Sitting of 5 July 1858

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—for Norfolk (Eastern Division), Hon. Wenman Clarence Walpole Coke.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2oJudgments (Ireland) Act Amendment; Police (Scotland) Act Amendment; Lunatics (Scotland) Act Amendment; Admiralty Court.
3o Four Courts (Dublin) Extension.

QUEEN'S COLLEGE, IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FAGANsaid, he would beg to inquire of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state and condition of the Queen's Colleges, will be laid on the table of the House during the present Session.
  Lord NAASsaid, he had every reason to hope that the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland would be laid on the table before the end of the Session. From what he had heard, however, he was afraid it would be impossible to do so till almost the close of the Session.

ST. JAMES'S PARK.—QUESTION.
MAJOR SIBTHORPsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether (in the event of there being no valid objection) he would take

931
early steps for promoting the convenience of the public, by permitting private carriages and public cabs, under the same restrictions as are now in force between the Marlborough and Buckingham Palace Gates, to go through St. James's Park, and out at the south-eastern gate, near Storey's Gate, into the Birdcage Walk?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had no power to allow carriages to pass through the park in the way suggested; and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked his opinion on the subject, he should say that to afford any additional facilities for traffic would be contrary to the opinion of the Select Committee which had sat to inquire into the matter.

GUANO IN THE KOORIA MOORIA ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
MR. SCOTTsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any recent communication has been received by Her Majesty's Government on the subject of Guano on the Kooria Mooria Islands; and whether there is any objection to lay on the Table of the House the Papers relating thereto, in continuation of those presented in August last?
SIR BULWER LYTTONsaid, that there was no objection whatever to produce all the correspondence which had taken place.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (No. 3) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 33 (Regulations to be made for admitting Persons to be examined for Cadetships in Engineers and Artillery).
  MR. MONSELLobserved, that the noble Lord had introduced into this Bill the principle of open competition for the cadetships in the Artillery and Engineering service. He supposed by that that the noble Lord meant competition for admission to Addiscombe, and not directly into the ranks of the scientific corps, as the mere possession of theoretical knowledge was not sufficient to make a young man a good officer. He must go through a practical course of training. At present two-fifths of the students at Addiscombe were admitted by nomination. He suggested the insertion of some words in the clause which should make it clear that in future all the admissions to that College would be by open competition.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he understood that this question was only raised in order to obtain from the Government an explanation of the course which they desired to pursue. It was not accidental that the clause contained no special reference to Addiscombe. The Government thought they had better not pledge themselves to any particular plan of carrying out the principle, and, therefore, their object in drawing the clause was merely to lay down the general principle, leaving the details to be settled afterwards. He was quite ready to assent to the principle laid down by the hon. Member, that it was desirable that these cadets should receive instruction in the Military College in the details of the services before they received admission into the corps. From everything he knew or had heard of Addiscombe, he believed it was an institution which had admirably answered its purpose; no fault whatever was to be found with its management, and he should be sorry to do anything to impair its efficiency. He did not see any objection to the admissions being partly by nomination and partly by competition; but he thought it would be better to leave the details in the hands of the executive rather than to tie their hands by any fixed rules.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGexpressed his satisfaction at the adoption of the principle of open competition; but he feared that the effect of the clause as it stood would be to separate the Engineers and Artillery departments from the College of Addiscombe,
  Clause read 2o.
  Clause 34 (One-tenth of Persons recommended for Military Cadetships to be selected from Sons of Persons who have served in India).
  MR. BLACKBURNthought the adoption of the principle of hereditary right in such matters was very objectionable. It tended to create a privileged class, and was founded on a sentimental notion. If it was good for India it must be equally good for this country.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, that the principle was already applied to the appointments in the Excise. But he did not think it a good principle, and thought that they could not have a better sytem than that which existed at Addiscombe under the present arrangement, which it was now proposed to alter. He hoped that, at all events, the system in the Artillery and Engineers at Addiscombe would be maintained.
  COLONEL SYKESunderstood, that by this clause one-tenth part of the patronage allotted to the future Government of India was to be distributed among the sons of old officers of the Indian service. Such a system had frequently been attempted, and a wish had always been expressed in the Court of Directors that the claims which Indian officers had upon the State for past services should, as far as possible, be recognised by the means of appointments for their children; but, in practice, they were invariably at a loss to determine the exact proportion in which those appointments should be allotted. They had discussed the matter over and over again, but had always been obliged to give it up. During the last eighteen years, from 1840 to 1857 inclusive, the total number of military appointments was 5,477. How had they been distributed? Why, among the sons of military, medical, and marine officers, the sons of chaplains in the East India Company's service and of the civil servants, 1,865 had been given, or two-fifths of the whole; 717 to the sons of Royal officers, 580 to the sons of clergymen, and 2,315 to the sons of professional men belonging to the middle classes. None of those appointments could be traced in the smallest degree to political motives; but the Directors, in making them, had been animated solely by the public good. He recommended the noble Lord to leave out the clause altogether, as being unnecessary.
  MR. VERNON SMITHhoped that the clause would be retained, as he thought it established a very good distribution of patronage. But everything depended upon the manner in which it was carried out. The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) took credit for the distribution of patronage by the Court of Directors. Now it was natural that the Company should give appointments to the sons of their old friends, and they had no more right to claim credit on that account than he should have for giving appointments as President of the Board of Control to the sons of Members of Parliament. That connection now ceased, and therefore some such clause was necessary; but a provision should be introduced, making the appointments to depend on the distinction of the officers whose sons were applicants. Care should be taken to prevent the appointment from becoming hereditary.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that great disadvantage arose under the present system from want of some person to whom distinguished officers could apply
  934
  specially for appointments. He was glad that a fund was established under the Bill by which distinguished officers would be assisted in their application.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHhoped the clause would be maintained as it stood, because it would enable the Secretary of State to reward deserving officers, whether they had acquired distinction in the field or in quarters.
  SIR HENRY RAWLINSONthought the clause was one of a most beneficial character.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, it appeared to him most difficult to carry out this clause. About one-half of his appointments had been given to the sons of officers, and they proved themselves most competent for the duties imposed on them.
  LORD STANLEYthought it was an exaggeration to suppose that this clause was introducing any dangerous principle into the administration by the adoption of this clause. They should remember that only about one-tenth of the whole number entered into this competition, and that proportion was so small as hardly to affect the general character of the service. He could not see any difficulty that could arise under this clause, except that the number of deserving claimants might be greater than the number of appointments. But that was a difficulty that had occurred in many cases. If any case of doubt or difficulty arose, there was nothing in the clause to prevent the expedient being resorted to of establishing a limited competition amongst those who were considered otherwise deserving. He thought the principle of the clause was very intelligible. No doubt the claims of the Indian civil and military servants had been fairly recognized; but it was one thing to go and ask for an appointment in the shape of a private favour, and another to go to a public body and seek for a recompense for services publicly performed.
  MR. BLACKBURNthought the principle involved in the clause of a highly dangerous character.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsuggested the introduction of the words, "who have served with distinction."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it appeared to him that the word, with distinction," might limit the application of the clause, so as to do injustice to individuals, by preventing the clause operating in cases where it was obviously intended to apply. A case of merit might occur which would not come under the de-

