took place the other night on the Chelsea Bridge Amendment Act, he thought they might come to a decision on the subject one way or the other without discussion.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (No. 3) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 7,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he rose, in conformity with an intention he had expressed the other evening, to propose an Amendment in clause 7, in reference to the constitution of the council, by proposing to insert at the end of line 20 the words, "and it shall consist of the following persons." His intention was, that the first members of the Council of India should be nominated in the Act of Parliament. He had himself no intention of proposing the names of its members, for it was not to be supposed that any private Member would assume such a responsibility. If it were the view of Parliament that the Council should be nominated in the Bill, then by the insertion of those words the function of naming them would devolve upon the Government; but, of course, the names would be subject to the review of Parliament, and any hon. Member could object to any name he thought proper. If the names so recommended were ultimately accepted, the new Council would possess all that weight and authority which must accrue from the names of its members having been submitted to the judgment of both Houses of Parliament. When he first made this proposition he was not at all aware that the Government entertained any objection to it. He would state his reasons for the proposition. The first reason was derived from the recollection of what occurred in 1853. By the Act of that year, it was provided that the number of the Directors of the East India Company should be reduced, and the duty of making
  758
  that reduction was imposed on the Court of Directors. The Directors accordingly had to exclude several of their own body. He had always understood that that was felt to be a peculiarly invidious and painful duty. Though he himself was a party to the enactment, he thought it was done hastily and not well. It was obvious that there was an objection on the score of feeling to such a mode of proceeding; but of course, there was no weight in his objection if the Court of Directors themselves said that there was no objection to such a mode of selection on their part. His object in making this Motion, however, was to clothe the Indian Council with all the moral weight and influence that was consistent with retaining intact the responsibility of the Secretary of State. So long as they did not fetter the Minister, everything they could do to increase the moral weight of the Council was so much good done. He submitted to the Committee, therefore, whether they would not add to the weight of the Council if they named them. He did not, of course, mean to say that the Council twenty years hence would enjoy any particular weight or influence from the fact of Parliament having made the first nomination; but, still a good start was calculated to secure for it a good character hereafter. At a moment of transition from one form of government to another, like the present, it was important that the Council should have all the weight they could give to it. There was also a series of precedents for this course. It had been the practice of Parliament to follow this course when it was constituting bodies which were to be invested with subordinate functions of government of an arduous nature; and the more onerous the duties to be discharged, the more weight would be given to those who were intrusted with them if their appointment received the express approval of Parliament. The Commissioners chosen to carry out the reform of the two Universities were specifically named in the Act of Parliament relating to that subject, and the same remark applied to the case of the Charity Commissioners. That very day they had added a third to the number of precedents of that class by inserting in the Scotch Universities Bill the names of the gentlemen who were to form the Commission to legislate for those Universities. He would go further back, and, at the same time, come nearer to the subject in hand. When Mr. Fox proposed

  759
  his India Bill, he proposed to intrust the Government of India to two bodies of Commissioners, one a superior Commission of seven members, and the other an assistant Commission of nine. Both in the case of the seven and nine he submitted to Parliament the names of the persons to whom he proposed to entrust that duty. It was true that that Bill did not, for other reasons, become law, and that Mr. Pitt did not adopt a similar course; but then Mr. Pitt altered the whole framework of the Bill and did not call on Parliament to appoint a Commission at all. He submitted to the Committee that both on the ground of precedent and on the ground of reason, it was desirable that to do all they could to add to the weight and influence of those who would have to discharge the difficult duties of supporting and advising the Secretary of State at this critical juncture in carrying on the Government of India; and he would not have made such a proposition if it could lead to any interference with the functions of the Secretary of State; but that would not be so, for the functions both of the Secretary of State and the Council would remain exactly as they were. This proposal was not for the purpose of overriding the Secretary of State, for the Members of the Council would still have to submit their judgments to his and give him all the advice in their power. One merit of the proposal, if adopted, would be that it would rid the Court of Directors of that which must be an invidious and irksome task, namely, the choice of a portion of their Members to act on the Council, to the exclusion of the rest; at the same time that it would give satisfaction generally by showing that the name of every individual Member of the first Council had been submitted to Parliament and open to their approval.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he thought that it would not be convenient to accept the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. He proposed to do away entirely with the principle of electing part of the Council by the members of the Court of Directors. Instead of their doing so, the effect of the Amendment would be that the Government should take on themselves to nominate the whole body under a Parliamentary sanction. In constructing a new machinery for the government of India Her Majesty's Government wished to avoid making needless changes, and be guided as much as possible by analogy to existing circumstances. They now found a Council
  760
  composed partly of nominees and partly of members elected by the Court of Proprietors. They proceeded upon the same basis, only they proposed to increase the number of nominees and reduce the number of those elected, so as to bring the two to very nearly equal proportions. In reducing the number of the elected members, they had preferred to leave in the hands of the Court of Directors the choice of those who were still to continue members of the new Council. The right hon. Gentleman observed that this principle, which was proposed in the measure of 1853, was very reluctantly adopted by the Court of Directors. From the communication which he (Lord Stanley) had had with the representatives of the Court of Directors, he had heard nothing to induce him to believe that if they were called upon to peform this public duty they would shrink from the performance of it for any such reasons as had been alleged. This proceeding was by no means as invidious as was represented. If they were called upon to exclude a certain small number from those offices, retaining all the rest, the proceeding, he admitted, would be invidious; but when they would only have to choose about one-third or one-fourth of their number to act as members of the Council, the process would be one not of exclusion, but of selection. It was obvious that where election was the rule and exclusion the exception the proceedings would be very invidious; but when the contrary was the case, when the great majority was excluded and the small minority returned, there could not be the same expectations on the part of every member that he should be appointed. As to leaving the other appointments in their own hands, that course was adopted simply because they were a body who had acted well together, who were acquainted with each other's powers and capacity for the public service, and it was naturally considered that they were much better qualified to make the proper selection from among themselves than Government could acting on second-hand information. If these provisions of the present Bill were accepted by the Committee—he meant particularly that provision which excluded the Members of the Council from sitting in Parliament—the new body would be placed upon a different footing to the old. As to the suggestion of placing the names of the first nominees in the Bill, such a proceeding would necessa-

  761
  rily retard the progress of the Bill. The Government could not make the choice in two or three days. They ought to have a much longer time allowed them to do so. The period allowed after the passing of the Act for making that choice was thirty days. And even a week or ten days' delay, at this period of the Session, would be very inconvenient as regarded the general progress of the public business.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he was sorry to find the proposition opposed by the noble Lord, since he thought its adoption would give a better character to the Council. The Court of Directors consisted, not of twenty-four members, but only of eighteen; and as members of the Council could not sit in Parliament, and as it was understood that members of the Council were to give their whole time to the Government—and there were many merchants and men of business now belonging to the Court who could not do so—the number from which the Court could choose would in reality be a very limited one. It was said by some that it was the intention of the Court not to elect their seven members of the Council from among the nominated members of the Court, who were so well able to transact the business, but from the number who had been elected, and if so they were just as likely to elect the worst men as the best to sit upon the Council. The only objection he had heard was that it would be difficult to elect fifteen good men, and with that he agreed, for he could not select more than six or eight men of marked ability.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 (First Members of the Council).
  MR.VERNON SMITHsaid, he thought that some amendment was necessary in this clause. He wanted to know what was the meaning of the words "Directors of the said Company, or having been theretofore such Directors," and whether it was proposed that the elected members might be elected from men who had ceased to be Directors.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, it was intended to leave that option to the Court of Directors, hough probably they would elect them from their own body.
  MR. VERNON SMITHobserved that made their duty more invidious still. He should therefore propose to omit the words "or having been theretofore such Directors."
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, lines
  762
  25 and 26, to leave out the words "or having been theretofore such Directors."
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 71: Majority 75.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that the other night the Motion of the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Barrow) raised a somewhat general discussion on the 3rd clause. He had himself, then, ventured to call the attention of the Committee to the unlimited transfer of the power over the expenditure and patronage of India to the Government. That discussion had been censured. He was, however, glad to say that that discussion had been productive of great advantage; for the noble Lord, during that discussion, was enabled to ascertain the views of hon. Members in different parts of the House, and, in consequence, had given notice of extensive Amendments, which, in his humble judgment, removed all the objections which he had entertained in reference to patronage and expenditure. It would be quite premature to enter further into details. His object in rising was to state that he should wish, immediately after the words which they had just passed, to insert the words "not to be nominees of the Crown." If this were not done, it appeared to him that the elective principle of the measure would be much impaired. Of the entire body of the Court of Directors five were nominees of the Crown, and it was supposed that out of the seven members of Council which the Court of Directors were to choose, they would elect the five nominees of the Crown. The Crown would then appoint eight nominees to the Council; and the first vacancy would be filled by another nominee, so that fourteen out of the fifteen members of the Council might soon be nominees of the Crown. He thought that that would be reducing the elective principle to its minimum. He wished, on the contrary, to avoid that chance. He wished that the choice of the Court of Directors should be limited to those who had been elected. His principle would be no hardship on the five nominees of the Crown, for after the election had taken place the Crown was to exercise the prerogative of nominating eight members of Council, which was a majority of the whole body.
  Amendment proposed, in line 26, page 3, after the word Directors to insert the words "not to be nominees of the Crown."
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he cordially agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the discussion the other evening upon the 3rd clause, so far from being premature, had been productive of much advantage, inasmuch as it had shown the necessity of providing some further security than existed in the Bill against financial abuses. The Government would be ready at all times to receive any suggestion from the right hon. Baronet with that respect to which it was entitled; but the proposition which he had now made did not seem to be calculated to carry out the object for which it was intended. It was said that if this Bill passed in an unaltered state, the Council, though nominally elective, might contain fourteen out of fifteen nominees. The answer was, that if any of the five were elected they would cease to be nominees from the moment of their election. Because a man had been once nominated by the Crown to a certain office it did not follow, if he were subsequently elected by an independent constituency to fill the same office, that he would remain for life a nominee of the Crown. He would sum up what he had to say briefly thus—that if the Government had not thought that the Court of Directors were to be trusted with the exercise of this power, if they had not thought that, irrespective of any preference they might have for elected over nominee members, they would choose those whom they thought fittest to perform the duties of councillor—if they had not thought that, they would not have given them the power. Having that opinion, they thought it right to give them the power and to leave it as unfettered as possible.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not but express his regret that the Government had not adopted the proposition of his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), providing for the election of three names by the Council, and the nomination of one of the three by the Crown, subject to certain rights of the House of Commons. That proposition would have given them a more homogeneous, and therefore more harmonious; body, and moreover would have prevented that mass of abuses which were likely now to grow out of this Council, not the least of which was the number of vested interests and retiring pensions which it would create. Perhaps the best thing would have been to take the short term proposed by the noble Lord the Member
  764
  for Tiverton, as there would then be time and opportunity to settle the conditions of retirement. It appeared to him that the tenure of good behaviour, although it might work well in the case of the Judges whose whole conduct was before the country, would hardly do for men who were constantly employed in the recesses of their own offices. In the case of the latter, he feared the tendency would be, unless they were carefully watched and guarded, to lapse into sinecure. The theory they were now proceeding upon seemed to assume that there was a balance in the Council between the elected and the nominated members; but the plan adopted in the Bill might tend to the appointment of a large preponderance of nominees, since vacancies were to be filled up alternately by nomination by the Crown and by election by the Council, in which the nominee members constituted the majority. To regain something like the balance referred to, he should propose that instead of seven members elected by the Directors, the number should be ten; and if that proposition were agreed to, he should afterwards move that five members should be nominated by the Crown instead of eight.
  Amendment proposed in line 26, to leave out the word "seven" in order to insert the word "ten."
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that they could not properly consider the proposition without remembering the peculiar nature of the system by which the vacancies were to be filled up. If the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment were agreed to they would have comparatively a very small minority nominated, and the great majority elected by a process of self-election. The right hon. Gentleman said, that as matters stood at present they would have always a majority of Crown nominees. No doubt that might be so, as far as the first appointments went; but as years went on it would be difficult to say whether mortality would be greater amongst the nominees or the elective members. The ultimate proportions of the two branches of the Council would depend upon the accident as to which would live the longest. But when those nominees of the Crown were once nominated, and their nomination being for life, there was no ground for supposing that they would not be as independent in their position as the elected members. The object of the Bill was to strike a balance between the nominated and elected members, and he did think that object would

  765
  be attained by the division of the Council into ten elected and five nominated members.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLobserved, that of course the desire of the Committee was to have, as far as possible, an independent Council. Now there were two modes of rendering the Council independent, either by election or by making the tenure of their office for life. The system of self-election adopted by the Government could scarcely he called the elective principle, controlled very much as it was by the Ministers of the Crown. For his own part, he thought that seven was too large a number to be elected; but as so large a number was to be appointed upon the principle of election, he thought the best protection that could be afforded was the tenure of office for life. He should support the Government upon this part of the Bill, his only regret being that so large a proportion of the Council was to be elected.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that being in favour of the principle of nomination by the Crown, he trusted that the Committee would not consent to increase the number of the elected members. Indeed he did not understand why the noble Lord retained this fragment of the principle of election.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he hoped that the noble Lord would clear up the doubts arising from a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that the members of the Council were to devote their whole time to their office. There was no provision for it in the Bill, and many of the present members who were to be eligible were otherwise engaged in various occupations.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that the members of the Council would receive a large salary, each £1,200 a year, together with a considerable amount of patronage. It was therefore reasonable to expect that they should devote their time to the performance of the public duties assigned to them. With that understanding, he should not propose to insert anything in the Bill restricting the choice of the Directors. With regard to the members to be nominated by the Crown, their nomination would rest upon the understanding that they would give up their whole time to their duties.
  MR. GLADSTONEsuggested a mode by which the intentions of the Government and of Parliament in this respect could be effected—that the Government should take
  766
  power in the Bill of reducing the vacancies that might occur in the Council, in case they thought that the business to be done would not require so many hands.
  MR. VERNON SMITHobserved that most of the Directors had some other business to attend to, either being bankers or connected with public companies. With regard to the salaries of Members of the Council he thought those Members who were nominated, and who devoted their whole time to the duties of their office, would fully deserve £1,200 a year, while the elected Members, who would probably be engaged in commercial occupations, would be overpaid if they received that amount. In his opinion some rule should be laid down as to the time which the elected Members should devote to their duties, instead of leaving the matter entirely to the honour of individuals. He wished to know, if two or three Members of the Council died, how the vacancies were to be supplied? because under the system proposed the proportions of the Council might for a time be disturbed.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he believed that there was no statutory regulations which prohibited persons in public offices from engaging in other occupations, and his impression was that the only influence which could be brought to bear, in case of any misconduct in this respect, was that which was exercised by Parliament upon the Government, and by the Government upon the persons who held public offices. If an attempt were made to prohibit persons in official positions from engaging in other pursuits, it might be held that a man who wrote an article for a newspaper was violating the rule, and he thought the better plan would be to have the Members of the proposed Council upon the same footing with other officers employed under the Crown. This Bill would confer extensive patronage upon the Government and he thought it would be satisfactory to the House and to the country, if Her Majesty's Ministers would declare that none of the appointments at their disposal would be bestowed upon Members of that House, with the exception of hon. Gentlemen who were Directors of the East India Company, but that they would be conferred upon individuals who were acquainted with the affairs of India, or who were otherwise, by their personal qualifications, fitted for official positions. He believed that by pursuing such a course they would best