  935
  nomination of "distinction." A difference might be made between "merit" and distinction," which would create much difficulty. He thought they ought to leave the clause as it stood, and allow a certain discretion to the Council.
  In reply to Mr. VERNON SMITH,
  LORD STANLEYstated that the persons to be admitted under this clause would not come in upon easier terms than those to be appointed by nomination.
  Clause agreed to.
  LORD STANLEYproposed the following new clause as Clause 35:—
  "Except Except as aforesaid, all persons to be recommended for Military Cadetships shall be nominated by the Secretary of State and Members of Council, so that out of seventeen nominations the Secretary of State shall have two, and each Member of Council shall have one; but no person so nominated shall be recommended unless the nomination be approved of by the Secretary of State in Council.
  Clause brought up and read the first time.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRY SIR ERSKINE PERRY moved as an Amendment the rejection of the clause. He concurred with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), that nothing was so mischievous as giving patronage as a portion of the remuneration of the Members of the Council. He objected to the clause because it would leave the patronage virtually in the hands of the Minister for India. He might be asked what course he himself proposed for the distribution of patronage; but he did not think it incumbent on a private Member who objected to a proposition to bring forward a scheme himself. He felt more satisfied, however, that if cadetships were distributed amongst the great schools of the United Kingdom, they would get excellent men for the service. Why did not the Government adopt the principle of competition? Competition had produced some very good officers for the service, and one of the best armies in the world, the French army, obtained two-thirds of its officers by means of competition, and one-third were appointed from the ranks. He would rather see patronage in the hands of the Minister, even, than in the hands of the Council.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, the great principle involved in this clause had been already discussed: There were three modes in which patronage might be disposed of. One was by competition; another was that part which was not disposed of by competition might be given to the Minister alone; and a third mode was that which the Go-
  936
  vernment proposed—namely, of dividing it between the Minister and the Council. He confessed he was very favourable to the principle of competition, believing that it had answered well as far as it had been tried; but at the same time it should be recollected that it was but an experiment, and when they were throwing open the whole scientific branches of the army, he thought that they were giving that principle every fair play. As to the suggestion of giving a portion of this patronage to the public schools, no doubt that would be very satisfactory to that portion of society who sent their sons to public schools; but he was afraid that such a proceeding would give rise to great complaints from classes who were unable to compete with the wealthy classes in obtaining the advantages of these schools, though they give their sons a good education elsewhere. As to leaving the patronage in the hands of the Minister, his objection to that was, that from the extent of the patronage it would be an enormous labour to distribute it properly. It would be very difficult, also, for any Minister to avoid disposing of part of his patronage on political grounds when he had such an enormous amount of it. But, setting aside the question as to the political use of the patronage, he did not think it possible for any Minister charged with the responsibility of distributing this patronage to investigate every case properly. There were, he understood, above 100 of these cadetships to be disposed of every year. He thought that the patronage would be better bestowed when divided among fifteen or sixteen persons than if it were all placed in the hands of one person. There had been many suggestions as to disposing of the patronage by competition, though he had not heard until to-day any proposal to deposit it in the hands of the Minister alone. If it were left in the hands of the Minister it would involve an enormous amount of labour on his part. It would, too, be difficult for any Minister, subject to the ordinary influences that beset a Member of that House, to avoid disposing of some part of this patronage on political grounds. He thought it scarcely possible for any Minister charged with the responsibility of distributing the whole of this patronage to investigate properly every case that came before him in the year. Until to-day he had not heard any suggestion made of giving to the Minister all the patronage.
  SIR HENRY RAWLINSON, the last sentence of the clause seemed to provide

  937
  two references to the Council; but be could not see why nomination as well as recommendation should be given to the Council.
  LORD STANLEYthought the meaning of the clause plain; the recommendation was placed in the hands of individual Members, but there was to be a check on improper nomination by every appointment being brought before the whole Council.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he would not oppose this clause were he not convinced that the vesting of the patronage of cadetships in the Indian Council was the very worst mode in which it could be distributed. It was proposed to vest the patronage in the hands of those persons who were to govern India; and the evil was, that by giving them this patronage they would give them a direct private and individual interest which might be in contravention of the public weal. Although he believed the gentlemen who might be appointed members of the Council would administer the patronage as well and as honourably as any private gentlemen, yet, under such an arrangement as the clause proposed, it was impossible that they could stand indifferent between the various branches of the Indian service; for they would have a direct interest in increasing the numbers and emoluments of the military force at the expense of the civil service. The shameful state of the administration of law and justice in the East India Company's territories was well known, and was attributable to the circumstance that had a judicial service been established there would have been a considerable diminution of the civil patronage of the Directors. The Company had enjoyed the patronage of cadetships in the Native army, but they could not confer commissions in the Queen's regiments serving in India; and the consequence was that, whenever new territories had been added to the Company's dominions, the Native army had been increased instead of additions having been made to the Queen's army. He believed that if there was one cause which had contributed more than another to the mutiny in India, it had been the enormous increase of the Native army, because the patronage attached to it was in the hands of the Company. The regular cavalry, which every one knew was very inefficient, had been kept up, while any increase of the irregular cavalry, a most valuable branch of the service, had been discouraged, because the
  938
  former force afforded the greatest amount of patronage. They proposed to appoint the Members of Council for life, and yet to give them retiring pensions in order to get rid of the evil of appointments for life, and now they were going to contradict themselves again. If a man's health failed, and he wished to retire, and it was for the good of the service that he should retire, yet he would, if he had this patronage, be induced to remain a little longer for the benefit of his children and his grandchildren. There was no plan which they could suggest of giving away this patronage which would not be better than this. He thought the plan of giving away the patronage by competition would be an admirable one. They could have competition on points of strength and agility as well as other things. Would this not be better than leaving the matter to blind chance—for who ever heard of a young gentleman getting a cadetship because he deserved it? If they had not competition, they might sell the appointments, for even that would be better than the present system; and the produce of the sales would prove a very acceptable relief to the Indian Exchequer. The result of the present proposal would be that they would have a competitive civil service and a patronage military service, and that all the feelings and sympathies of the governing body of India would be in favour of that service in which they exercised patronage.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHthought the right hon. Gentleman had made a most unjust observation in stating that, if the officers of the Indian army had not been badly selected, the Indian mutiny would not have occurred.
  MR. LOWEexplained, that he had contended that if it had not been the interest of the Company to increase the Native army to such an extent, that army would not have felt its own strength.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHthought that there was no danger of too great a number of officers being appointed. It seemed to be assumed that no examination was passed at present, but the fact was that the cadets underwent a very good examination. The right hon. Gentleman said that this proposed system was the very worst that could be adopted, but he had not given them a better. He assured the House that the young men who went out to India went as well prepared as possible. As to competition, they did

  939
  not find gentlemen engaged in commerce choose their servants by competition. He doubted whether the system would last long.
  COLONEL SYKESobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) would learn with some surprise that, in spite of his allegation that the desire of patronage on the part of the Directors had led to the increase of the Native army, that army was now numerically much larger than when the mutiny commenced.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 91: Majority 74.
  Clause agreed to; as were two other new Clauses.
  MR. ELLIOTthen proposed a clause directed to the object of keeping the proportion between the nominated and elected Members the same as at first. It was clear that if they commenced with eight nominated and seven elected Members, yet this proportion would not be kept up under the present provisions of the Bill unless alternate vacancies occurred in the portions of the Council filled up by nomination and by election. He proposed by his clause to enact that in order to secure this vacancies that occurred in the nominated portion of the Council should be filled up by nomination, and those in the elected portion by election.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman attached more importance than he (Lord Stanley) did to the maintenance of the exact present proportion at all times between the two clauses who were represented in the Council. The numbers would be at first eight to seven. When the time arrived that all appointed at the outset, whether nominated or elected, should have died off, then the appointments would be alternately by election and nomination; the number of elected and nominated Members would be alternately seven and eight and eight and seven, and the balance would, therefore, ultimately be as nearly equal as possible between the two. It was only in the intervening period that any inequality could arise, and during that time there was just as much chance of the elected Members obtaining a superiority over the nominated ones as of the nominated Members obtaining a superiority over those who were elected. The objection which he entertained to the proposition was, that it would be the means of
  940
  perpetuating the distinction between the nominated and elected Members, which it seemed to him important should terminate as soon as possible in a body of this kind.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that he believed the intention of the Government and the House was that there should be eight nominated and seven elected Members. It was, as he understood, the proposition of the hon. Member to maintain that proportion. He could not see why, if the proportion was a proper one at first, it should not be maintained.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid, that the first elected Member that died would cause the numbers to become nine and six, which would be contrary to the intentions of Parliament.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHsaid, that the second election would neutralize the inequality pointed out by the hon. Member.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLcould not see that there would be anything invidious in a Member of Council being appointed by the Crown to fill a vacancy caused by the death of a nominated Member, or on the other hand, being elected to fill a vacancy caused by the death of an elected Member. He did not, therefore, see any objection to the proposition of his hon. Friend.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. CAMPBELLthen moved the addition of the following clause:—
  "That, with a view to enabling the Secretary of State for War and the Commander in Chief of the army for the time being to have proper cognisance of the constitution and organization of our army in India, they are hereby appointed ex officio Members of the Council for India. 1. That in transferring the forces of the East India Company to the Crown, and with a view to avoid a double government of the army, the organization, discipline, and control be under the Secretary of State for War and the Horse Guards, in like manner as the existing colonial service of Her Majesty, preserving to such forces all existing rights in reference to pay and allowances. 2. That all first commissions in the army shall be open to public competition, subject to such an examination as the Secretary of State for War shall direct, reserving one-fourth part of such appointments to the sons of persons who have been employed in the military service of the Crown or of the East India Company: that the remaining three-fourth parts be sold at the rate of £400 for each infantry ensigncy or engineer or artillery second lieutenancy, and £500 for each cavalry cornetcy; that this purchase money be received by the State and formed into a retiring fund, having for its objects further efficiency in the service by facilitating early retirement; that these commissions be gazetted in the same manner as all Queen's commissions