  767
  provide an efficient and independent Council for the Secretary of State for India.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, that he thought, that the Act should contain some clause compelling the Councillors to devote their whole time to their public duties. If that were not so, they might have gentlemen who received these appointments becoming directors of half a dozen companies; and in that case the salary of £1,200, which a Councillor was to have under the Bill, would be excessive. He thought it would be well if after Clause 13 a clause was introduced declaring that no Member of the Council should be capable of engaging in any trade or profession.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the number of offices under the Crown held during good behaviour was very small. The principal class of officers were the Judges, with respect to whom it was quite absurd to suppose—from their exalted position, the character of their duties, and the fact that they were performed in the presence of the Bar—that they would engage in other occupations to the neglect of their offices. The other civil servants held their offices during pleasure, and if they engaged in other occupations they would be quickly brought to a recollection of their duties by a hint that if they did not devote their whole time to the performance of their duties they would be discharged. But now that they were going to appoint a new class of officers who were to hold the offices during good behaviour, but with respect to whom we had not the same guarantees as they possessed in reference to the Judges, he thought it might fairly be doubted whether they ought not to take some further guarantee than a mere understanding for their sedulous devotion to the discharge of their duties.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that the understanding would be that those who accepted these offices did so on the implied condition that they were to devote their whole time to the performance of their official duties. He should not object to put such a provision in the Bill if he could satisfy himself of the possibility of framing a clause that would cover all that was wanted and nothing more. There was, however, a well-known case not merely of a subordinate officer of the Government, but a Minister holding an important position, who was a partner in a mercantile establishment. He probably took no active part in the management of the concern;
  768
  the partnership was no doubt nominal, but he was a partner in such an establishment and he (Lord Stanley) did not know what right that House would have to say that such a nominal connection should not exist in the case of a Member of Council, while it might exist in that of a Member of the Government. But he apprehended that there was already in the Act a remedy for evils that might be expected to arise in this respect. Those who entered the Council would do so on the under, standing that they were to give to the duties of Councillor their whole time, and if they notoriously and openly violated that understanding, they could be removed for official misconduct; for he had no doubt that such conduct, being a breach of faith with the Government, would be held misconduct under the terms of the Act. A suggestion had been made, that if hereafter the number of the Council should be found too large, power should be given to the Government to reduce it; but he thought it would be better to leave the subject in the hands of Parliament. Nothing would be easier than for the Government at any time to propose the reduction of the number of the Council. They had been also told that they ought to insert a proviso in the Bill, or, at any rate, make a declaration that the appointments of Councillors under this Act should be limited to those not Members of that House. That was not necessary on the one hand, while on the other it would be an inadequate security against the abuses which it was intended to guard against. Assuming that there was an intention on the part of the Government to use these appointments for the purpose of patronage, it was not only, or perhaps mainly, in that House that that kind of patronage was likely to be used. There had at all times been within the walls of that House many men of great ability and Indian experience, well qualified to be members of such a Council, and to whom any Government, on which ever side they sat, would be glad to look for assistance in the formation of a Council. He (Lord Stanley) wanted to be free to choose the best men for the Council. No Government could do otherwise without suffering in the opinion of the public and of that House, and, as a mere matter of political loss or gain, the loss by such an abuse of patronage would be greater than the gain. As to the objection that no provision had been made for nominated and

  769
  elected members of the Council dying alternately, all he could say was, that the Government had secured that their numbers should be as nearly equal as possible in the outset, and that, supposing the present arrangement should be permanent, they would again become equal on the death of the last of the original members of the Council. The arrangement was fair at the outset; it would be perfectly fair some years hence. And he did not know a way to provide, nor did he think it important to provide, for the numbers being equally balanced in the intervening time.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he understood clearly that it was the understanding and desire of the Government that those who accepted the office of Councillor should not engage in any other business, and that a breach of faith on that point would be considered such a violation of official duty as would subject the offending party to a loss of office. [Lord STANLEY: Hear, hear!] It had been said that it was impossible to draw up an account securing the devotion of the whole time of the Councillors to their duties; but a similar object had been pursued and attained with respect to the servants of the East India Company by the Act 33 Geo. III., which forbade any one connected with the administration of the affairs of India, from the Governor General down to the lowest officer, from engaging in a trade or traffic.
  SIR G. C. LEWIS: Yes; but that provision was intended to apply to the company as a trading company.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRY: Yes; but that statute is in force to this day.
  SIR GEORGE C. LEWISrepeated that the Act to which the hon. Member referred applied merely to the officers of the company as a company of traders. If any provision were inserted on this point in the present Act of Parliament, it would be better to employ something like the language of the orders of the Poor Law Commission, which required not that every union officer should abstain from trade or traffic, but "should give his whole time to the union." Those words had proved effectual for the attainment of the object in view.
  MR. T. BARINGsaid, he would submit whether it would be wise, expedient, or practicable to exclude any member of the Council on account of transacting "any other species of business whatever." The
  770
  end of such a provision would be that they would be obliged to select men who could do nothing else. Another important question was, whether the members of the Council were to be excluded from Parliament or not. He had entertained some doubts, but upon the whole thought it was better they should be admitted. But if they admitted them to the House, then they would have other business to transact besides that of the Council. The great object ought to be to have a Council of intelligent and independent advisers, and not a mere Council of clerks. Would they exclude men because they wrote for the public papers or reviews? They would not be able to carry into effect any such provision. If they would have none but men who must give up their whole time for £1,200 a year, then he must say, they were going in a very fair way to emasculate the Council. His own opinion was, that it was better to leave it to the sense of honour of the members, and their sense of duty, than to impose any such rigid restrictions.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that in the course of the discussion two things essentially distinct had been confounded. It was one thing to say that the whole time of the person appointed should be at the disposal of the Council, and another that he should not engage in any trade or traffic whatever. The two things were quite distinct. What his noble Friend had said was simply this—that it was expected that the time of every person who joined the Council should be at the disposal of the Council. But to frame a clause by which every member of the Council would be bound to be engaged in no trade or traffic whatever was a very different matter. Such an arrangement with regard to the Government would have deprived the country a few years ago of the services of one of its most able men, inasmuch as he was a member of a mercantile firm at the same time that he was a member of the Government. If it should be found that a member of the Council did not devote sufficient time to the Council the Government could take steps to remove him for misbehaviour. Then, again, it was always in the power of Parliament to address the Crown for the removal of any Councillor who did not perform his duties, so that there was a double check—one in the hands of the Executive, and the other in the hands of Parliament. Every one must desire to see the Council formed of

  771
  men of the greatest experience and practical ability, and it might in some cases be that their very connection with some other pursuit was a guarantee for the possession of those qualities, and he could not therefore consent to the proposal.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he could not understand the application of a principle to members of the Council which it had not been considered necessary to apply to Ministers of State. Speaking with accurate knowledge, he had known Cabinet Ministers in both Houses of Parliament, and hon. Members holding high position, who were partners in breweries or insurance companies, or who were connected with some commercial pursuit. He saw no reason for introducing any such principle as absolutely to prohibit members of the Council from being engaged in any other occupation. They would be always under the review of that House, and they would be actuated by a sense of duty, and any such restriction would probably interfere to prevent persons of the highest qualification from undertaking the duties of Councillor. The duties of the office need certainly not occupy the whole of a man's time, and he should certainly deprecate the insertion in the Bill of any such provision as that members of the Council should be absolutely bound down not to follow any other occupation. If a Councillor neglected his duties, that would be a gross offence, amounting to a misdemeanour, for which he might be removed from his office.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he wished to point out that the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry) had placed a very strange construction upon what had been said by his noble Friend. His noble Friend had stated, what was the unanimous opinion of his colleagues, that those Members of the Council appointed by Her Majesty would be expected to place their whole time at the disposal of the Secretary of State, but he did not at all intend to say that the whole of their time should be devoted to the duties of their office, or that they should not be allowed to do anything else. As regarded those Members of the Council appointed by election, his noble Friend would not for a moment lay down the principle that they should be required to spend the whole of their time in the fulfilment of their duty as Councillors. It was very possible that persons might be elected from their connection with the Court of Directors, who at the same time would be occu-
  772
  pied with public or private interests, but he did not think that any disadvantage would result from that; but, on the contrary, the election of such men might be the means of introducing into the Council a great deal of practical knowledge and experience. In effecting a transition from a Government of an anomalous character to one which in time would assume a more regular form, it would not be wise to adopt a principle which would negative a practice which had in the Government that was about to be abolished been productive of beneficial results, and it would be highly impolitic, in his opinion, to define by a clause in an Act of Parliament what time the members of the Council, who would of course be bound by their own sense of duty, should devote to the duties of their office.
  MR. RICHsaid, he understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that an East India Director carrying on the business of a banker in the city might be appointed a Councillor by the East India Company; that while he so acted he would have £1,200 a year; and that after doing some occasional duties for a few years he might retire on a pension of £500 a year. He thought that if the Committee sanctioned that arrangement they were entering upon a most prodigal expenditure.
  THE CHAIRMANintimated, that the discussion which was going on was most irregular, the real question before the House being whether ten or seven Members should be appointed by election.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY,on the ground that the East India Company and stockholders would still have important rights, involving £110,000,000 of money, which might be influenced by the acts of the proposed Council, urged the importance of appointing persons upon it who would command their confidence. With that view he should support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he thought it would be better to have two-thirds of the Council elected and one-third nominated, instead of the proportions fixed by the Bill. If the nominated were to the elected members in the first place as eight to seven, the former, if they hung together—which, however, they were not likely to do—might secure a continued preponderance of nominee members. He certainly thought also that when a person accepted an office, who himself intended to do his duty, he would not engage in multifarious occupation which

  773
  would interfere with the performance of those duties, but at the same time he would not bind persons by a strict rule in an Act of Parliament. It was absurd to say that men engaged in literary or scientific pursuits should not be eligible for the Council. Such a rule might exclude some of the best men. Moreover, he thought it would be most unwise to exclude the business element. There were many subjects, as finance, exchanges and other matters, which came before the Secret Committee of the Directors, with which he confessed he was not competent to deal, and he thought it would be most injudicious in the proposed Council to debar the Government of the assistance of those who particularly understood those questions.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURremarked, that both the noble Lord the President of the India Board and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle were beginning to show signs that they thought the Council too numerous; and he did wish the noble Lord would at once act upon his better judgment and reduce it. He had no objection to gentlemen engaged in literary occupations being Councillors, but it would be most improper that persons engaged in trade or traffic of any kind should be so, as they would have to deal in public contracts. At present the Court of Directors expended £4,000,000 of the public money annually upon contracts in the City of London, and therefore it was that although all the great towns had petitioned against the continuance of the Company, the City of London had at all times upheld it. When the proper time arrived he should move the insertion of the words.
  MR. HUDSONsuggested the propriety of confining the discussion to the question before the House, namely, whether the number of elected members should be ten or seven.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he would move to add the following proviso at the end of the clause:—
  "Provided always that if the Court of Directors of the East India Company shall refuse, or shall for such fourteen days neglect to make such election of such seven persons, and to certify the names of such persons as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by warrant under Her Royal sign manual, within thirty days after the expiration of such fourteen days, to appoint from among the said Directors seven persons to make up the full number of the said Council."
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he wished to inquire what provision was contemplated
  774
  in the event of those elected refusing to serve.
  LORD STANLEYthought it was scarcely necessary to provide for what was so unlikely to occur.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he would propose that the words "or other duly qualified persons," should be added to meet the difficulty.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALexplained that the Court of Directors were required to certify the readiness of their members to serve as well as to elect, and the proviso gave power to the Crown to appoint if Members were not ready to serve within the time. He would, however, undertake to introduce words to obviate the objection, in case any member, who might be elected, should unexpectedly refuse to serve.
  Proviso agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Vacancies in the Council how to be filled up).
  MR. ELLIOTsuggested that it would be better that vacancies occurring in the number of the nominated members should be filled up by the Crown, and those occurring among the elected ones by the Council—a course which would keep the proportions as originally constituted.
  LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPESTsaid, he regretted that the Amendment he was about to propose had not fallen into abler hands; but having waited for a long while to see whether any other hon. Member would place anything of the kind upon the Paper, and finding that no one else did so, he felt compelled to do so himself. The Amendment was strongly in accordance with the sixth Resolution, to the spirit of which it had been understood the Government would adhere; and he could not understand how it was that the spirit of that Resolution had come to be departed from; nor upon what principle it had been decided to form the Council in a way which must result in the Council—at first, partly elective and partly nominative becoming completely nominative. It was desirable that such a Council should neither be the tool of the Treasury bench by being completely nominative, nor the tool of the Opposition by being completely elective; and to secure the complete independence of the Council his Amendment had been framed.
  Amendment proposed in line 4, after "filled up," leave out to the end of the Clause, and add,

  775
  "By persons, to be elected as hereinafter mentioned, from among persons who have been ten years, at least, in India, in the service of Her Majesty, or of the Government of India, in any department, whether legal, civil, naval, or military, or who have been fifteen years resident in India; and the persons qualified to vote in the election of such members shall be proprietors of capital in Indian Stock, or of paid-up capital in Railways or other public works in India, of the amount of £1,000; or of persons who have been ten years in the military, naval, or civil service of the East India Company, or of Her Majesty: Provided always, That no person shall be entitled to vote in the election of such members as aforesaid unless he shall have been qualified as aforesaid for six months before the election, and be registered according to the regulations hereinafter to be mentioned."
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that this question had been several times argued at great length, and he did not wish to re-open it. If a constituency could have been obtained which would have efficiently discharged its duties, he should have preferred an election by such a body to the plan proposed in the Bill; but no such constituency could be obtained, and therefore he should oppose this Amendment.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that when he voted that a portion of the Council should be elected he certainly intended, and he believed most other Members intended, that there should be a constituency. It would, no doubt, be difficult to obtain one, but he thought that a Government which set itself seriously to work might effect that object. The constituency provided for in this Amendment was too numerous. He should prefer one of about 1,000 persons, to be divided into panels in the mode sketched out by the Earl of Ellenborough.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Major part of the Council to have served or resided ten years in India).
  LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPESTsaid, that although the right hon. Gentleman in the chair had not observed him, he had said "No," when the question was put on his Amendment on clause 9, as he wished to take a division, in order to test who were in favour of an independent election of the Council.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he wished to propose the insertion of words providing that the major part of the persons nominated by the Crown, to form the first Council, as well as those elected by the Court of Directors, should have resided or served for ten years in India. With this view he should move as an Amendment in line 2
  776
  to insert the words "or major part" after the word "and;" and also in line 7 to omit the word "eight," and insert "nine."
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Tenure of Office of Members of Council).
  MR. GREGSONsaid, he should move to leave out the words "good behaviour," in order to insert the words "five years, and to be eligible for re-election."
  Amendment proposed,—
  In page 4, line 10, to leave out the words "good behaviour," in order to insert the words "five years, and to be eligible for re-election."
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that the Amendment raised the whole question of the dependence or independence of the Council, which had been discussed on the Resolutions, and with regard to which the opinion of the House was decidedly expressed for the longer term. He thought that by the tenure laid down in the Bill the best guarantee for the independence of the Council was obtained.
  MR. LINDSAYbegged the Committee to observe the effect of the clause as it stood. It had been determined to have a Council for India now, but some few years hence, when the present state of things in that country had subsided, the House might come to the conclusion that it would be better to have no Council, and the consequence would be that those gentlemen who were elected during good behaviour, that is for life, would hold vested interests, and could not be dispossessed without burdening the revenues of India with an intolerable amount of compensation. If the hon. Gentleman divided, he would support his Amendment.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, that some explanation was wanted from the Government on this subject. Suppose that the noble Lord thought it right hereafter to diminish the number of the Council from fifteen to twelve, were the gentlemen who were reduced to have compensation for the loss of a life office. It was advisable, at this stage, to look to this possibility. He was opposed to a Council, for he could not understand that it would be of any assistance to the Minister. If members were appointed for life, a man who was appointed at thirty might live to be eighty, and every one knew how invidious a task it was to deal with an official who had outlived his capability. What good advice could a man give the Minister who had not been in India for fifty years? The best