  941
  now are, being, in the first instance, recommended by the Secretary of State for India."
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that if the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of State for War were appointed members of the Council, that must be done with a view to place the army of India under their control in the same way as was the army in the Colonies. That at once opened and decided the relation between the army in India for local and the army for general purposes. A more difficult question he did not know, and he should be sorry at the present moment to pronounce a decided opinion upon it. It had been already stated that it was the intention of the Government to refer the question of the re-organization of the Indian army to a Commission which would sit during the recess. He hoped that the result of these inquiries would be before the public next Session, and then, but not until then, it would be desirable to enter upon the full consideration of this subject. In the meantime, he thought the Committee would not be prepared to sanction a proposal to transfer the Indian army to the War Department and the Horse Guards without a fuller inquiry than had yet taken place. He could not assent to the proposed clause.
  MR. VERNON SMITHasked if the noble Lord would have any objection to lay on the table of the House before Parliament was prorogued a copy of the Commission directed to the Commissioners for inquiring into the reorganization of the Indian army?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that before that time he would take an opportunity to give some explanation of the subject into which the Commission would have to inquire.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. FAGANthen proposed the addition of the following Clause:—
  "Whereas by an Act passed in the 37th year of the reign of King George III., chapter 140, it was provided that from and after the passing of that Act no British subject should by himself, or by any other person employed by him, lend, or be concerned in lending, any money to any Native Prince in India; and whereas certain claims against the revenues of the kingdom of Oude in British India, for money advanced by British subjects whose representatives are in England, previous to the passing of that Act, to Nabob Asuf-Ood-Dowlah, the then sovereign of Oude, for the purposes of his government, are still outstanding; and whereas the kingdom of Oude was on the 1st of January, 1856, annexed to the territories of the East India Companies, and it is expedient that such claims should be investigated and adjusted: be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for the Council by and with the consent in writing of the per-
  942
  son or persons making any such claim as aforesaid, to refer any such claim to the auditor of the accounts of the Council, or other person or persons to be from time to time appointed by the Council, with the approval of the claimant for that purpose, and to direct such referee or referees to investigate such claim and all matters relating thereto; and such referee or referees shall have power to examine any person in Great Britain, who shall appear before him or them in support of such claim, and any person or persons who shall be tendered by or on behalf of such claimant for that purpose, and also any officers and servants in Great Britain of the Council, as he or they may see fit, in relation thereto, and for such purpose, by writing under his or their hand or hands, to summon before him or them any such person or persons, officer, or servants, and also by writing under his or their hand or hands, to require the production of any accounts, books, papers, and documents in Great Britain, relating to such claim, in the possession or power of the said claimant, or of any other person or persons indicated by him, and also any books, papers, and documents in Great Britain, relating to such claim, in the possession or power of the said Council, their officers or servants; and such referee or referees shall report to the Secretary of State his opinion as to the justice and propriety of such claim, with such remarks and observations in relation thereto as he may think fit, and the Secretary of State shall thereupon make such order therein as to him shall seem just and proper, and such order shall be binding and conclusive upon the person or persons making such claim as aforesaid, and upon all persons claiming through or under him or them,"
  He should not have brought forward this clause if he did not believe in the justice of the claims referred to in it. The claim to which he particularly referred was that of Colonel Frith of the Bengal Artillery. It was a claim arising out of the military service of the Company, and by which the East India Company had chiefly benefited. By a treaty signed in 1781 the East India Company undertook to withdraw their own troops from Oude, and to permit the then Vizier of Oude to garrison the country with his own troops, but commanded by a British officer appointed by the Governor General. Colonel Frith received that appointment at a time when the revenues of Oude were in a dilapidated condition. Under these circumstances Colonel Frith, at the instigation of the English Resident at Lucknow, pledged his credit to raise a sum to pay the troops he commanded. In two years £30,000 was admitted by the Resident at Lucknow to be due to Colonel Frith on account of those advances; and this liability was admitted by the Vizier, who gave the Colonel a lien upon the revenues of Oude. There could, therefore, be no doubt of the debt being due. In twelve months after the giving of this lien

  943
  Colonel Frith was paid £10,000 pounds, and an attempt was made to induce him to settle the remainder of his claim for a wholly inadequate sum. He declined. The then Vizier of Oude died. The regular order of succession was interrupted, and a person whom the East India Company preferred to the heir was raised to the musnud. When he ascended the throne a treaty was signed by which the new Vizier promised to pay the debts of his predecessor. But in the following year that treaty was abrogated. Another was signed, in which the East India Company released the Vizier from the liability to pay his predecessor's debts, and, at the same time, acquired half his territory. He (Mr. Fagan) contended that after thus releasing the Vizier from the liability to pay his predecessor's debts, and at the same time seizing upon a large portion of his territory, the East India Company became morally bound to repay Colonel Frith the advances which he had made to the previous Vizier. The question was whether the tribunal for the settlement of such claims should be the House of Commons, or some authority directly under the Secretary of State. He thought there was great inconvenience in making the House of Commons the tribunal, and, therefore, he made the proposition embodied in the clause.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he thought it would be the opinion of the Committee that it would not be desirable for him to go into the details of the question which the hon. Member for Cork had brought under the notice of the Committee. The case was one of very long standing, and one, he (Lord Stanley) believed, of some hardship. It had more than once been debated in that House; but it would be impossible to do justice on either side, unless it were gone into at considerable length. He was quite ready to admit that which he thought would be sufficient for present purposes—namely, that there were various claims, some of which were undoubtedly valid, against the former Government of Oude, and that the transfer of the revenues of Oude to Great Britain did carry with it a liability for such debts of the former Government as were fairly and justly contracted. Following on that first admission must necessarily be the one that it was expedient such claims should be investigated. But then arose two further questions—first, in what manner, and before what tribunal, it was desirable to have them investigated; and next,
  944
  whether it was desirable to insert anything in respect of their adjustment in the Bill then before the Committee? Now, though the settlement of such debts might be a very important subject, it was one which had no intimate connection with a Bill for the home administration of India. The two questions were in fact entirely unconnected; and he could not think it would be a convenient practice to insert in a Bill which related to one subject clauses which related to another and totally distinct subject. Again, it was quite clear that whatever tribunal it might be advisable to establish for the settlement of a claim such as that which the hon. Member for Cork had spoken of, ought not to be established for the trial of that single case, but should be one before which all cases of this nature might be conveniently and satisfactorily tried. A considerable number of persons had claims against the Government of Oude, and the greater number of these persons were Natives of India. Obviously, then, those claims could best be investigated by a Commission on the spot. Such a Commission it was proposed to appoint. That idea had been entertained by the Government of India, and would, he expected, be carried out without any great delay. Such a tribunal once appointed, to it must be referred all claims against the Government of Oude, whether made by Europeans or Natives; and he did not doubt that the party whose claims the hon. Member for Cork had advocated would be able to have justice done him without the intervention of an Act of Parliament. Under these circumstances, he (Lord Stanley) could not consent to the introduction of the clause proposed by the hon. Member.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, he had himself spoken several times on cases of this kind. He had heard, from the predecessors of the noble Lord, declarations, though not so explicit as that of the noble Lord, as to the necessity of a tribunal to try such cases. However, that tribunal had not been established; and the noble Lord had not pledged himself or his Government that it should be. He (Mr. Bright) did not think a Commission would be the most suitable tribunal—he rather thought it should be a tribunal composed of the Indian Judges. He was rather of opinion that the Government of India was afraid that if such a tribunal sat, the claims would be very numerous, and that very large sums of money would have to be re-

  945
  funded. He believed that the hon. Member for Cork would do well not to press his Motion, but he (Mr. Fagan) was entitled to a pledge on the part of the Government that such a tribunal should without delay be established. The noble Lord might introduce into the Bill then before the Committee a clause for the establishment of this tribunal.
  MR. GLADSTONErose for the purpose of preventing any inference that the case of those claimants on the old treasury of Oude was one in which great injustice had been done by the East India Company. He (Mr. Gladstone) was bound to express his belief that the claim brought forward by the hon. Member for Cork was not one to which the Government were bound to lend an ear. It was one which had been heard long ago, and resisted by the East India Company. He thought that the resistance of such claims was a most meritorious act on the part of the East India Company. He was averse to the revival of claims against the treasury of India which had been long ago urged, and which ought never to have been put forward.
  MR. BRIGHThad passed no opinion as to the merits of the claim now before the Committee. He had confined himself to saying that there ought to be a tribunal to decide such claims.
  MR. FAGANsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University seemed to have misunderstood the case which he had brought forward. The case which he had brought under the notice of the Committee was not one of that class to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYagreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) that there ought to be some tribunal to settle these claims.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he would propose the clause of which he had given notice on the bringing up of the Report.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he would take the same course in respect of his clause.
  Remaining clauses were then agreed to.
  The House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  COLONEL SYKESrose to move, pursu-
  946
  ant to notice, "That the Provost, Magistrates, and Council of the City of Aberdeen be heard by themselves or by their Council; upon their Petition against the Bill." At present there were Faculties of Arts in the two Colleges of Aberdeen, the Marischal and King's. Now, very considerable endowments had been left to the former College, by private individuals, on the faith of its maintaining a faculty of Arts. However, one of the clauses of the Bill now before the House would defeat the expectations of the donors; and in the language of some of the petitioners whose petitions he had presented to that House, "confiscate the endowments." The clause to which he referred, was that which would deprive Marischal College of its classes in the faculty of Arts. This would violate the terms of the private endowments, and occasion great inconvenience to a large number of the citizens of Aberdeen. Many of the youth would have to go daily from New to Old Aberdeen. Formerly this would not, at the outside, involve a walk of more than a mile and a half; but that was before the growth of the city. Many of the students and fellows now live at a distance of nearly three miles from Old Aberdeen; and these gentlemen would be obliged to go and come that distance daily in order to attend the classes in the faculty of Arts. The Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council wanted that no undue advantage should arise to either College from this Bill. They approved of the general objects of the measure; but they disapproved of the suppression of the faculty of Arts in Marischal College. That they thought wrong; as did also all the great bodies in the north-east of Scotland. He had that day presented a petition from the aggregate representatives of all these bodies, in which they prayed the House not to sanction what they called "the confiscation of the endowments of Marischal College, Aberdeen." At a numerous meeting held in Aberdeen, and at which the heads of the principal bodies were present, as also graduates and students of King's College and Marischal College, Aberdeen, it was determined to resist, so far as the law would justify such resistance, the clause to which he was now more particularly directing the attention of the House. The learned Lord Advocate had, on a former occasion, spoken of this objection as a "local prejudice"—a local feeling. A noble Lord, (Lord Elcho) who had spent forty-eight hours in Aberdeen, represented

  947
  that the feeling was the other way. Was that to be believed after such a demonstration as the meeting to which he (Colonel Sykes) had just referred? A feeling manifested so generally, by so many different bodies, could scarcely be called a "local prejudice;" but even if it were, ought there not to be a concession to the wishes of so large a number, when such a concession could cause no wrong to any one? He felt that the petitioners were not asking too much. The learned Lord Advocate had cited authority in support of this clause; but was the opinion of the Gentleman to whom he had referred in support of the proposition to weigh against that of the whole north-east of Scotland? That part of Scotland was entitled to the highest consideration on the part of the learned Lord; and he would remind him of the old aphorism "that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones." He (Colonel Sykes) held in his hand the Aberdeen Herald. In one number of this paper he found the report of a meeting of the learned Lord's constituents, many of whom were graduates of King's College; and in that report he found it stated that those constituents elected him on the understanding that he was favourable to their views. That was on the 26th ult.; but, there was another expression of the same sort in the paper of Saturday last, which stated that
  "All throughout it had been obvious that the main prompters of the Lord Advocate's firmness or obstinacy had been the professors of King's College. Forgetting the pledge given in his name to the great body of his constituents, the graduates of King's College, as Lord Rector, he had become the agent of the Senatus."
  Now, he (Colonel Sykes) did not take upon himself to say whether this statement was true or false. It was not for him to determine whether or not such a pledge was given by the learned Lord when he was elected Provost; but there were the names of the parties who asserted that it had, and therefore he repeated that it behoved those who lived in glass houses not to throw stones. It was said, however, that the proposed measure was for the public good; that the limitation of the Faculty of Arts to King's College, Aberdeen, would occasion a great saving of money, and admit of improving the status of the remaining professors. But he was told that an arrangement could be made under which there would be no necessity for any additional expense as far as the Faculty of
  948
  Arts in each College was concerned, and that the mere question of a Government grant would relate entirely to the establishment of the University or the governing body. If that were the case then he asked the learned Lord why he opposed himself to the universal wish of the people, when there would be no advantage to the public and no improvement in the statute of education in the north of Scotland? The graduates of the learned Lord's own College said to him, "we desire the Faculty of Arts to be preserved in Marischal College, because it will establish our honourable emulative rivalry, and will do the same good to education that is done in the College at Oxford, where one competes with the other, or at Cambridge as between St. John's and Trinity? Under these circumstances, therefore, he thought there was no occasion whatever for persevering in the clause to the extent which the learned Lord insisted upon. He came to the simple question whether the learned Lord and the Government would permit the Lord Provost, the Magistrates, and the Town Council of the City of Aberdeen to be heard at the bar of the House, that the House itself might hear from their lips or the lips of their Counsel, the real state of the case, which he feared he had so inadequately and imperfectly endeavoured to explain. In the hope that the Government would consider this point, he begged to move that the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of the City of Aberdeen be heard by Counsel at the bar of the House.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he thought his hon. and gallant Friend ought to have offered some explanation as to the legal right or legal difficulty upon which the House required instruction, that it could not obtain from members of its own body. So far as he had been able to follow the observations of his hon. and gallant Friend, they appeared to be nothing more than a repetition of the argument which he had already brought forward on the subject; and he (the Lord Advocate), appealed to the House whether that argument involved any legal question or difficulty at all; or whether it did not resolve itself entirely into a question of the expediency or inexpediency of that union of the two Colleges of Aberdeen which formed part of the present Bill. In discussing that question, he was sure it would be impossible to find in that House a more able advocate than his hon. and gallant Friend; and he was as certain that the opponents