  777
  plan for the Minister to adopt would be to take as Council the men who returned from India year by year, who were well acquainted with the local circumstances of the country, and who were uninfluenced by Parliamentary intrigues.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that it had been urged that if it was considered hereafter advisable to abolish the Council, there would be a difficulty in knowing what to do with members who had been appointed for life. But it was thought that the best security for the independence of the Council was that the members should hold their office for life and during the continuance of the Council. If the Government thought that the Council would exist only for two or three years they would not appoint the members in the manner proposed; but in their opinion the establishment of a Council was the proper mode of governing India, and would be permanent. All that the noble Lord, the President of the Board of Control, had said was that, if hereafter the Council should be considered too numerous, certain vacancies would not be filled up.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that he should vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend, to omit the words "good behaviour," as that would be consistent with a subsequent Amendment which he (Viscount Palmerston) intended to propose, "that the members of the Council should be appointed for ten years." This was a very important question. The point at issue now with regard to the Council was of the greatest importance in reference to the whole Bill. If he understood the object of the Committee, it was to make the Council independent. They were all agreed that there was to be a Council. He regretted that it was so numerous, and he believed that out of fifteen members holding the office of Councillor one-half at least would hold sinecures, but as the House had determined on that number he should not ask them to re-consider it. Nevertheless, he was sure that it would turn out that they had created seven or eight sinecure offices, with salaries of £1,200 a year, and retiring pensions. That was what he wished the Committee not to do. What was the object in view in reference to the formation of the Council? It was that it should be independent. Very good. Independent, not for action—no one maintained that; for when he, on a former occasion, used the words "Executive Council," the Chancellor of the Exchequer de-
  778
  nied that it was an "executive," but simply an "administrative" Council. It was to be a Council of advice. The principle was, the Secretary of State was to be responsible; and the members of the Council should be independent enough to give him honest advice. He thought that the Government had taken a cumbrous way to obtain that. In order to make them independent it was proposed to make them hold their offices practically for life; or if they should become incapacitated by age or infirmity, they were to have retiring allowances varing from £600 to £800 a year. He (Viscount Palmerston) proposed a shorter and cheaper method of getting an independent Council, and that was by causing them to hold their offices for a fixed period of ten years, and that they should not be capable of being re-elected or reappointed. Surely a Councillor holding office in that way was as independent as he could well be, for he had no hope by currying favour with the Government of getting re-elected or re-appointed. Could anything be more objectionable than appointing Councillors for life? The main object was to have the advantage of Indian experience, but as his hon. Friend (Mr. D. Seymour) had said, Indian experience, if it was to be of any value, must be experience of the India of the day. Experience which had become obsolete would be worse than useless, for it might lead to error. India was in a state of transition and advancement from its present condition, and the experience of a man who left India ten or fifteen years ago would be of little value compared with that of a man who had recently left that country, and knew the changes that were going on and the matters that were in progress. He knew he should be met by the objection that the Council would get more knowledge of India by transacting the business of that country at home than they would get in India itself. If that were so, why tie up the choice of the Government to persons who had Indian experience? In fact this came to the adoption of the principle of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who, instead of a Council, would have permanent Under Secretaries of Indian experience. By making the office for life they would get men of obsolete experience of India, and of growing age and infirmity; and it would become an effete Council, many members of which would hold sinecures. Let the Committee consider how, in this way, they would debar

  779
  the Government from taking advantage of the services of men of ability) who would be constantly coming home from civil or military service in India, in possession of all the current knowledge, but whose advice would be unavailable, because the Council would be full of old men whom you could not get rid of, and who would prefer their full Salaries of £1,200 a year to a retirement on £800. Then look at the question of the accumulation of retired allowances. It might be said that that was nothing to their constituencies, as it would only be a charge on the Indian revenue; but he trusted that no such argument would be urged in that House. If they wanted independence in the Council, it would be equally secured by fixing a final limit to the service of the Councillors, say ten or twelve years, while the Government would have from time to time opportunities of infusing fresh blood and recent experience into the Council, and thus making it more valuable and useful. There was another question to be considered. It was stated, and it was admitted by the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control, that in course of time such improvements would be made in the transaction of business, that fifteen members might be found too large a number for the Council, and that a smaller number could do the business required of them. According to the plan proposed, however, every member would have a vested interest and a Parliamentary title to compensation or a retiring pension. If he might be allowed to use the expression, without meaning anything offensive, but which really designated the proposed Council, he would say that it was the most gigantic job which was ever proposed for the sanction of Parliament. There were hon. Gentlemen in the House who prided themselves on being administrative Reformers. He claimed their votes, for he was sure none of them could agree to such a Council as the Bill proposed to create. He also claimed the support of the Government; for surely, as a body, they could not think this a proper arrangement, and the strength they had gained in recent divisions ought to make them feel independent of the support they had hitherto been so solicitous to catch. In the short voyage which they had hitherto made they had trimmed their sails to catch every breeze which might fill their sails from whatever quarter it might blow. But now they ought to feel themselves strong enough to act upon their own opinions.
  780
  He was sure they could not suppose that the best mode of securing the independence of the Council was that proposed by, the Bill, but that they must admit such an object would be more certainly and cheaply attained by limiting the period of service to ten years, without re-election or reappointment. At all events, if he could not claim the support of the whole Government, he would claim that of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, for he recollected a few years ago that that right hon. Gentleman, in his desire for economy, wished to reduce at one fell swoop, the salaries of all the hardworking clerks in the public service by 10 per cent. He was sure, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman could not support such an unncessary expense as this plan would cast on the Indian revenue, and which would be an obstacle in the way of the future retrenchment which the Government and Parliament would have to consider. He should support the Motion of his hon. Friend for striking out the words "good behaviour," in order to insert the words "for ten years, without being capable of re-election or re-appointment."
  MR. A. MILLSsaid, that the example of the noble Lord afforded a good argument against turning away men who had faithfully served them. The noble Lord had served the public a great many more than ten years, and he afforded a signal instance of the fact that vigour often remained to considerable age in gentlemen who were engaged in the public service. He thought that it would be a most ungracious thing to turn out the Councillors after they had served ten years.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, the question raised by the noble Lord was a difficult one, but on the whole he was in favour of the proposition of the Government. The object desired was to obtain the independence of the Council combined with the complete efficiency of its members. That object might be gained either by the proposition of the Government or of the noble Lord, but he thought it could not be obtained by that of the hon. Member (Mr. Gregson). It might be possible that Members of the Council might be prevailed on to give up their emoluments as Councillors, but they might not be so ready to give up their patronage.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, it was most unfair of the noble Lord to call on Administrative Reformers to support this Amendment. The question of expense was not before

  781
  them, and it was a little remarkable that members on the chief Opposition benches were always asking hon. Members below the gangway to vote on something else than that which was under discussion. When the financial question was before them it would be time enough to consider it. The real question they had now to consider was when the Council were to retire. He thought it would be highly inexpedient to be constantly shifting the Council. The noble Lord had said he hoped to see great changes in India in fifteen years, but a great nation which had remained unchanged for 2000 years was not to be changed in fifteen years, and it was the attempt to change India in one man's life time that had caused the destruction of the present system of government. He believed that the most likely change they would see in India in the next fifteen years would be the expulsion of the British from it. It was the want of a Council of advice which enabled the Government to carry on a war with Persia through the Indian army which was a main cause of the insurrection. An executive Council was a phantom which had long flitted before the eyes of the noble Lord, and had reduced him to the pitiable condition in which he now was. By the course he had pursued his majority of 400 had given place to a minority of 149 on Indian questions. He would suggest to Her Majesty's Ministers to consider whether they could not provide that after a certain period one member only should retire from the council in a year, so that no violent change should take place, while at the same time new blood would be constantly added.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, that in order to have an efficient Council it should be subject to renewal. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), that no change should be looked for in India. Education, the diffusion of intelligence, and the introduction of railways, had already produced a great change, and it was an antiquated and antediluvian notion that there was to be no further change. He strongly adhered to the proposition of the hon. Member for Lancaster, for he thought that in five years the Councillors would have every opportunity of qualifying themselves for renewal of office; but if they accepted the Council proposed by the Government the members would be so long in office that it would become effete. He should support the Amendment.
  MR. RICHsaid, the question was how they could ensure steady progress in the government of India by providing a scheme for the periodical admission of new blood into the Council. A Council elected for ten years, and not re-eligible, would have all the elements of independence. Those persons who held office for a certain term of years generally showed more zeal and energy than those who held office for life. He believed, upon the whole, it would be found that the duties of the Council would be light. If the Council were appointed for life it would not be so independent as if appointed for a definite period. But it was said they would not be able to procure the services of such good men. Now, no one could deny that the gentlemen who had been nominated under the Act of 1853 were not eminently qualified for the duties they had to perform, and yet those gentlemen only had £500 a year, and held office for five years. It was proposed by the Government to nominate the Council for life, with salaries of £1,2000, with retiring pensions of from £500 to £800, and leave them a large patronage. The present inducements which they offered were quite sufficient, and why, therefore, should they run into this wasteful extravagance?
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he would merely ask whether, if the Amendment or the Motion was carried, there ought not to be a proviso to prevent the Council claiming compensation?
  Question put, "That the words 'good behaviour' stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided—Ayes 154; Noes 118: Majority 36.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would suggest the propriety of omitting all the words in the clause after the words, "upon an address of both Houses of Parliament," on the ground that nothing ought to be inserted in the Bill that would imply a stigma or reflection upon the character of the Council. If any Member of the Council were guilty of criminal conduct the criminal law would be sufficient to deal with him; and with regard to "disgraceful conduct" he would not define the meaning of the phrase.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that as the Committee had determined that the Members of the Council should hold office during "good behaviour," he wished to direct attention at the words which were adopted in the Act of 1853 with respect to the nominees of the Crown, who under

  783
  that Act held their offices for a much shorter period. This matter was then very carefully considered, and in Section 11 of that Act, regulating the tenure of the nominees of the Crown, these words were inserted, "that they should be removable by Her Majesty from inability or misbehaviour." He would suggest to the Government, therefore, whether they might not adopt the recommendation of his right hon. Friend (Sir G. C. Lewis), and use these words in the 11th section of the Act of 1853.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, if he remembered rightly, certain persons were, on the occasion referred to, appointed by the Crown, not to be servants of the Crown, but Directors of the East India Company. If special power had not then been reserved to Her Majesty the Crown could not have removed such parties under ordinary circumstances. The present case, however, was very different from that. Those Members of the Council were only to hold office upon the tenure of good behaviour and they were removable upon an Address to the Crown from either House of Parliament. He proposed to omit all the words after "Houses of Parliament," believing them to be wholly unnecessary.
  Amendment proposed in line 12 to leave out from the words Houses of "Parliament to the end of the clause."
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he must express his opinion that some other words ought to be adopted, so as to give power for the removal of Members of the Council who were ineligible for their office by misconduct or otherwise.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the case referred to by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle was not parallel with the present. In the former case the Directors were not removable by the Crown nor by an Address of either House. They held their offices independently as Directors. The present case resembled rather that of the Judges, and consequently, if any Member of the Council misbehaved in his office, it was competent for any Member of that House to come down and move an Address for his removal. The same rule would also apply to cases of inability.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYwished to know how the noble Lord intended to treat the case of a Member becoming bankrupt or insolvent.
  MR. WARRENsaid, that the County
  784
  Court Judges were removable on the ground of inability or misbehaviour.
  LORD STANLEY,in reply to the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) said, if any Member was guilty of any conduct disgraceful or discreditable, the Bill gave power for the removal of such party by means of an Address from either House of Parliament. As to any removal on the ground of inability, there would be a great difficulty in putting such machinery in force, as there was an indisposition to take harsh proceedings under such circumstances. He apprehended that in the case of ineligibility the removal of a person might be effected by negotiation.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he apprehended that some individuals occupying the position of Judges might be induced to remain for a much longer time than they ought, if they were not induced to retire from an apprehension of an Address being moved in Parliament for their removal. He apprehended in the present case that the same feeling would exist among the Members of the Council.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was nothing so difficult to punish as incapacity. By making an attempt to define incapacity, they would be raising an obstacle to the independence of the Members, which it was the object of the clause to secure. He therefore hoped that the Committee, on consideration, would not sanction the view which the right hon. Baronet, who had offered so many suggestions worthy of their attention, had taken in respect to this matter.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause as amended agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Members of the Council not to sit in Parliament.)
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, it was desirable that the members of Council should not be engaged in trade. He had understood that this was the opinion of the Government; if so, a provision to that effect should be introduced into the clause.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, if a member was appointed on the understanding that he should give the whole of his time to his duty, and if he did not do so, it would be a breach of the understanding, and would come under the definition of misbehaviour.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, that notwithstanding what had been said, he must still urge that the words "or concerned in any trade or traffic whatever" should be introduced into the clause. It was well known

  785
  that a late President of the Board of Control had been engaged as a sleeping partner in a large commercial concern; and he wished to prevent anything of this kind occurring with the new Council.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he had a prior Amendment to make, which was in line 22, to leave out the word "no," and to add the letters after the word member. He thought that the members of Council ought to be allowed to sit in Parliament. The presence of the Directors of the East India Company had been found most valuable in times past, and surely in future it was to be expected that the presence of the members of Council would be eminently conducive to the success of their deliberations, especially on matters connected with Indian finance. They had laboured for months to establish the independence of the Council, and he asked them to give to that independence one more bulwark, by allowing to the members the liberty of a free statement of their opinions in Parliament. He might add that in the course of nearly three-quarters of a century there had been only one instance of a conflict of opinion between a member of the Court of Directors in Parliament and a President of the Board of Control.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 22, to leave out the word "No."
  MR. ELLIOTsaid, that they wanted information as to what had been going on for years back in India, and they could not get it from any quarter so well as from the members of Council who were employed daily in transacting business connected with the subject. Great benefit would result to the House from the presence of some of the members of the Council, and he hoped they would not be shut out as was proposed in the clause.
  MR. GROGANsaid, he thought that the proposition made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Liddell) was well worthy of consideration. Now that the House was about to assume to itself so large a share in the management of Indian affairs, the knowledge and experience of those gentlemen who were to be members of the Council would be very valuable to the Legislature. No doubt the same arguments as those Gentlemen would use on any particular question could be conveyed by them second hand, if the clause passed in its present shape, but not at all with the same force or the same amount of responsibility as if they themselves had seats.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid,
  786
  he also thought that the matter was well deserving of the serious attention of the Committee. For his own part he thought that it would prove advantageous to have in that House—and the benefit would also be experienced in Committees up-stairs—Gentlemen practically acquainted with Indian affairs. It would also add weight to the newly constituted body, and give them strength, in which he was sure they were likely to prove very defective.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he was far from undervaluing the advantages that might result from the presence in that House of gentlemen thoroughly conversant with Indian affairs; but at the same time, from the number of gentlemen of position who were continually returning from India and obtaining seats in Parliament, he believed the House would never be without hon. Members capable of giving them advice on Indian questions. There were classes of people whom that House always had excluded, and always would exclude from sitting among them; and there could be no class more justly excluded than the members of the new Council. He did not in the abstract defend the principle of exclusion, but he thought that to admit members of the Council into that House would have the effect of renewing those discussions which had taken place elsewhere, and that the House would, in point of fact, be called upon to review the proceedings of a deliberative body. He would therefore oppose the Amendment.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, it was difficult, perhaps, to support a proposition that had been condemned by two Governments, but nevertheless he thought it right that the Committee should have fully before it the whole question before they decided the matter. It had been said that generally speaking it was not desirable to restrain the choice of electors. Without a strong necessity they would not say, "Here is a man you desire to elect, but there is a law which restrains you from so doing." There had, however, been an inclination to press the principle of exclusion too far, for some years ago there was a proposition before the House which would have deprived them of the advantage of the experience and knowledge of a man like Sir W. Grant. A similar thing was now urged against these Indian Councillors; for it was said, "If you accept of office, you shall be excluded from Parliament," and that would probably deprive the House of the greatest experience they