  949
  of the measure would find none so zealous in promoting their cause—but he contended that no ground whatever had been laid for a Motion of this description. One word with regard to the observations which his hon. and gallant Friend had made respecting himself (the Lord Advocate) personally. Now, he thought his hon. and gallant Friend altogether misunderstood the information which had been put into his hands; and that the ancient proverb, which he had quoted, about people who lived in glass houses, did not at all apply. In the first place, he (the Lord Advocate) had never thrown stones at his hon. and gallant Friend, or anybody else, during the time he had been in office; and, in the second place, he begged to tell him that he did not live in a house of glass, if his hon. and gallant Friend meant by that he was liable to a charge of inconsistency. When he had the honour of being elected Lord Rector of the University of Aberdeen, he was asked his opinion upon the question of the union of the two Colleges; and, in reply, he stated that he had not turned his attention to the matter, except in a very cursory way; that his present impression was in favour of the union of the Universities, and the separation of the Colleges; but that opinion was formed without anything like an adequate consideration of the subject. That was a very distinct and at the same time, a very sincere expression of the opinion which he then entertained with the light he then possessed. He had occasion subsequently, however, to study the subject a great deal more maturely, with a view to be examined as a witness before the Commission appointed for the visitation of Aberdeen University; and then he came to an opposite conclusion, though not without some difficulty, as he had experienced in his evidence. Still in the end, he certainly did come very decidedly to an opposite conclusion, and he left it to his hon. and gallant Friend to say whether, having so come to an opposite conclusion, it was more honest to act on that conviction or pretend that he was of the same opinion still?
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That the Provost, Magistrates, and Council of the City of Aberdeen be heard by themselves or their Counsel upon their petition against the Bill,"
  put, and negatived.
  SIR W. DUNBAR SIR W. DUNBAR moved the following clause:—
  "In each University the Assessor to be nomi-
  950
  nated by the Rector, shall, in the absence of the Rector, be entitled to preside and vote in the University Court in like manner as the Rector, if present, might have done."
  Clause brought up and read the first time.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that as the Bill stood, the clause was not at all necessary. He thought it better to leave the appointment of the President of the University Court in the absence of the Rector to the Court itself
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, that the fault of the University Court was that it was too small—in Edinburgh, consisting of only eight members, and in the other Universities of only seven. And when, moreover, they considered that the Rector, being generally a person who was chosen from among distinguished literary men, would be non-resident, it was highly important that some one should be appointed who was a constituent member of the Court to act in his stead. He would not have the Assessor, who was one of the Synod, but some person to act for the Rector in his absence, to be vested with his powers for the time being. He therefore highly approved of the clause proposed by his hon. Friend.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, he had given notice of a clause which proposed that the Rector should appoint a Vice Rector, who should in his absence exercise all the functions of Rector, and preside in the University Court. By way of Amendment to the clause of his hon. Friend, therefore, he would have to leave out the word "Assessor," and insert "Vice Rector, not being a Principal or Professor in any University." He was of opinion that it would scarcely be decorous for the Rector's Assessor to be elevated to the position of President over all the other members of the University Court, some of whom were his superiors in rank—and if they did not allow the Rector to appoint a Vice Rector who should preside in his absence, it would lead to this: that the Rector's voice would be practically lost in the University Court; or the students, when they had to elect a Rector, instead of choosing a man of eminence, who on account of his attainments and position would be an honour to the University, would look out for a man who resided on the spot, and would be able to attend and give his vote at the meetings of the Court. Any such result as that was most undesirable; and if the Rector had the power conferred upon him to ap-

  951
  point a Vice Rector, there could be no such object or motive in the election.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEopposed both the clause of the hon. Member for Wigton (Sir W. Dunbar) and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop). He objected to the latter that the Vice Rector would only be a conditional or contingent member of the Court, acting in the absence of the Rector, but disappearing altogether when the Rector happened to be present; in his opinion a most undignified and anomalous position for any gentleman to be placed in. It appeared to him also that either proposition would have the effect of throwing too much power into the hands of the Rector, who already possessed the right to nominate one Assessor; for his part, he thought that any member of the University Court was just as well qualified to preside in that Court as any other person, and that, therefore, it was much better for the Court itself to elect its own chairman in the absence of the Rector. The members of the Court were invariably the best judges of the person who was most competent to preside over them; and his objection to the proposals of both hon. Members was, that they would create an anomaly, and place the person proposed to be Vice Rector in a very singular and disagreeable position.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—"That the said clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.
  MR. DUNLOP MR. DUNLOP moved the following clause:—
  "Offices of Principal in Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh not to be deemed 'Chairs in Theology.'"
  The object of his clause was to remove the necessity which now existed for the Principals in certain Universities taking the test as members of the Established Church of Scotland. By an Act passed in 1853, a considerable change had been made in this respect. Up to that time it was necessary that every such Principal and Professor should make a declaration that the confession of faith of the Established Church was his confession of faith, and substantially that he submitted himself to the government and discipline of the Church of Scotland. In that year an Act was passed for regulating admission to lay chairs in the Universities of Scotland, which dispensed with the necessity of Principals and Professors making that declaration, and professing themselves members of the Established Church, and substituted for it a simple
  952
  declaration that, in their teaching, they would not affirm anything which was contrary to the faith of the Established Church. That Act also contained a definition of what should constitute the theological chairs which were to be exempted from its operation, and the Professors of which were still to be bound to take the religious test. All the divinity chairs were expressly excepted, and the Principals of Edinburgh, Glasgow, King's College, Aberdeen, and St. Mary's College, St. Andrews. The latter college was entirely a theological institution and in that case the exception was certainly quite right. In regard to St. Leonard's College, St. Andrews, and Marischal College, Aberdeen, in which laymen might be Principals, the necessity of taking the test was discontinued; but the Principalships of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and King's College, Aberdeen, were declared to be theological chairs, and, as such, the parties holding them were bound to take the test. This was done on the assumption that the Principals of these Universities were Professors of Divinity; and it was quite true that at one time they were, and he believed that nominally they were so still; but in point of fact they had never taught Divinity. Under these circumstances, the Principals not being really and truly, but only nominally Professors of Divinity, the reasons for their exemption from the operation of the Act of 1853 were merely colourable; and it certainly was not reasonable or proper that the Principals of those Colleges should be confined to members of the Established Church, when there might be other Professors in the University who, from their character and eminence in the field of literature and science, were the most proper persons to be appointed to the office, but who could not now be appointed on account of some difference in their theological views, or their views regarding the discipline and government of the Church. Under the Act of 1853 there were at least two Principals who were exempt from the necessity of taking the religious test—the Principal of St. Leonard's and the Principal of Marischal; but the effect of the present Bill would be to merge the Principalship of Marischal College in the Principalship of King's. Now, the Principalship of King's was one of the offices which were exempted from the provisions of the Act, and, inasmuch as Marischal College was by the Bill to be merged in it, he took it that the Principal of the united College

  953
  must be subjected to the restriction which attached to the Principal of King's College—so that St. Leonard's College, St. Andrews, would be the only one hereafter exempted from the test. This, he contended, would be a most unjustifiable arrangement, and contrary to the reasons which had induced Parliament to pass the Act of 1853. He begged, therefore, to move the clause of which he had given notice.
  Clause (Offices of Principal in Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh not to be deemed "Chairs of Theology") brought up, and read the first time.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he should oppose the clause. The whole question, as he considered, was settled by a compromise in the Act of 1853, the effect of which was to abolish by far the greater proportion of those tests which had existed from the very foundation of the University. That Act was certainly an arrangement between contending parties, and, as he thought, proceeded on very sound grounds. It was an arrangement in which he entirely concurred—namely, that every chair that could be properly and distinctly called a lay chair should be entirely exempted from those tests, or in other words, that it should not be indispensable that they should be taken by persons seeking to attain a chair; in fact, that candidates should not be compelled to take any religious test whatever. That Act also proceeded to define what were lay chairs, and what in all future time should be considered not lay chairs. There was an express clause in the Act to this effect—that the words "chairs of theology" should, for the purposes of the Act, be taken to be chairs of Biblical criticism, Church doctrine, &c., in any of the Universities or Colleges, and the office of Principal of the same should be filled by a theological professor, with the exception of Marischal College and the University College of St. Leonard's, so that the Principals in those two Colleges were to be principals of lay chairs, and on that footing the tests were abolished as regarded the lay chairs in Scotland. He should not have thought that his hon. Friend would have been the man to come forward, so soon after this arrangement, and propose to disturb it, unless some particular reasons induced him to take that course; and the only one which he (the Lord Advocate) could find was, that in the case of Aberdeen this difficulty was created, that whereas, formerly, there were two Colleges, the Principal
  954
  of one of which held a lay chair, and the Principal of the other held a theological chair; those two colleges, being united by this Bill, his hon. and learned Friend assumed, though on what ground he knew not, that the Principal of the united University would necessarily be the holder of a theological chair. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Marischal College being added, as it were, to King's College, the Principal of the new University would necessarily come in the place of the present principal of King's College. He (the Lord Advocate) was quite at a loss to understand how his hon. and learned Friend arrived at that conclusion. In one sense both the Marischal College and King's College would be extinguished, in another, they would both be kept up; they would be equally merged and united into one University. What represented one would equally represent the other; and so far from adopting the construction put upon that merging into one University by his hon. and learned Friend, he should rather feel inclined to contend that the Principal of the United University would not be the holder of a theological chair, because he was not one of those provided for under the Act of 16 & 17 Victoria. However that might be, he thought that no sufficient reason had been alleged for disturbing the arrangement of 1853, and he could not help thinking that, if that arrangement were disturbed, it would give rise to much unpleasant discussion.
  MR. DUNLOPcould not exactly allow the interpretation of his reasons just given to be accepted of the House without explanation. No doubt what he had stated was to the difference between the chairs in Marischal and King's College, was a strong ground for the Motion he had made, but he was sorry he could not put the same construction upon the effect of the Bill of 1853, which had been put upon it by his right hon. and learned Friend. All the Principals of the Universities alluded to in this Bill held theological chairs, except the Principals of St. Leonard's and Marischal Colleges; and if the Principal of the United College was not to be the Principal of the Marischal College, it could not come within the exception mentioned in the Act. He denied that any arrangement had been made in 1853 of such a nature as to preclude him or any other hon. Member from coming forward with this Motion. He had made a similar Motion in 1853, when the Bill was in Committee; but when the

  955
  Minister turned round and said that they had agreed to make those two exceptions, he thought it better to take what they could get. He certainly assented to that arrangement, but he did not consider that it was to be a permanent settlement. He had always advocated this change, and as he saw a better chance of carrying it now, he should certainly press it. He believed that all parties thought that it would be a wise and liberal change, for the Professors in question were really nominal Professors of Theology, and did no duty as Professors of Divinity. The only effect of retaining the present system would be to exclude from the chairs as Principals of the University the very best men.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the said clause be now read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 58: Majority 24.
  Clause read 2o, and added.
  MR. DUNLOP MR. DUNLOP moved the following clause:—
  "That from and after the passing of this Act, no distinction shall be recognised among the Professors of the University of Glasgow, but the whole Professors thereof admitted to Chairs heretofore established, or which may hereafter be established therein, shall be deemed to be, and shall be, Professors of the University and College of Glasgow, and shall all equally exercise the whole rights and functions which have heretofore been exercised by any portion of such Professors: Provided always, that no claim is hereby given to any participation in the income or emoluments already appropriated to existing Chairs in the said University and College."
  For many years there has been a vast deal of heartburning among the Professors of the University of Glasgow, in consequence of there being a College of Glasgow, and a University of Glasgow, and the Professors being distinct—those who were Professors of the University, not being Professors of the College. Towards the latter part of the last century, the Crown appointed a considerable number of additional Professors who were received without objection, took their seats and participated in the administration of the property of the College. In the beginning of the present century, however, certain parties objected to the Crown Professors taking any part in the administration of that property, and a suit was instituted in which the Crown did not appear to defend its rights; the consequence was, that it was decided that they had no such right. Subsequently the attempt to exercise it occasioned great dissension which came under the notice of the Commissioners ap-
  956
  pointed to inquire into the condition of the University; both of whom reported that the distinction was most injurious, and might be put an end to. Instead, however, of seeking to procure the concurrence of the Legislature to the passing of a Bill in Parliament which would settle the matter, they had raised another suit five years ago, which was still pending, the previous decision being now challenged by the Crown. He thought that the continuance of such a state of things was most injurious to the University, and therefore he moved this clause for the purpose of doing away with the cause of so much dispute.
  MR. BLACKBURNcould not agree to the clause. The truth was that there was in the University of Glasgow a College which had been endowed with property, which was of course divided among the professors and members of the College. Some sixty years ago, the Crown claimed the right for many additional Professors to participate in those endowments, but when the question came before the Court of Assizes, it decided against such right. It was held that the Crown had the right to appoint Professors of the University, but that it had no right to add any additional Professors to the College. The Professors of the College were appointed in the College, and divided amongst them its revenues; but the Professors belonging to the University, although they possessed all the other rights, had not the right of participating in the special property of the College. It might be disputed whether that was so, legally or not; but at all events, the question having been raised again, and its being for the law courts to decide what rights they possessed and what they did not, it would be quite contrary to the practice of Parliament to interfere by a Legislative enactment. As he understood the purport of this clause, it took away the property of the College and divided it among all the Professors of the University. If that was not the effect of it, he really could not tell what it was. He should suggest that the words "and College" be left out.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, that no part of the reform of the Scotch Universities was more important than that contemplated by the hon. Member for Greenock with respect to this matter. It had been shown that, in consequence of the discussions arising out of this distinction, proceedings of the most discreditable character had taken place. The University had divided itself into two parties, taking opposite