  787
  could acquire in Indian affairs. The hon. Gentleman who had last spoken appeared to be afraid that if the members of the Council were admitted to that House there would be a renewal of discussions which had taken place elsewhere, and that it would be better that the conduct of Indian affairs in that House should rest in the hands of the President and Vice President of the Council. Now, he had heard a story in which it was related of a Welsh magistrate, that after listening to the statement of counsel on one side he stopped the statement of the opposing advocate, telling him that he had made up his mind upon hearing one side, and if he heard the other it would only confuse him; and the hon. Gentleman appeared to think that that House would be in the same position if they heard both sides of the case upon Indian affairs. Even if the Minister for India should find a member of his Council taking a different view from him in that House on an Indian question, no doubt that Minister would be able to maintain his own opinions, and to enforce them with his eloquence and the weight due to his authority. But, appealing from mere hypothesis to actual experience, it was found that the members of the Court of Directors who had seats in that House generally lent their influence in favour of the Government. It tended to temper the heat of discussion in that House, that in the chances and changes of parties any man might in his turn be called upon to assume official responsibility. But under this Bill the most violent Indian agitator who might sit in that House would know that, by virtue of his seat there, he was excluded from the Council, and would thus have no motive for moderating the force of his invectives. No doubt, in questions of this kind they had to balance the probable advantages of any particular course against its disadvantages; but it seemed to him that, though the presence of a particular member of the Council in that House might be inconvenient to the Government, the public benefit that would accrue from certain members having seats in Parliament would more than counterbalance any such inconvenience. An eminent Indian statesman, on returning to this country, might have a preference for a seat in that House, and at the same time be willing, if allowed to do so, to promote the welfare of a distant country, to which he was heart and soul attached, by acting as a member of this Council. His exclusion would be
  788
  most inexpedient, and abhorrent to the general spirit of our law.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Lord that in this case they had to balance opposite benefits and opposite inconveniences; but he could not admit that the preponderance of advantage was in favour of members of the Council sitting in that House. He was, however, quite ready to allow that there was much to be said in favour of that proposition. But when the noble Lord told him that it was not desirable to restrict the choice of the electors, he (Lord Stanley) would remind the noble Lord that already many classes—classes of high consideration too—were excluded from that House, for no other reason than the supposition that the duties which they performed out of the House were incompatible with the duties which they would be called upon to perform in it. The Judges and the permanent officials of the various public departments were now excluded from that House; so was the whole clerical profession; and therefore the extension of this exclusion to the fifteen members of this Council involved no new principle, and no considerable extension of the one existing. As a matter of personal inconvenience, there was no class on which it would press less harshly than on men who had passed their lives in India, and were bound by no political tie to any constituency. The object of the House in framing such a Council as that which had been agreed on was, that gentlemen who had resided in India, and who might therefore be considered most competent to deal with Indian affairs, should sit on the Council; but if they were admitted to that House, was there no fear of the patronage put into the hands of the Government being abused for political purposes? Might not the fittest candidate be rejected in favour of an inferior man on an understanding that he should obtain a seat in that House, and give his support to the Government, though such understanding might never come before Parliament or the public? He did not affirm that any Government would take such a course as that, but they ought to keep the Indian Council not only free from a transaction of that nature, but free from even a suspicion of the kind. Again, what was to be the relative position of the Council with the Minister with which it was to deal? With seats in that House, the Councillors of the Indian Minister would be his critics rather than his colleagues. Association

  789
  with the Minister in office and criticism of his conduct in Parliament were functions necessarily incompatible. The Minister might consult with great advantage a member of his Council whose views were opposed to his own; but if the former knew that whatever passed between them in confidence was likely to be afterwards used in that House, and for his disadvantage, the mutual confidence which might otherwise be perfectly reconcilable with differences of opinion would be wholly destroyed. He did not imply by this argument that the supposed member of the Council would make an improper use of his information. If a man were to argue at all he must make use of all the information he possessed, no matter in what manner he might have acquired it. The result would be, that a member of Council having a seat in Parliament, knowing that he was about to differ with the Minister upon an important question, would decline to argue it at the Council table, but would say when the matter came before Parliament he should there oppose the views of the Minister. There would be a risk of the duties of one character or the other, as members of Council or Members of Parliament, being performed in an unsatisfactory manner. He admitted that those who had acted in a somewhat analogous character, as Directors of the East India Company, had generally maintained very fair relations with the Minister with whom they acted, but those relations had arisen from accident; but, in creating a new Council, he did not think it was advisable that the system should be continued.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE,said he thought that this was one of the most important clauses in the Bill, and that it would be a great misfortune if the very limited Indian information which the House possessed should be still further contracted by the disqualification of members of the Council. There had always hitherto been a standing Council for India, in the shape of Directors who were Members of the House. He had never known a case in which a Director had been guilty of an indiscretion in the discharge of his Parliamentary duties. He should therefore support the Amendment.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, although something might be said in favour of this Amendment, the preponderance of the argument was against it, for what the House required in the Council was indepen,
  790
  dence and non-obstruction. But the Members, if introduced into Parliament, would either be dependent on the Minister or obstructives. Surely it was a small amount of independence they were looking for, if they were to be satisfied with a gentleman who committed no indiscretion in debate. He was sure the result of such an experiment would be an unseemly and inconvenient opposition to the President of the Board of Control by members of his own council in that House. And as for Indian information in that House, there would be no want of gentlemen returning from that country who would be found in Parliament. The adoption of the Amendment would be to make the House and subserviency to the Minister the high road to the Council on the part of members of the House.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he had heard nothing on the opposite side which at all weighed with him against the arguments of the noble Lord the Member for London.
  MR. RIDLEYsaid, he could not see why if Members of the House of Lords were eligible, Members of this House should be disqualified.
  Question put, "That the word 'No' stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 245; Noes 121: Majority 124.
  On the Question that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill,
  MR. RIDLEYsaid he wished to suggest that the wording of the clause should be so altered as to admit of persons who received peerages for services in India serving on the Council.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, there was no necessity for the provision alluded to, as it was very unlikely that persons who had obtained peerages for services in India would seek seats in the Council.
  Loan JOAN RUSSELLsaid, that an instance in support of the proposition might be found in Lord Elphinstone, who would on his return from India be a valuable member of Council if not legally excluded.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must decline to accede to the proposition.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow at twelve o'clock,

CHELSEA BRIDGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he thought it was understood that no opposed business was to be taken after twelve o'clock.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he should propose that the Bill be then read a second time, on the understanding that the discussion be taken at a further stage of the measure.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [11th June]—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." Debate resumed.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 96: Majority 65.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, the Amendment had been rejected under rather peculiar circumstances. Three weeks ago the subject had been debated, and on that occasion it was evident that a large majority were opposed to the measure. The debate was then adjourned on the understanding, as he thought, that the Bill was to be abandoned; yet now, at past midnight, when the House did not well know upon what question they were dividing, the second reading had been carried. He believed that the more the measure was examined the less it would be liked, and he hoped, therefore, it would be thrown out on going into Committee.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Monday next.

MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he rose to move the addition of the following clause:—
  "That nothing herein contained shall render valid any marriage with the sister of a deceased wife, if either of the parties to such marriage shall, after having contracted such marriage, and before the passing of this Act, have married any other person."
  MR. HENLEYsuggested that the Motion should not be pressed at that late hour.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALremarked, that the clause should be differently worded, for as it stood it contemplated that which could not take place by law—the marriage of a man with his deceased's wife's sister.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that the case contemplated by the clause had arisen, and that was the reason why it was proposed. The matter was fully discussed yesterday.
  MR. ADAMSsaid, he should move that the debate be adjourned.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that if a debate were to arise on the clause it could not be proceeded with at that hour, and suggested that the Government should give a morning sitting for the purpose of the discussion.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought the matter lay within the smallest possible compass. The object of the clause was to meet the particular case of a man who, having married his deceased wife's sister, and afterwards presuming on the illegality of that marriage, married another woman. It would except the second marriage from the operation of the Act.
  MR. GLADSTONEobserved, that if the question was fully debated yesterday it would be hardly gracious to prevent the noble Lord going on with his Motion, especially as private Members had cheerfully given up to the Government every night in the week.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered; Clause added; Amendment made.
  Bill to be read 3o To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter aft One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. Marriages (Moscow, Tahati, and Ningpo); Funded Debt; New General Post Office (Edinburgh).
2a Jews; Public Grounds and Playgrounds; County Courts Districts; Durham County Palatine Jurisdiction; Stanhope and Wolsingham Rectories.
3a Municipal Franchise.

POLITICAL SERVICES OF TUE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

  THE QUEEN'S ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  THE LORD STEWARD(the Marquess of EXETER) reported Her MAJESTY'S most gracious Answer to their Lordships' Address of Monday last, as followeth:—
  MY LORDS,
  I have received your Address praying that I will take into My Consideration the Proclamation of the First Year of My Reign, commanding the Use of the Forms of Prayer and Service made for the Fifth of November, the Thirtieth of January, the Twenty-ninth of May, and should I see fit, that I will give such Orders, as to Me shall seem meet, to cause that the said Services shall no longer be annexed to the Book of Common Prayer and Liturgy of the United Church of England and Ireland, to be used yearly on the said Days.
  And you may rely on My giving the Subject of your Address the careful Consideration which its Importance demands.

RIGIITS OF THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS.

  THE VICTORIA STATION AND PIMLICO RAILWAY BILL.
  Order for further Debate on the Motion, That the First Commissioner of Public Works have Leave to appear by Counsel against the same before the Select Committee on the said Bill; and that certain Documents be referred to the said Committee (which stands appointed for this Day).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had had an opportunity since their Lordships last met of looking into this question, and he had come to the conclusion, without any doubt at all, that there was no necessity to have the consent of the Crown to the progress of this Bill. It appeared that
  692
  when the Act for the establishment of Battersea Park was passed in the 9th and 10th of the Queen, there was inserted in it an enactment that the land should be conveyed to Her Majesty, and that it should be part of the hereditary revenues of the Crown. If that enactment had remained unaltered, of course there would be a necessity for the interference of the Crown in this case; but the enactment had been repealed, and the land was now vested in the Board of Works as a corporation under the title of "the Commissioners for Battersea Park." The same state of things existed with regard to the Thames Embankment. When the embankment of the river was complete, the soil of the road was vested in the Commissioner of Works, and when streets were formed the lighting and paving was entrusted to the boards of the various parishes through which they passed. Therefore the Commissioners were the trustees for the public, and were bound to take care of their rights; and if any question arose as to those rights, the Commissioners might appear by counsel either in opposition to the Bill or for the purpose of introducing protective clauses into it. The late First Commissioner of Works (Sir B. Hall) had given his sanction to this measure, or, at all events, said that he had no objection to it; and his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) had said that it would be contrary to good faith if, after consent had been given by the late First Commissioner, this Bill were opposed on behalf of the public by the present First Commissioner. But that opinion must be considered as requiring a little qualification. If the late First Commissioner had given his consent to this Bill inadvertently, or under a misapprehension of the facts, without having seen the plans; or if his noble Friend the present First Commissioner was of opinion that the interests of the public were being interfered with, he was not only entitled, but he was bound to interfere, and not to ratify the sanction he had given under a different state of things. The noble Lord had since said that he must introduce some further clauses into the measure. In the ordinary course, for this purpose, he should present a petition by counsel against the Bill; but there being a doubt as to how he should interfere, inasmuch as the Standing Orders of the House prevented such a petition from being presented; and, as his noble and learned Friend would agree, some opportunity of appearing ought to be permitted him, he

  693
  (the Lord Chancellor) proposed to move, to-morrow, that the Standing Order be dispensed with, in order that the Chief Commissioner of Works might be enabled to appear before the Select Committee.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, it clearly appeared that in this case the assent of the Crown was not necessary; but he thought their Lordships ought to pause before they did anything for a First Commissioner of Works which they would not do for a private individual. He thought it would be a breach of faith not to adhere to the assent given to the scheme by the late First Commissioner. A change of Government ought not to make any difference.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYread a letter from Sir Benjamin Hall, correcting the statement which had been made by more than one noble Lord, that he had never seen the plans, and was, therefore, not qualified to assent to the scheme. Sir Benjamin Hall had seen the plans, and was so satisfied with them that he abstained from presenting a petition to be heard by council against the Bill.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, the authority on which he stated that Sir Benjamin Hall had never seen the plans was the copy of a letter to the present Chief Commissioner of Works, in which Sir Benjamin Hall himself stated that he had not seen the plans.
  EARL GREYsuggested that the letter of Sir Benjamin Hall, stating that he had not seen the plans, might have reference to any particular design for the bridge, and not to the general scheme of the promoters.
  After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL,
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he would adopt the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor, and now give notice that tomorrow he would move the suspension of the Standing Order. He would now ask that the further consideration of the Bill should be postponed.
  Order discharged.
  Standing Order, No. 179, sec. 1, to be considered To-morrow, in order to its being dispensed with.

OATHS SUBSTITUTION BILL.

  SECOND READING PUT OFF.
  On the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Before my noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst),
  694
  rises to move the second reading of the Bill of which he has given notice, perhaps your Lordships will allow me, though not strictly in order, to say a few words upon the position in which the House stands with regard to the three Bills which are to-night to be considered. But before I do so I feel it my duty in a single sentence to express to your Lordships, and more especially to noble Lords opposite, my grateful thanks for the forbearance and courtesy with which they have submitted to my very involuntary absence, in consequence of an illness from which I am now only imperfectly recovered. I must also express my hope that no material public inconvenience has arisen or will arise from the postponement, until I should be able to attend, of some discussions from which I should be very sorry to be absent. With respect to the question which is about to be brought under your Lordships' notice, your Lordships will remember that a Bill passed through the House of Commons, and was submitted to your Lordships, for the alteration of certain oaths now required to be taken by Members of both Houses of Parliament; and that a clause was introduced in that Bill, as it came up to your Lordships, which dispensed with certain words of one of the oaths in favour of Her Majesty's Jewish subjects. Those clauses were struck out of the Bill by your Lordships, and the Bill so amended was sent down to the other House. The House of Commons returned the Bill, objecting to your Lordships' Amendments, and offering their reasons in support of their objections. Upon the re-consideration of the Bill and of the Commons' Reasons, when your Lordships insisted on your Amendments, my noble and gallant Friend near me (the Earl of Lucan) very unexpectedly gave notice, on the day before the Whitsuntide holidays, of his intention to move an Amendment. without stating the nature or character of that Amendment. On the first day after the holidays my noble and gallant Friend accordingly moved his Amendment substantially to this effect, that by an Act of Parliament either House should have the power, by Resolution, to dispense with the words "on the true faith of a Christian," in the case of members of the Jewish persuasion. That Amendment took me and most of your Lordships by surprise. My noble and gallant Friend having only giving notice of his intention on the day before the recess, and having brought forward his Amendment on the first day after

  695
  the holidays, it was impossible for any private communication to take place between noble Lords either on one side or the other, and we came to the discusion of an important Amendment without the possibility of previous consultation or deliberation. Under these circumstances I took upon myself to suggest to your Lordships that the question brought forward by my noble and gallant Friend was one of too much importance to be decided upon in an incidental discussion of an Amendment in the last stage of a Bill. I suggested to your Lordships that, if my noble and gallant Friend intended to propose his Amendment, it would be better done by a separate Bill than by a mere Amendment. I confess that in my opinion it would have been more satisfactory to your Lordships and to the country if my noble and gallant Friend had been satisfied with the expression of his own opinion—with throwing out a suggestion that such a modification was required, and had then left the other House of Parliament to send back the Bill with the Amendments so introduced, to which your Lordships might then have given your assent. But the course which has been pursued is that two Bills have been brought in—one by my noble and gallant Friend (the Earl of Lucan) and another by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) than whom no one is more entitled to be heard on a subject to which he has devoted so much time and attention. Upon looking at the two Bills there does not appear to be much difference in their provisions; but in the framing of his Bill my noble and learned Friend commits what may be considered an irregularity in the course of Parliamentary proceeding; because a Bill which has passed through all its stages here must necessarily be communicated to the House of Commons, with the final decision of your Lordships upon it. The Bill of my noble and learned Friend, however, takes steps to re-enact all the clauses that have been already passed in the Bill that has been before both Houses of Parliament. The Bill of my noble and gallant Friend, on the contrary, takes a different course, and deals only with the single question of enabling the House of Commons to deal by way of Resolution with the question, and to dispense with some words in this particular oath. I confess that I am disposed to view with every favour the suggestion of my noble and gallant Friend to send down such an enabling power to the House of Commons, and I
  696
  think such a course preferable to that pursued by my noble and learned Friend. I think it would be far better to send down the first Bill as it stands, and then to send down the Bill of my noble and gallant Friend as a separate measure, having special reference to the case of the Jews. I confess, my Lords, that I have not altered my views in regard to the policy or expediency of admitting the Jews to be Members of a Christian Legislature; but, having carefully and anxiously considered the subject, I see that the proposal of my noble and gallant Friend is the only possible solution of a difficulty which has existed for a period of ten years. I see no other practical chance of bringing the two Houses of Parliament into agreement. The measure proposed by my noble and gallant Friend is one that certainly maintains the principle adopted by your Lordships in dealing with this measure; it maintains the dignity of your Lordships' House with regard to that portion of the question which is more immediately subject to your jurisdiction; it maintains the law as it stands at the present moment, but it enables the House of Commons, upon a question that specially relates to persons taking their seats in that House, to dispense with the words which stand in the way of what appears to be the decided wish of that House. This solution appears to me to afford a practical and not unreasonable mode of settling a difficult and complicated question. And however much I regret the determination taken by the House of Commons, and the impossibility of maintaining inviolate the principle for which your Lordships' House has ever contended, I confess I think there is less difficulty and less practical inconvenience and danger arising from giving a limited consent to the views of the House of Commons, as embodied in the proposition of my noble and gallant Friend, than in persisting in an opposition which all practical experience proves cannot be pushed beyond a certain limit between the two Houses. While, therefore, on the one hand, I object to the Bill of my noble and learned Friend, and while I cannot say that the Bill of my noble and gallant Friend is not susceptible of and may not indeed require some Amendment, I shall be satisfied, if it come to a question of dividing upon the second reading, to give my support to the Bill of my noble and gallant Friend. My Lords, it is with the greatest regret I feel that I may differ upon this question from

  697
  many of those with whom I have agreed for many years. If upon this occasion those who have honoured me with their confidence find it impossible to adopt the course which I have recommended, I will only say for my own part that, claiming from them that justice which I am ready to give in return, I take the course which I have adopted from no other feeling than a desire to see an amicable settlement between the two Houses with regard to a question of grave interest, and with respect to which I see no other solution.
  LORD LYNDHURST: My Lords, the course recommended by my noble Friend has taken me by surprise. Before I give an answer to the considerations which he has suggested, it is necessary to make some explanation. When this subject was last before your Lordships, I listened with great attention and satisfaction to the speech of my noble Friend. Upon that occasion my noble Friend, with that readiness of illustration and clearness of statement by which he is characterized, shaped out the course which he thought should be pursued in order to put an end to the difference between the two Houses of Parliament. I considered most carefully the suggestion made by my noble Friend, and I took it as the foundation of the Bill I have brought in. If your Lordships will look to the clauses, you will find that they correspond with the suggestions of my noble Friend. By the Bill I have brought in, if a Member of either House come to the table to be sworn, and says that he cannot conscientiously make the declaration "on the true faith of a Christian," those words are to be struck out of the oath, and the taking of the oath with that omission will be a sufficient taking of the oath. That, my Lords, is the main clause of the Bill that I have brought in. My noble Friend, it it true, did not pledge himself to support a Bill so drawn, but he expressed himself strongly in favour of such a measure. I will read to your Lordships a report of what fell from my noble Friend, which accords exactly with my own recollection of what took place. What I am now stating is said in my own justification, in presenting the Bill in the form in which it now appears. I do not read this in any controversial spirit, but in explanation. My noble Friend, speaking of the Amendment of my noble and gallant Friend (the Earl of Lucan) expressed himself in these terms:—
  "I could better understand it (the Amendment)had he introduced into the latter portion of the
  698
  clause the same provision which is to be found in the first part, and provided that in the case of any person presenting himself at the table (for I can't see why the restriction should only be removed in the case of Jews), and having been duly elected, declaring that he was willing to take the prescribed oaths, but that the words 'on the true faith of a Christian' were not binding on his conscience, each House should be empowered to omit those words, and to allow the substantive oath to be taken in the form which might be most binding. I do not pledge myself to that view, but there is much to be said in its favour, and that by adopting it it is possible to a great extent to get rid of the very painful subject of difference between this and the other House. In voting against the latter portion (of the Amendment) I desire to reserve to myself, and those with whom I act, the opportunity of considering upon some future occasion whether any compromise, framed according to such principle as I have mentioned, may not be adopted to terminate the inconveniences arising from, I fear, the permanent difference of opinion between your Lordships and the other House."
  I repeat, that it was in consequence of that statement that I framed the Bill which I have submitted to the consideration of your Lordships, and which, as your Lordships will see, is founded on that statement of my noble Friend. I do not say, that in consequence of his statement my noble Friend was absolutely bound to support the Bill as I have framed it; but I had every reason to believe, from the manner in which he expressed himself, and from his stating that much was to be said in favour of a Bill so drawn up, that it would have had the entire concurrence of my noble Friend. In that, however, I am sorry to say, I have been disappointed. I have not, in point of principle, any objection to the Bill of my noble and gallant Friend (the Earl of Lucan). I have no personal object in this matter. I have nothing but a public object in view, and if that object is carried, whether it be accomplished by my Bill or by the Bill of my noble and gallant Friend is to me a matter of perfect indifference. I have no personal vanity to gratify. I have been too long engaged in public life, and am far too much advanced in age, to be influenced by any feelings of that description. I am only desirous to accomplish the object, and to attain the end I have in view, and by whomsoever it may be promoted, and by whatever measure, it will have my hearty concurrence and support. My noble Friend has stated, that there is an objection in point of form to the Bill I have introduced, but he is entirely misinformed on that matter. In the first place, the two Bills which have been introduced are not identical, there is a wide difference between them—

  699
  the one is imperative, the other discretionary. But I do not rely on that. I will state distinctly the rule of your Lordships' House on the subject, and which is also the rule of the other House of Parliament. When a Bill is brought up from the other House, and is rejected by your Lordships, then a Bill in the same form, and having the same objects, cannot be introduced during the same Session into the House where the first Bill originated. But so long as a Bill is depending in the House, another Bill, having precisely the same object, may be brought in and passed. It depends entirely on the question whether the former Bill is or is not pending. No man will say that the Bill which was brought up from the other House relative to the Jews is not now pending before your Lordships. It is not only on the paper for to-night, but we have on the paper the reasons which we are about to consider why we cannot assent to the reasons of the Commons in support of their clauses. When those answers go down to the House of Commons, that House may again send the Bill up for our reconsideration. It is obvious, then, that the Bill is still pending; and the rule is, that while a Bill is pending, and until it is completely disposed of, there is nothing whatever to prevent another Bill for the seine object being introduced. At this very moment there are two or three law Bills directed to the same object before your Lordships' House; and in the other House of Parliament—for the rule is the same in both Houses—there are two bills pending for regulating the Government of the East Indies. I think these statements are decisive as regards the objection of my noble Friend. But another rule exists, from which there can be no doubt whatever, and that is, that when a Bill comes from the other House of Parliament, and is rejected in your Lordship's House, you may in your House introduce another Bill having the same title and directed to the same object, and send it down to the House from which the other Bill proceeded. That is a rule which has been established among the general orders of your Lordships' House, so that even had the former Bill been rejected—if it had been entirely out of your Lordships' House—it would still have been competent for us, that Bill having originated in the other House, to produce another Bill with the same title and directed to the same object. I did not think it right, my Lords, to rely entirely on my
  700
  own view of this case, but I applied for information to an eminent officer of the other House of Parliament, whose name I shall not mention, but who is perfectly acquainted with all the rules of Parliament, and his answer to my application was as follows:—
  "My dear Lord,—No objection can be raised to the introduction of a Bill into the House of Commons on the ground of there being a similar Bill already before the House. Indeed we have at present two India Bills before us—Lord Palmerston's and Lord Derhy's—each waiting a second reading. It is the rejection, and not the pendency of the Bill, that creates the difficulty as to ulterior proceedings. The rule applies to both Houses, and an additional indulgence is allowed to Bills sent by the Commons to the Lords, as, even in the event of their rejection by the Lords, similar Bills may be subsequently introduced into the Lords. (See May's Practice of Parliament, 247). The introduction of any Jew Bill into the Lords is, therefore, as far as I can judge, perfectly regular."
  But the Question does not rest here. You will find from Mr. May's Privileges and Practices of Parliament, that the rules of both Houses in regard to this matter are the same. He says:—
  "When Bills have ultimately passed, or have been rejected, the rules of both Houses are positive that they shall not be introduced again; but the practice is not strictly in accordance with them. The principle is thus stated by the Lords, May 17, 1600:—'That when a Bill hath been brought into the House and rejected, another Bill of the same argument and matter may not be renewed and begun again in the same House, in the same Session, where the former Bill was begun; but if a Bill, begun in one of the Houses, and there allowed and passed, be disliked and refused in the other, a new Bill of the same matter may be drawn and begun again in that House whereunto it was sent; and if, a Bill being begun in either of the Houses and committed, it be thought by the committees that the matter may better proceed by a new Bill, it is likewise holden agreeable to order, in such case, to draw a new Bill and to bring it into the House.'"
  I have to repeat, therefore, that according to the rules of your Lordships' House, even if this Bill had been rejected, we have power to introduce a new Bill for the same object. I have stated this in justification of what I have done; and now allow me to say a few words with respect to the Bill of my noble and gallant Friend. I have no objection on principle to that Bill. It embraces, indeed, a material part of my own Bill. But what strikes me as very extraordinary is, that when my noble and gallant Friend moved his Amendment to the Bill that came down from the Commons, that Amendment consisting of two parts, one appli-

  701
  cable to Members in Parliament, and another to persons out of Parliament, my noble Friend at the head of the Government (the Earl of Derby) approved one of those parts, and disapproved, or at least had strong doubts as to the other; and now my noble and gallant Friend omits that part which my noble Friend approved, and contents himself with the introduction into his Bill of that of which my noble Friend expressed grave doubts. Another thing I must notice. I do not state it in the spirit of controversy, but by way of explanation; because your Lordships must be aware that my noble and gallant Friend's Bill is only part of a complete measure, and that if you pass this Bill you will still have to pass another, in order to make the relief complete. My noble and gallant Friend's Bill deals with the oath of abjuration only so far as relates to the words "on the true faith of a Christian," and if the Bill should pass into a law you still would have to abjure the descendants of the Pretender. I put that to my noble Friend for his consideration. It is true that when the Bill goes into Committee you may amend it in that respect; but what will be the effect? Why, absolutely to make it conformable to my Bill; so, by rejecting the Bill that I have brought in, you are supporting a Bill which embraces only one part of the subject, and are going into Committee to supply what is wanting to make it like mine. I repeat I do not in the slightest degree care by what process the object I have in view may be attained. Whether it be by the Bill brought in by my noble and gallant Friend, or by my Bill—whether it be by one Bill or by two—is to me altogether immaterial. As I said before, I have no personal feeling on the subject; I am desirous of attaining the object in view, and in whatever way that object is attained I shall be perfectly satisfied. Now, as I understand that my noble Friend will support the Bill of my noble and gallant Friend, and as I know, if he does support that Bill, the object will be accomplished—as I know, too, if I press my Bill it may possibly not succeed, or at least may succeed with difficulty, I have no hesitation whatever in postponing my Bill in order that the Bill of my noble and gallant Friend may be brought forward and supported by the powerful voice, the masterly talents, and more than that, the extensive—I will not say the overwhelming—but the extensive influence of my noble Friend at the
  702
  head of the Government. By taking this course I believe I shall accomplish the object I have at heart. I withdraw my Bill.
  Second Reading put off to Thursday next.

JEWS BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCANsaid, he had endeavoured as far as possible to make his Bill acceptable to their Lordships. The object he had in view, which was also the object of the clause he moved on the Bill which came up from the other House, was to allow the admission of Jews into the House of Commons; and, if the Bill passed, Jews would be admissible into the other House by a Resolution of that House. Before, however, such a Resolution could pass it would be necessary, under his Bill, that Jews should present themselves at the table of the House to be sworn, and there object to the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," when it would be in the power of the House to direct the omission of those words from the oath. That was a compromise which he ventured to hope their Lordships would be disposed to accept, for he thought that after a conflict of twenty-five years it was time for them to consider whether the question was not one which admitted of a compromise. This subject had been before their Lordships for six weeks during the present Session, and he could not but express a sanguine hope that it would be settled by them on the present occasion once for all. He knew he had to contend with a violent opposition. He knew that on that side of the House on which he sat there were many among his noble Friends with whom he had the honour of acting, who thought so keenly on this subject, and were actuated by such strong religious feelings and conscientious obligations as to hold that it was not one which admitted of any compromise. He trusted, however, that other noble Lords would be disposed to concur in the view he took, and in the mode by which he sought to give it effect. But he believed there were other noble Lords on his side of the House who agreed with him that this was a question that ought to be disposed of; but who entertained objections to the admission of Jews by Resolution, and who had an idea that to allow a separate action on the part of either House was unconsti-

703
tutional and might lead to mischievous consequences. He could not for the life of him see how it was possible that a Resolution so restricted and so guarded could lead to any mischievous results. He could well understand that it might form a precedent for a similar course; but if they supposed that it would in time to come justify the House of Commons in assuming an independent and separate action, that he thought was not warranted by the provisions of the Bill. He had said on a former occasion that he believed there was the most perfect apathy and indifference in the country in reference to the admission of Jews to Parliament. It had been said that apathy and indifference arose from the country relying on the resistance to their admission by their Lordships' House. But could that answer be given now? There could be no doubt that for the last six weeks the country had been well aware that this question was on the point of being settled, through concessions to be made by their Lordships. Could the country, then, rely on the continued resistance of their Lordships' House? It was certain they could not; and yet during that time the question had scarcely been mentioned in the country, and he did not believe that half a dozen petitions had been presented to that House on the subject during those six weeks. There was a Bill before their Lordships' House for the abolition of church rates, which would come on for discussion to-morrow evening. That Bill excited very strong religious feelings in the country; but was the same silence observed out of doors with respect to it? On the contrary, he found that in one day there had been no less than 213 petitions presented to their Lordships' House in favour of the Bill for the Abolition of church rates, a fact which showed that when there was a strong feeling in the country on any subject the people would make themselves heard. From the entire silence, then, that had prevailed for the last six weeks in the country on the subject of the Jew Bill he was led to say that the people were perfectly indifferent about it. Their Lordships were therefore in the position to act as they thought would be most conducive to the good of the country. Was, then, the conflict between the two Houses to go on for ever? He maintained that it could not go on for ever; that the position of their Lordships was not tenable; and therefore he trusted that the matter
704
would be satisfactorily disposed of that very night once for all. The noble Earl concluded by moving that his Bill be read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: My Lords, had the noble and learned Lord withdrawn his Bill in deference to the often expressed opinion of the House against the surrender of a great principle of the constitution, instead of for the purpose of making way for the Bill of my noble and gallant Friend, he would have merited all your Lordships' gratitude; but I cannot think that it will conduce either to public respect for your wisdom and consistency, or to a satisfactory settlement of the oaths question, that you should take up and return to the Commons a measure such as that now before the House, in lieu of that which they asked you to accept. That Bill your Lordships approved of, in so far as it substituted one oath for the three oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, and rejected the proposition it contained of admitting Jews to sit and vote in Parliament. What will that assembly think of your consistency, when you send down to them a Bill without the enactment you before approved of, and enacting the very thing you before disapproved of? Far better would it have been to have taken the issue upon the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, and that if an Act for the relief of Jewish disabilities should originate in this House, it should be endorsed with the name showing a legitimacy of parentage instead of going forth stamped with the brand of illegitimacy, the damning evidence of an erring parent. The honour, if honour there is, in carrying a measure of the kind through your Lordships' House belongs of right to the venerable Peer who has for years been the consistent advocate of the Jewish claims, and not to my noble and gallant Friend who has for years been their opponent, but who now has changed his colours. In moving that the second reading of this Bill be deferred for six months, I shall not need to trouble your Lordships by discussing the principle upon which objection is made to the admission of Jews to sit and vote in Parliament. My views upon that subject I have lately had the honour of laying before the House. I will only say they were in perfect harmony with those which your Lordships have repeatedly affirmed, and by majorities increasing in proportion as the question by

705
repeated discussion became better understood. I shall, therefore, confine my observations to the question of a compromise as it is now submitted to your Lordships by the Bill of the noble Earl. I regret that the noble Earl has not offered any explanation in support of his Bill that could enable me to join him in his endeavours to put an end to the controversy between the two Houses of Parliament, and to promote a satisfactory adjustment of the oaths question. I can see nothing in the proposition he has made calculated to promote objects so desirable. The Bill, on the contrary, appears to me to be fraught with great injury to the future good government of the country, and, so far from being calculated to lead to a satisfactory settlement of the difference between the two houses, to contain within it the germ of much greater agitation on the oaths question than your Lordships have ever hitherto had to deal with. Nor is likely to conduce to a feeling of mutual respect between the two Houses of Parliament that the mere will of the one should overbear the convictions of the other—that the House of Lords, in fact, should yield to the dictation of the House of Commons. Before I enter further into the consideration of the Bill before the House, I owe it to your Lordships, and especially to that large majority that has been hitherto opposed to the Jewish claims, to offer a few words in explanation of the fact of so prominent a part having been undertaken by me as the moving of the Amendment. I will only say that I neither sought for nor coveted such a distinction. It was solely owing to that disorganization and want of concert among the party I have alluded to by the sudden and unexpected defection of two noble Earls connected with it, followed by the suggestion of compromise among others. My noble and gallant Friend was the first to go over—he was the last from whom I should have apprehended such an example. I had always regarded him as a man of great determination, and from the gallant profession he belongs to, the least likely to have entertained a thought of yielding or turning; but I am bound to say that in announcing his change my noble Friend did state what at once disentitled the opponents of the Jewish claims any longer to expect his co-operation; nay, he showed conclusively that his vote should always have been given on the other side. My noble Friend said he had always given a cold and reluctant vote against the Jews;
706
this he could do no longer. I unhesitatingly say that he ought never to have given such a vote—a vote to exclude a fellow subject from the enjoyment of constitutional rights that he believed him, as his Motion this day shows, to have been fully entitled to. He owed it to the Jews to repair the wrong he had done them; but it would have been, I think, a more generous proceeding on his part if, instead of proposing a kind of half measure on their behalf, he bad given his vote and support to the Bill the House of Commons were at the time pressing you to accept. My noble and gallant Friend's example was followed by the noble Earl on the cross bench, whose defection was not less a matter of surprise and regret, considering the noble Earl's intimate acquaintance with the history of his country, his associations with the most eminent of its modern statesmen, and the fact of his having been selected to conduct the opposition to a Bill for the admission of the Jews to Parliament. Considering also the abilities he displayed in the conduct of that debate, he was naturally looked up to as one of the greatest authorities upon the question, and as one of the least likely to act in opposition to the principles he had so ably advocated. But we were doomed to lose him, and with no better reason assigned for his change than that great men before him had changed upon great questions. The party, however, was strong enough to have borne the loss of the two noble Earls. But when the ill-omened word "compromise" was uttered in the most influential quarter, and passed from mouth to mouth among the more immediate friends of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, at once that great party he had before so ably formed and led became disorganized: no one knew whom to consult, whom to trust; and such was the consternation of the party, that noble Lords opposite appeared to consider the victory as already won, and that the only point to be determined was by whom the Bill or terms of capitulation should be drawn up, whether by the noble and learned Lord, the tried friend of the Jews, or by my noble and gallant Friend who had for so many years opposed them. The result was that Bills were laid upon the table by both noble Lords, and had remained there for above a week, and were within four days of that appointed for their second reading, without any indication of opposition being offered to them, when it appeared to me that unless notice of oppo-

707
sition were given immediately, none could be offered with any hope of success; the breach was open, and the enemy might walk in unopposed. I, therefore, stepped as private out of the ranks to occupy it. I do not mention this with any view of claiming your indulgence; that, I am sure, I shall receive in the same measure as it is always accorded to those that address your Lordships from a sense of public duty, but I do ask that the cause I have undertaken may not be prejudiced by the mere fact which I have endeavoured to explain of its having fallen into the hands of one who feels himself quite incapable of doing it justice. To myself as well as to many of your Lordships it is, I am sure, a source of much regret, that the House should now be called upon to initiate a compromise of a great principle of the constitution, after the long, the intelligible, and decided stand it has made in its defence. I had hoped from the cordial reception your Lordships gave to the suggestion of the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees, that the proposition of a compromise, if compromise were possible, should originate with the other House of Parliament would have been acted on, and that your Lordships would thereby have been spared the humiliation of now sitting, as it were, in judgment upon all your past decisions upon the Jew question, and of exhibiting, should you unhappily be induced to pass this Bill, a deplorable example of weakness and inconsistency where most of all you should be strong and uncompromising. The House, it appears to me, is less in a position now than ever it was to propose any measure of concession upon the Jew question, for not only have you by an unusually large majority made decision in the present Session that you would not admit the Jews to Parliament, but it stands upon record that without even dividing upon the question you rejected the reasons of the Commons against the course you had taken. You thereby substantially re-affirmed your oft-repeated decision, and in such form that you could not, with any regard for consistency, or I might add, with self-respect, offer any compromise, properly so called, that could meet the requirement of the Commons. The Bill before you is totally at variance with the principle to which you stand pledged, for it is a distinction without any difference in point of principle whether the Jew be admitted to sit and vote in Parliament by a legalised
708
order of the House to which be belongs, or by a more direct legal sanction. In either case the Jew is put upon an equality with the Christian as a member of the Legislature. What is the compromise or middle course the Bill proposes? What does the Jew give up of his claim? What do you ask the Commons to abate of what they have demanded? Nothing whatever. If you should pass this Bill you will do the very thing, with only a slight and immaterial change in point of form, that you have over and over again refused to do, and upon reasons that have more and more commended themselves to your own judgment and to public approval; and you will do it without any alteration of circumstances whatever to justify your change. I see nothing whatever in the proposed measure to render it less objectionable than that which you have rejected. Does it provide in any way for the security and future government of our Christian Church Establishment? Does it in any way vindicate the principles to which you are pledged? Is there anything within the four corners of the Bill to compensate to a Christian nation for the surrender of the great principle of Christianity which has hitherto been the exclusive rule and acknowledged basis of our Government? To maintain this principle your Lordships have steadily refused to admit any but professed Christians to sit and vote in Parliament; if you now depart from this rule, and by admitting the Jew practically declare it as your opinion that he ought to be admitted, the public will naturally ask what right had you ever to exclude him, or to deny his claim, as you have done for the last fourteen years? Principles do not change. What is right now in point of principle, must have been right from the beginning; and you could not have been justified, but upon the clearest and most undeniable grounds of national policy, in excluding any British subject from participating in every privilege of our free constitution. If such grounds existed a month ago, in what respect are they now changed? If they have not changed, then are you bound, excluding all personal considerations, all narrow views of a temporary expediency, and consulting only the true and permanent interests of the empire, to maintain as their best security the open acknowledgment of the true faith of a Christain by each Member of the Legisture. The insistance of the House of Commons to admit those to assist in the framing

709
of our laws who regard Christianity as a system of imposture, is unsupported by reason, for their reasons have been before you, and you have rejected them; they, therefore, will not justify you if you should give way upon such a question; nor will it be any apology for you, nor in any degree uphold your dignity in public estimation, that your surrender to the demand of the Commons is not made in the exact form that they had proposed. If you substantially give up what it is your duty to defend, it will matter little in what manner you do so; the voice of public opinion will condemn you, declaring you wrong from the beginning—wrong for first refusing what, if you pass this Bill you will practically confess you ought never to have withheld—wrong for giving in now with a very bad grace, and wrong if you have allowed your convictions to be overborne. Interwoven as Christianity is with the whole system of our Government both in Church and State, I see no way by which, without offence to the cause of truth, you could commit the interests of the Church and the framing of our laws to any who deny Christ and reject the divine laws. A precedent, however, for a compromise, upon a question somewhat analogous to that of the Jewish claims, does exist in the settlement of the Catholic claims. The analogy exists in the fact that in both eases there was a difficulty to be overcome regarding the national church and religion of the state; in all other respects the cases are widely different. The claims of the Roman Catholics were those of about one-fourth of the entire population of the United Kingdom Public opinion had been strongly expressed in their favour, promises had been held out to them in times of difficulty, and especially at the period of the union with Ireland. They did not, like the Jews, seek the acquirements of new rights, but the restitution of rights of which they had been deprived; for the first founders of the constitutional liberties of England were Roman Catholics. England was still Roman Catholic when her liberties were improved, and her independence established under the third Edward; and even after the severe struggles incident to the establishment of the Reformation, which terminated in the exclusion of Roman Catholics both from Parliament and from office under the Crown, they were found, as they are at the present day, ready to shed their blood under the banner of a Protestant Sovereign, and enrolled among the defenders of
710
their country. Nevertheless the agitation for the restoration of their civil rights lasted nearly half a century before they were eventually conceded; nor did they obtain them until their claims had been recommended from the Throne, and a Bill brought in upon the responsibility of the King's Government removing their disabilities, but upon terms that appeared to afford due security for the maintenance of Protestantism in Church and State, that being at the time considered essential to the well being and independence of the country. The solemn oath imposed on Roman Catholic Members of Parliament, by which they bound themselves to do nothing to weaken or disturb the Protestant religion and Protestant government of the kingdom was on their part a compromise of great moment, inasmuch as it pledged them to a policy adverse to the known views and pretensions of their ecclesiastical rulers; but in the case of the Jews no such compromise is offered, no such claims can be pleaded; they cannot plead nationality, their rule and practice is to keep themselves aliens in blood as well as in religion and association from the nations among whom they are dispersed; they have no public services to point to; the voice of public opinion, so far as it has been expressed, is against their claims, only a few individuals of their nation have given it any support, and the Bill now proposed for your acceptance does not, as the Roman Catholic Relief Bill did in the case of Roman Catholics, go a single step towards removing the objections that exist against Jews being enabled to legislate for a Christian Church. If, therefore, you should pass this Bill, enabling those that deny the Christian faith to exercise a free and discretionary power for the overthrow of the Established religion, the Roman Catholic will then have just reason to be dissatisfied with his position—as a Member of the Legislature, he, a professed Christian, with his hands tied up as much as they can be by the obligation of a solemn oath not to interfere in any way with the religious establishment he may disapprove of, while those who are not Christians are perfectly free to do as they please. This anomaly was especially apparent in the Bill of the House of Commons, and also in the Bill presented by the noble and learned Lord, and would seem not to have been the effect of accident, as in each of them the last clause but one specially provides—

711
"That nothing in this Act shall be held to alter or affect the provisions of an Act passed in the 10th year of King George IV., chap. 7, for the relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects."
When I find an Act so deliberately proposed as a permanent settlement of the oaths question, I am led to inquire how is it that those who formerly were loudest in demanding equality of rights for their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects now seek to render their position in respect of legislative freedom one of decided inferiority to that they would accord to those who repudiate Christianity? How is it that the Roman Catholics have themselves voted for such a measure? Do they—can they support it as a final and satisfactory settlement of the oaths question? Can it be supposed that the Roman Catholics, as a body, will acquiesce in it?—or does it not rather look like a cunningly-devised plan for getting rid of the Roman Catholic oath, by rendering it such a grievance to the Roman Catholic body that they may get up an agitation for its repeal, impossible for Parliament, even if so disposed, to resist? Let me warn your Lordships that you fall not into this trap, if trap it is—at all events, that you commit not so glaring an inconsistency, so mischievous a blunder, and by the Roman Catholics an act of so great injustice, as to adopt this measure. Better would it be at once to abolish all oaths, except, perhaps, the oath of allegiance, and thus put an end to religious distinctions. But before taking such a step—before thus admitting to the Legislature the avowed enemies of the Christian name—you should determine whether or not you will maintain the union of Church and State; you should determine whether or not the interests of religion are henceforth to be of any concern in the Legislature and government of the country. You must determine whether Christ, whom the Legislature in its three branches now acknowledges as supreme King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the only Ruler of Princes, is still to be so invoked and so obeyed, or whether the divine law is to be henceforth ignored, and the divine blessings unasked in the great councils of the empire. Let the nation at large be appealed to, and declare its will upon these points as emphatically and unequivocally as it once did against a Papal supremacy and in favour of a Protestant government, and I am bound to say that to the national will so expressed your Lordships must
712
defer; but until such appeal has been made, and the national will clearly ascertained—until the universities, the clergy, the learned professions in general—until all whose judgments in such a matter are deserving of consideration, shall have had opportunity of declaring their opinions, do not commit the House to a step from which, once taken, you cannot afterwards recede. Let the position—the isolated position of the Queen—be considered. She alone of the three estates of the realm will be under the obligation of a Christian profession. Let it not be forgotten that she remains the temporal head of the Church, and bears the title of Defender of the Faith. Is she willing to take counsel in the government of the Church, whose interests are committed to her charge, with those who regard it as a system of imposture, and her faith as a false faith? Let it be also remembered that, as the first estate of the realm, the Sovereign is practically without the power of resisting the united will of the other two estates. Is she, with perhaps conflicting views of truth and of duty, to be compelled to take counsel of those who do not acknowledge the same Divine guidance? Let the will of the Queen as well as that of the nation be clearly ascertained to be in favour of the policy now proposed, and a gracious communication be made, with the responsibility of her minister, to the two Houses of Parliament, as was the case when the Roman Catholic claims were recommended; but until these preliminaries be complied with, do not compromise the destinies of this great empire by tampering with the oaths of Parliament. Rather consider calmly and deliberately the important objects for which those oaths were enacted, and that one great end they at present serve is that of uniting the nation, through its Legislature, in allegiance to the Divine Being, as well as to her who is Queen by God's grace. Personal considerations must not be allowed to have weight in dealing with such a question. The blessings of good laws, of great wealth, and of power were not given to this country for our mere temporal gratification, for the indulgence of luxury and ease, or to minister to national vanity. Higher objects should surely be aimed at, and chiefly the extension of those blessings which we have so largely derived under the profession of the Christian faith. Let your Lordships remember that yours is no unimportant part in the government of the country—that upon

713
you mainly depends at this moment the conservatism of a Christian Legislature. If, consistently with a higher duty, noble Lords could admit the influence of personal considerations, I am sure there is no Member of this House that would be otherwise than pleased that an individual so respectable, so generally esteemed, and so imbued, as from his associations Baron Rothschild must be, with British feelings, should be enabled to take his seat in Parliament as the representative of this great city. But what brought him to this country? Was it not that he admired and desired to enjoy the blessings of our excellent constitution? Let us show that we are also sensible of its excellence, and that we value it too highly to imperil its permanence by taking away the corner stone of its strength which is Christianity. I beg to move that the second reading of the Bill now on the table be deferred to this day six months.
Amendment moved, to leave out "now" for the purpose of inserting "this Day Six Months."
Loan BERNERS,in seconding the Amendment, said he had hoped that after the large majority which had been pronounced in their Lordships' House against the admission of the Jews to Parliament, the question had been settled for this Session at least. He objected to dealing with a great principle like this upon the low grounds of expediency, compromise, and concession: the stand he took, and which he should rejoice if their Lordships would take also, was upon the higher ground—that a Christian nation could not exist without a Christian Legislature, and that a Christian Legislature could not exist without a Christian test. He asked their Lordships, therefore, whether they were prepared to say that the time had arrived when there was no necessity for a national profession of faith? It was said that the Bill of the noble and gallant Earl would furnish a solution of a very difficult question, and that it was most inconvenient for their Lordships' House to be in constant collision with the House of Commons. But he (Lord Berners) could conceive nothing more derogatory to the honour of their Lordships' House than to lay down the rule that whenever there was a majority in the other House sufficiently pertinacious in pressing their views of a public question, this House was to become the mere registrar of the views of that House. Now, the danger which he apprehended was not
714
a collision with the House of Commons, but with the Crown itself, should once a Radical Prime Minister accede to office, and create a Jew Member of their Lordships' House. The collision which would then ensue, they might rely upon it, would prove a much more serious one than that which had recently taken place with regard to the question of life peerages; and he appealed to them whether they were prepared to force, or allow any one to force, the conscience of the Crown. He had endeavoured to consider this subject altogether apart from party feelings, because he thought it was too important and serious a matter for party feelings to enter into, and the conclusion at which he had arrived was, that if one Jew were admitted to sit as Member of the Legislature, neither their Lordships' House nor the monarchy would be longer safe.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, after the repeated discussions which have taken place in your Lordships' House on this subject it is entirely unnecessary for me, on the present occasion, to enter into any arguments in support of this Bill. I give my support to it without the slightest hesitation, but I am bound to say not with unmixed satisfaction. I do not think that it is the best mode of settling this question; nor can I agree with the noble Earl at the head of the Government that it is the only course consistent with the dignity of this House. There is no disgrace either to individuals, or to Governments, or to legislative assemblies, in changing an opinion on public grounds and uninfluenced by any unworthy motives. If, when the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) first introduced his Bill into this House, the pressure of circumstances had been fairly stated, the position of the House would at least have been as good as it is now. It would have been more desirable also if, when the Reasons of the Commons for disagreeing from our Amendments came up, instead of immediately disagreeing from those Reasons, we had postponed the consideration of them for a short time, as was proposed in order to see if any plan could be devised for passing that Bill into law. But still, though many think that this is not the best mode of settling the question, it is the only one which I am able to obtain. I wish to do full justice to the Government on this point. There is no doubt that they have great difficulties to contend with. A difference with his political friends is one from which every

715
Minister most naturally shrinks. If the noble Earl thinks—though I cannot follow his reasons—that this course is most in accordance with the dignity of the House, and most likely to obtain the suffrages of his political friends, I am ready to support him. He is perfectly master of the situation. If he had chosen he might certainly have postponed the admission of Jews to Parliament for this Session, and probably for some years more. But it must be admitted that the position in which we now stand is a most unsatisfactory and unseemly one. To say nothing of other arguments, the anomaly of our not being able to prevent a Jewish Member of the other House sitting on Committees, acting in Conferences, and taking part in almost every Parliamentary proceeding, except sitting and voting, is so great as to make it a mere mockery for any one to stand up here and appeal to high Christian principle for the maintenance of such a barren restriction. I believe this Bill will carry out the object which we have in view, and I therefore give it my cordial support. I congratulate the House on there being every probability of the measure now passing into law. And I cannot help congratulating the noble and learned Lord opposite, who certainly by the industry which he must have thought himself dispensed from showing at a time when other men claim rest, and, above all, by the singular ability with which he has, year after year, destroyed the force of these appeals made to your Lordships' feeling against his Bill, has done more than any other man in this House to bring the question to a successful issue. But what is more creditable to him than anything else is the utter absence of any personal feeling which he has shown to-night in willingly adopting any course which was most likely to obtain the object which he has in view.
THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, it was with great reluctance that he was about to give the vote which he felt it his duty to give on this occasion; but, whilst he regretted to find himself separated from many political friends with whom he generally acted, the House would believe that he was influenced by no other than conscientious motives. There was one point with reference to which there seemed to be an unanimous opinion among their Lordships, and that was that after the long-continued discussion of this question, it ought now to be settled at once for all in one way or the other. But how was
716
that to be done? If the House of Commons had sent up Bills for the admission of the Jews to Parliament by repeated and increasing majorities for the last ten years, he thought it very unlikely that that House would now change its opinions; and though their Lordships might reject their Bills, that would never put an end to the question. What had been the history of the measures sent up to their Lordships from the Commons? There had been first of all the Catholic Emancipation Bill, throughout which, though he (the Duke of Cleveland) always found himself in a minority, he had always been in favour of religious toleration. By degrees those minorities became a majority, but the Bills sent up from the Lower House had been invariably rejected, until in 1829 Sir Robert Peel thought the question could be resisted no longer. Then, again, there were the cases of the Reform Bills—and their Lordships very wisely decided upon acceding to the oft-repeated wishes of the House of Commons and eventually agreed to those measures. He asked whether some such grounds of expediency did not exist at the present moment. In this ease a gentleman of the Jewish religion had been elected, not once or twice, but repeatedly, by one of the largest, most intellectual, and wealthiest constituencies in the country—that of the City of London. Why that constituency had gone on electing this gentleman time after time, it was not very easy to say, but the fact was that it was so. It might be said, on the other hand, that if a constituency chose to elect a person who was ineligible by law for a seat in the other House it was not for Parliament to pass an Act solely for one man. There was a good deal of argument in that; but their Lordships laid down a precedent for such a course in 1833. In 1833, Mr. Pease, the Quaker, was returned to Parliament, and asked leave to take his seat on taking an affirmation instead of the oaths, and shortly after the noble Earl (the Earl of Carlisle) introduced a Bill permitting Quakers and Moravians to make affirmation instead of oath, simply, as he, (the Duke of Cleveland) believed, for the purpose of enabling Mr. Pease to sit. Let their Lordships take, as an illustration of how the Bill would work, the number of Quakers that had been elected since then, and they would find that never more than three had had seats at one time in the other House. He believed that, they would never see

717
more than three Jews in the other House together. In the provinces Jews were scarcely known, and where they were not known they would never be elected by constituencies. Except through one or two metropolitan boroughs, Jews would not find their way into Parliament. So far as the Church of England was concerned he did not believe that the admission of Jews into the other House would be at all dangerous. Other measures then before their Lordships might be productive of danger to the Establishment. Take, for instance, the Bill for the abolition of church rates without providing an equivalent, and the address agreed to the other night for the removal of some of the services from the Book of Common Prayer. Upon the whole he should support the second reading of the Bill.
THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he regretted that on this question he was obliged to differ from his noble Friend at the head of the Government, because, having listened to that noble Earl's speech, as well as to the arguments which had been urged by the noble and gallant Earl in support of his measure, he had not heard any new fact, any new principle enunciated, or any new argument advanced to make him give his vote for the Bill with which their Lordships were then dealing. It was said that this Bill was a compromise offered to their Lordships, and that it was advisable by means of this compromise to put an end to the unseemly contest which had been for a long time waging between the two Houses of Parliament. Now, he must say that he did not think this was a case to settle by compromise. To pass a Bill to admit Jews to Parliament was either right or it was wrong. If Jews ought to be admitted, on what ground did a majority of forty in that House, on the 20th of April, refuse their consent to the Bill sent up from the House of Commons? Certainly they did not reject it on the ground that they would have any difficulty in sitting on the same bench with Baron Rothschild: it was no personal feeling which induced their Lordships to come to that decision, but they did so on the ground that they would not admit Jews into Parliament because they were unwilling to un-Christianize the Legislature. If he wanted an argument against the admission of Jews into Parliament he would only have to refer to the last clause of the Bill which had been proposed by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) which stated that
718
nothing contained in the Bill should extend or be considered to extend to enabling person or persons of the Jewish persuasion to fill certain high offices—such as those of Lord Chancellor, Prime Minister, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and Lord High Commissioner of Scotland. Now, the principle on which these exceptions were made applied with equal force to the admission of Jews to Parliament. It was said by some noble Lords that however objectionable this compromise was its acceptance was desirable, inasmuch as it would put an end to a difference which existed between the two Houses of Parliament. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), though an advocate for the admission of the Jews to Parliament, had stated that this was not a satisfactory mode of settling the question; yet he was giving it his support. The great argument put forward for the admission of the Jews was that the people of England were in favour of it. Now, if he (the Duke of Rutland) proved to their Lordships that the people of England were against the admission of Jews to Parliament he thought their Lordships ought to have no hesitation in voting against the Bill of the noble and gallant Earl. In the first place, be contended that if the character and the number of the petitions presented to that House on the subject of any particular measure were any test of the feeling of the people of this country, then the people of England were rather against the admission of Jews to Parliament than for it. But then it was said, that as the House of Commons had so often passed Bills for the admission of Jews, and by such constantly increasing majorities their Lordships must assume that the people were in favour of it. That was certainly a new doctrine for those who put it forward. He remembered the time of the corn-law agitation. There were at that time large majorities in the House of Commons against the repeal of the corn-laws; but Parliament and the country were then told that those majorities were no test of the feeling of the people of England; that that feeling was decidedly in favour of a repeal of those laws, and that the votes of the House of Commons were not to be considered as any indication to the contrary. The most that could be said by the supporters of the measure for the admission of Jews to Parliament was that the people were indifferent on the subject. When this compromise was first spoken of in their Lordships' House, the

719
noble Earl at the head of the Government said he would take time to consider it. Had there been any manifestation of popular feeling in its favour since his noble Friend made that announcement? He (the Duke of Rutland) would implore of their Lordships to wait till the constituencies should have had an opportunity of expressing their opinion of this compromise—to pause till they have ascertained whether it was the wish of the people that the Bill of the noble and gallant Earl should be passed. If the constituencies pronounced an opinion in favour of this compromise it would then, if carried into effect, be sasisfactory as a compromise. Up to the present time no opinion in favour of the admission of the Jews had been pronounced by the electors of England. The present House of Commons was elected on quite a different "cry," and its opinion was no accurate test of the real desire of the country. Under all the circumstances of the case he considered that the admission of Jews to Parliament by an Act such as that now before their Lordships would be alike repugnant to the feelings that had on so many occasions been expressed by majorities of that House and to the best interest of the people of England.
LORD REDESHALEsaid, he was not going to argue the question of the admission of the Jews, but he rose to express his opinion that this Bill was a very unsatisfactory mode of settling the question. It involved a principle of the deepest importance, and their Lordships ought carefully to deliberate before they adopted so dangerous a course. The principle of this measure was, that a great step of public policy might be determined by a Resolution of one House of Parliament; and if this Bill became law it was probable that the other House would, in the present Session, pass a Resolution to give effect to the Bill, while their Lordships would reserve their opinion, and might at a future time come to a different conclusion from that adopted by the other House of Parliament. It might, therefore, happen that years hence the question would be setled in their Lordships' House by a single Resolution, and by a majority of a single vote, without that ample opportunity of discussion which was afforded by the forms of the House in the case of a Bill. Nor was that all. If the other House were allowed to do that by a Resolution which ought to be done
720
by a Bill agreed to by both Houses, they were laying down a principle which might be adopted in other matters; so that they were creating a most dangerous precedent. Nor did it end there. There was nothing to prevent such a Resolution being moved again and again, whenever it suited the views of parties or individuals, and the House might, by dexterous arrangements, be taken by surprise. It might happen that when some individual presented himself at the table to take the oaths, his friends would muster for the occasion, and carry at once a Resolution relieving him from that part of the oath objected to by Jews. This was a constitutional objection which the House ought well to consider.
LORD BROUGHAMwished in the first place to observe, in reply to an observation which had fallen from the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) that his noble Friend (Earl Granville) had not stated that this was not a satisfactory way of settling the question of admitting the Jews to Parliament; what his noble Friend stated was, that it was not the most satisfactory way of settling it. The noble Lord who had just addressed the House (Lord Redesdale) appeared to him to mistake the effect of the Bill under discussion. The noble Lord seemed to think that the Resolution which the Bill would enable either House of Parliament to pass, would be one to meet the case of an individual, and would be passed as often as an individual presented himself at the table and objected to the oaths as they were now taken. But what did the Bill really provide? Why, that if either House should be of opinion generally before any person came to the table, and without reference to any particular case, that that part of the oath of abjuration to which persons of the Jewish persuasion objected, ought not to be exacted from them, they might, acting on its opinion, adopt a Resolution of general application, omitting those parts to which it appeared that conscientious objection existed, and which prevented members of the Jewish persuasion taking it. It would enable either House so to modify the oath, that it would admit all Jews who had an objection to taking it in its present form, and it would be unnecessary to pass a Resolution applicable to any particular individual. The noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) had asked what circumstances had arisen to induce the majority of their Lordships to alter their views on the subject of the admission of the Jews? He (Lord

721
Brougham) thought that a most material circumstance had arisen to induce them to adopt that course. It had now been found that by the law and constitution of Parliament, any person might perform nine-tenths of the duties of a Member of Parliament without taking any oath at all—without undergoing any of the formalities incident to taking a seat in either House—for it had been found that any person might sit and vote in Committee without having conformed to any of these requirements; for no lawyer could deny that the penalties for enforcing the oath of abjuration applied only to voting in the House, and not to voting in Committees. He thought, moreover, that the exemption from the formalities of the oath ought to be extended to many others besides Jews, for it was certain that there were many classes of Christians in the House who differed as entirely from the body of the Church as the Jews themselves.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he never rose to trouble their Lordships with greater reluctance, or with more disinclination to address them, than on the present occasion; but he could not give a silent vote upon the subject. He did not intend to enter again upon the whole question, which they had so often argued in that House, of the admissibility of Jews into either House of Parliament, but he wished to state to their Lordships his reason why it was that he must give the same vote now that he had always given hitherto. The reason was briefly this. His vote had been given on the solemn and conscientious conviction that a man repudiating Him who was the central point of the whole Christian dispensation, and declaring Him to be an impostor, must in the whole tone of his thoughts, and in the whole scope and series of his principles, be so at variance with the sacred principles and tone of thought of the entire Christian community, that he could not safely be trusted with a discretionary power in making laws for that community. He had never been one of those who wished to exclude from any civil privilege on grounds of religious difference those from whom he unhappily differed; on the contrary, he was one of those who, from the earliest times, advocated the admission of the Roman Catholics into Parliament. He had never taken what might be considered the ground of excluding his fellow-countrymen from taking their seats in Parliament for a mere religious difference; but it appeared to him, as it ap
722
peared to others, and as it appeared to the late Dr. Arnold, a man of the extremest liberal views, that when you touched on the vital and fundamental point of denying the truth of our common Christianity, it was impossible safely to entrust a man, either in the capacity of a magistrate or a Judge, with the due and honest administration of those Christian laws from which he differed on fundamental points of view, and in connection with matters which must be left for him to deal with, if they were doubtful matters, according to his own discretion, when that discretion must be guided by a set of principles antagonistic to his own; and, still more, he (the Bishop of Oxford) could not believe it could be right in a Christian people to give a discretionary power of legislation to those that were the professed antagonists of our religion. The noble and learned Lord who had just spoken (Lord Brougham) said there were many persons in Parliament who were just as hostile as the Jews to the religion professed by that House. That might be so, but he would not attempt to gauge those differences—it was not his business to fix these shades of difference and dissent—but it was most material to remember that no one such man had ever yet been admitted to Parliament on his professed hostility to our faith; on the contrary, they had come professing that they held the common basis of our common Christianity, and upon that profession, whatever might be his own internal qualification—with which the Searcher of hearts and not man had to do—he was on his own profession qualified by that community of thought, which in such matters was the only expression and exponent of his religious faith, to sit in the Legislature of a Christian land. The argument of his noble and learned Friend was, he thought, at once met by this simple answer. It had been further said that there was at this moment great novelty in reference to this question, and that this justified noble Lords in changing their views upon it; and the novelty, forsooth, was this. It was discovered that a man not professing himself a Christian, and without taking any oath at all, neither of allegiance nor of abjuration, that such a person could, by a simple slip in the adaptation of our laws, take his seat in Committees of either House. But his noble and learned Friend, with his acute logical head, would see at once that this was not an argument for admitting the Jews to Parliament, If it were an

723
argument for anything it was an argument for admitting men without any oath at all; because it was not the Jew in particular that was able thereby to sit in Committees, to take his place in Parliamentary discussions and in the legislation of either House, but the unsworn man, a man who had taken no oath of allegiance to our Sovereign would be able, in the loose state of the law, to take his place and vote. What, then, was the conclusion? Not that there was this reason for admitting the Jew, but the conclusion his noble and learned Friend brought them to was either to sweep away all oaths or to remedy the law that admitted these anomalies and allowed the individual to take his seat in Committees of the House. Really, therefore, he must hold that the argument of his noble and learned Friend was without any weight at all. Another point had of late been strongly urged upon the House. It had been said that they had had argument after argument directed not to the sense but to the feeling of that House, and that it was time they now no longer listened to feeling, but that at last, albeit though tardily, they should listen to sense. It was because he believed that to be one of the truest reasons, and one of the hardest and simplest logical deductions from the facts on which those who had opposed the admission of the Jews had acted, that he saw no reason for their Lordships to be changing their views under the change of circumstances that beset them. What did they amount to after all? Was there any one thing that had really happened, which any reasonable man did not anticipate would happen at the beginning of the Session. And what had happened since? Was it not known that the House of Commons would make the threats they had made since? Was there any novelty in that? And he could not help thinking, in his apprehension of the case, that their Lordships were precisely in the same position they were in when they last voted on this subject. His noble Friend on the cross benches had argued that the frequent repetition of these things coming up to their Lordships' House ought on constitutional principles to induce their Lordships at last to pass them, because the constitutional position of their Lordships' House was rather that of being a check on the more popular branch of the Legislature, but that, after so constant a recurrence of these representations, their Lordships should yield to them at last. That argument, however, produced no
724
effect on him because, although it was perfectly constitutional in the other House to send up these measures to the higher branch of the Legislature, provided they really spoke the voice of those who elected them and sent them there; yet he believed that the other House of Parliament in this matter did not represent the feelings of the people of England. Their Lordships were asked to yield their legislative opinion in this matter to the opinion of the other House, and yet in the same voice and at the same time they were told that the people of this country were absolutely apathetic on the subject of the point their Lordships were urged to yield. There would then appear to be no other reason, except that of inconvenience, left why their Lordships should change their opinions on this subject. If, however, they were to make a change, he should prefer unspeakably the Bill of his noble and learned Friend behind him than the one they were now discussing. He preferred it, in the first place, because, instead of limiting this licence to the Jew, it openly and aboveboard gave it to all who were non-Christians. He thought it was a mere delusion to say that they could give it to the Jew and withhold it from the Mahomedan, the Hindoo, or the men of any other nation or faith. In many respects the Mahomedan was nearer to them than the Jew. The Jew declared tha tthe Central Point of the Christian faith was an impostor, and the Mahomedan, at least, admitted our Saviour to have been the second of Prophets. It appeared to him to be a mere delusion to say that they would give this privilegium of admission to the Jew, and that still they would retain something of the savour of Christianity by admitting other castes or creeds that denied our holy religion. Would it not surely be more creditable and more consistent to decide that they would no longer require from any one a profession of Christianity as a preliminary to his sitting in Parliament, rather than say we do not require this preliminary from the Jew, but we do from any one else. Then, again, he would ask their Lordships to consider whether, in connection with the proposed Bill, they had considered the relationship in which their Lordships' House ostensibly stood to the other House of Parliament, and both of them ostensibly to the Established Church. Was it intended that there should be a perfectly new system of relationship established between Parliament and the Established Church? or was it

725
still to be the theory that matters affecting the discipline and doctrine and standing of the Established Church were, because it was the Established Church, to be debated fairly and freely in both Houses of Parliament, who were to be taken as being, to a certain extent, the legislators for that religious body? Had they considered this point? Had they formed any plans by which to adapt this new system to the necessities of the case? Were they prepared to adopt any new system, or to withdraw for the future from the discussion of at least one branch of the Legislature, matters affecting the Established Church, or to provide some other way by which internal legislation could be provided for that Church? He would ask their Lordships to weigh these things against the promise of present expediency, and their Lordships would pardon him if he said that this House would not stand higher in the estimation of the country if upon a simple threat of political difficulties—if upon the simple pretext and appearance of sudden expediency in relation to the relinquishment of a national rule—they did readily grant to the unwise desire of another body that which large majorities of their Lordships' House had hitherto consistently denied, not only as a political necessity, but as a religious duty.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he regretted that he should be compelled to differ from the noble Earl at the head of the Government, to whom he usually gave a cordial support; but upon the present occasion he had a higher duty to perform. He conceived that if he were to vote for a measure which was to admit any individual into Parliament who denied the Saviour of mankind, he should be doing an act for which he would be responsible to the great and eternal Judge. The noble Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Cleveland) said, "Why, here has been a Jew elected again and again by the largest and wealthiest constituency in the United Kingdom to a seat in the other House of Parliament." But were their Lordships to be bound to an act of that sort, when those who elected the individual knew very well at the time he was legally precluded from taking his seat? He agreed with his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Oxford) in thinking the Mahomedan, who admitted our Saviour to have been a great prophet, came nearer to them than the Jew, who proclaimed our Saviour to be an impostor.
726
They commenced their proceedings with a prayer in which the name of the Saviour was invoked, and if persons who ridiculed the Divine Being were admitted, those prayers would be nothing but a mockery. He should certainly give his most conscientious support to the Motion of his noble Friend.
THE EARL OF CARDIGANsaid, that having been for thirty-eight years a Member of Parliament, and during the whole of that time a supporter of Conservative policy, regretted that he was compelled to separate himself upon this occasion from the noble Earl at the head of the Government. The question of admitting Jews to Parliament had been frequently discussed and decided in that House, and no reasons had been assigned why their Lordships should now change their course, and he for one was not ready to stultify the votes he had given on all former occasions. Something had been said about the necessity for concession, but concessions had never been made without some bugbear having been held up to induce them. It had been urged among other reasons by those who were in favour of the admission of Jews to Parliament that, unless a measure with that object was agreed to by their Lordships, a collision between the House of Commons and the courts of law would be the result. Now, he was under no apprehension that any such consequence would flow from the rejection of the Bill under consideration, and he could not therefore consent to stultify himself by recording that evening a vote in direct opposition to those which he had previously given. He might perhaps be permitted to say in conclusion that it would, in his opinion, be extremely desirable for the Conservative party to consider whether that large number of Liberal measures which were daily coming up from the other House of Parliament should or should not be at once assented to, for he could not help thinking it would be much better that they should gracefully receive the sanction of the Members of that party than that noble Lords should be brought down Session after Session for the next ten years to vote against them, and then at the end of that period be called upon to give them their support.
On Question that ("now") stand Part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 143; Not-Contents 97: Majority 46.
Resolved in the Affirmative: Bill read

727
2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

CONTENTS.

(PRESENT.)

Cleveland, D.

Blantyre, L.

Devonshire, D.

Boston, L.

Newcastle, D.

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

Somerset, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Bath M.

Lansdowne, M.

Camoys, L.

Salisbury, M.

Campbell, L.

Carew, L.

Airlie, E.

Chesham, L.

Albemarle, E.

Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin & Clayneboye.)

Bathurst, E.

Caithness, E.

Congleton, L.

Carlisle, E.

Cranworth, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Dacre, L.

Chichester, E.

Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

Clarendon, E.

Derby, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Graham, E. (D. of Montrose.)

De Tabley, L.

Ebury, L.

Granville, E.

Foley, L.[Teller.]

Grey, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Hardwicke, E.

Lucan E. [Teller.]

Leigh, L.

Malmesbury E.

Londesborough, L.

Powis, E.

Lyndhurst, L.

Saint Germans, E.

Manners, L.

Sommers, E.

Minster, L. (M. Conyngham)

Stanhope, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Wicklow, E.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Mostyn L.

Overstone, L.

Hardinge, V.

Portman, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Ravensworth, L.

Rossie, L. (L. Kinlaird.)

Sidmouth, V.

Saye and Scle, L.

Stratford de Redcliffe, V

Sefton, L. (Sefton)

Torrington, V.

Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Derry and Raphoe, Bp.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

London, By.

Vivian, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss)

Audley, L.

Belper, L.

Wodehouse, L.

(PROXIES.)

Northumberland, D.

Leicester, E.

Portland, D.

Lovelace, E.

Sutherland, D.

Morley, E.

Bristol, M.

Munster, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Belmore, E.

Rosslyn, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Scarborough, E.

Camperdown, E.

Spencer, E.

Cathcart, E.

Verulam, E.

Cowley, E.

Yarborough, E.

Craven, E.

Devon, E.

Doneraile, V.

Ducie, E.

Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

Ferrers, E.

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

Carlisle, Bp.

Worcester, Bp.

728

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Kenlis, L.(M. Headfort.

Ashburton, L.

Kenmare, L.

Blayney, L.

Kintoro, L. (E. Kintore.)

Bolton, L.

Castlemaine, L.

Lovat, L.

Cloncurry, L.

Lurgan, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mont Eagle, L.(M. Sligo.)

Dorchester, L.

Dormer, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

Panmure, L.

Erskine, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Feversham, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Sudeley, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Glenelg, L.

Vernon, L.

Gray, L.

Wharncliffe, L.

Hatherton, L.

Wigan, L.(E. Crawford and Blacarres.)

Hawke, L.

Holland, L.

Worlingham, L.(E. Gosford.)

Howard de Walden, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

(PRESENT.)

Canterbury, Archbp.

Durham, Bp.

Llandaff, Bp.

Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Oxford, BP.

Salisbury, Bp.

Buckingham and Chandos, D.

Abinger, L.

Marlborough, D.

Bagot, L.

Rutland, D.

Bateman, L.

Berners, L.

Exeter, M.

Braybrooke, L.

Amherst, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Beauchamp, E

Bradford, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Cadogan, E.

Churchill, L.

Cardigan, E.

Clarina, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

De La Warr, E.

Doncaster, E. (D. of Buccleuch & Queensberry.)

Colchester, L.

Colville of Culross, L,

Crofton, L.

Effingham, E.

De Ros, L.

Harrington, E.

Dinevor, L.

Lanesborough, E.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Leven and Melville, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Grantley, L.

Mansfield, E.

Lilford, L.

Nelson, E.

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

Pomfret, E.

Vane, E.

Raglan, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Canterbury, V.

Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.) [Teller]

Sondes, L.

Southampton, L.

Combermere, V.

Stewart of Garlies, L.(E. Galloway.)

Dungannon, V.

Hill, V.

Templemore, L.

Melville, V.

Tenterden, L.

Bangor, Bp.

Walsingham, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Wynford, L.

(PROXIES.)

Richmond, D.

Harewood, E.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

Winchester, M.

Manvers, E.

Brooke and Warwick, E.

Mayo, E.

Desart, E.

Onslow, E.

Erne, E.

Portarlington, E.

729

Poulett, E.

Ardrossan, E.(E. Eglintoun.)

Romney, E.

Seafield, E.

Bayning, L.

Selkirk

Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

Lifford, V.

Maynard, V.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

St. Vincent, V.

Strathallan, V.

Clonbrock, L.

Forester, L.

Cashel, &c., Bp.

Kilmaine, L.

Exeter, Bp.

Methuen, L.

St. Asaph, Bp.

Sandys, L.

Winchester, Bp.

OATHS BILL.
LORD CAMPBELLasked what was to be done with the Oaths Bill? He would suggest that that Bill should now be dropped altogether, and that next Session a new Bill should be introduced to deal with the subject of oaths.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he could not at all consent to that course. In point of fact, both Houses of Parliament were agreed in the main features of that Bill; the only question of difference between them was that relating to the Jews, and that difficulty, he hoped, was now in a fair way of being obviated by the Bill of his noble and gallant Friend. He considered that Bill as a supplement to the Oaths Bill, and they would go down to the other House, not certainly as one Bill, but as two parts of one measure. Perhaps some Amendments might be necessary in the Reasons that were about to be sent down to the Commons for not assenting to their Reasons, and therefore he had proposed to postpone the consideration of those Reasons till Tuesday next. The House of Lords would still insist on their objections to the clause that Jews should sit not only in the Commons, but also in their Lordships' House; but along with that they would send down this Bill, which, to a considerable extent, would meet the wishes of the House of Commons.
EARL GRANVILLEagreed in the course traced out by the noble Earl, and hoped that nothing of a controversial tone would be inserted in the reasons.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHthought it would be very difficult, after assenting to one Bill, to name Reasons for rejecting the other.
After a few words from Earl STANHOPE and Lord REDESDALE,
Consideration of Report of Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insisting on their Amendments (which
730
stands appointed for this day), put of to Tuesday next.
House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.