  957
  sides of this questions; and so bitter was the feeling that the members of different parties would scarcely condescend to meet each other. The course proposed by the hon. Member for Greenock was in exact accordance with the wishes and opinion of the people of Glasgow, who took the deepest interest in the University. Although, as was said, the question was still sub judice, it might be tied up for twenty years longer in the Scotch Courts and the House of Lords, and it was most important to the welfare of the University of Glasgow, that such a state of things should be put an end to altogether. He contended that the printed records of the University would show clearly that originally there never was any difference whatever between the University and the College; and the deeds which endowed them contained expressions that rendered it quite obvious that they were regarded as synonymous, the founders recognizing no such distinctions. He should, therefore, second the Motion of the hon. Member for Greenock.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that inasmuch, as the clause was not to interfere with existing rights, or with any emolument heretofore given, he had great pleasure in acceding to its introduction. He could not assent to any clause which interfered with existing rights, or the emoluments connected with the College, or which would have the effect of deciding by a single stroke of the pen a question upon which legal proceedings were pending. On the understanding, therefore, that the clause had reference to placing the Professors of the University and the College on precisely the same footing as respected all the functions and duties appertaining to the office, he gave it his cordial assent, and hoped that it would have the effect, concurrently with the equitable determination of the pecuniary rights of Professors, of putting an end to the heart-burnings complained of, perish all ill-feeling, and promote the interests of the University.
  Clause agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. BLACKBURN, it was agreed that the Chancellor of each University should have power to appoint a Vice Chancellor to discharge the duties of his office in his absence, so far as regards conferring degrees, but in no other respect.
  MR. BUCHANANproposed an Amendment on Clause 7, which relates to the election of the Lord Rector of the University by the students, the object of which
  958
  was to give a vote in such election to the professors. He thought the Committee, in wholly confining the election to the students, had made a mistake. It was well known that in times of election discipline was relaxed, and more than usual license allowed. He thought that if the Professors presided over them on such occasions, and took part in the election, it would be conducive to good order.
  MR. E. ELLICEthought that, considering the votes of the Professors would make little impression, from the smallness of the number, it would only be an unnecessary interference with the students, which would lead to no other result than that of creating ill feeling. If the election of the Rector was left to the students, that of the Chancellor was left to the Professors, so that there was no loss of influence by their not being permitted to interfere in the election of the Rector.
  MR. DUNLOPalso thought this an unnecessary Amendment. There must be a certain degree of license in carrying on an election, and the Professors had better take no part in it. They might make any regulation they pleased for the purpose of preserving order and the regularity of their proceedings, but the students ought to be left in full, free, and unfettered exercise of their electoral rights.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEthen moved an Amendment, the effect of which was to make the Lord Provost of Edinburgh for the time being, one of the assessors of the University Court of the University of Edinburgh.
  MR. STIRLINGreminded the House of the petitions that had been presented upon this subject.
  MR. BLACKwas understood to say, that the people of Edinburgh were much excited upon this subject. He hoped that when they ascertained the real state of the case, their wrath would be considerably abated.
  Amendment agreed to.
  In the clause setting forth the names of the Commissioners, the name of the right hon. Earl Stanhope was inserted.
  MR. CAIRDproposed—after the name of Alexander Hastie—to insert the name of the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop). The Commissioners already appointed were eleven in number, four of whom were Peers, five lawyers, one country gentleman, and one magistrate. It appeared, then, there was only one of the

  959
  Commissioners who represented the town people. He thought that the hon. Member for Greenock had greatly distinguished himself by his valuable suggestions and Amendments during the progress of the Bill, and he was quite sure that the addition of the name would tend to give the people of Scotland much confidence in the proceedings of the Commissioners. He hoped that the Lord Advocate would not refuse the insertion of his name.
  MR. KINNAIRDbegged to add his request to that of the hon. Member for Dartmouth. He believed that the hon. Member for Greenock had the full confidence of the people of Scotland.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the composition of a Commission of this kind was a step of great importance. He was quite aware of the merits of the hon. Member for Greenock, and of the great and many services which that hon. and learned Gentleman had rendered. Nothing would give him greater pleasure than to acknowledge those merits by adding his name to the Commission, if he could only be assured that no further effort would be made to extend the number of the Commissioners. In giving his assent, therefore, he begged it to be distinctly understood, he did not wish to extend the number of the Commission beyond twelve.
  MR. BAXTERwas sure that no attempt would be made to add another name to the Commission. He, however, did not think that the Dissenting portion of the people of Scotland were properly represented on the Commission. All classes in Scotland would be extremely satisfied with the name of Mr. Dunlop on the Commission; and, under the circumstances, he did not think that any other name ought to be proposed.
  MR. BUCHANANconcurred with what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, that no name could be more satisfactory on the Commission than that of Mr. Dunlop. He thought, however, that another name should be added to represent the Dissenting interest.
  MR. E. ELLICEdid not think that a better or abler man could be appointed on the Commission than the hon. Member for Greenock, and believed that the advantage of the measure would be better secured by the presence of his hon. Friend's name. He, however, concurred with the hon. Member for Glasgow in thinking that the Dissenting interest of
  960
  Scotland ought to be better represented on the Commission. He had himself, received many representations from Scotland on this subject which he was unwilling to urge at the present time upon the Lord Advocate, knowing the difficulties he had to encounter in forming this Commission upon perfectly fair and impartial grounds. The only name upon it that was supposed to represent the Dissenters was that of Mr. Alexander Hastie. They ought not to forget that Scotland was as nearly as possible divided into three sections—namely, the Established Church, the Free Church, and the United Presbyterian body. He thought the best arrangement was at once to accede to the proposition of placing the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop's) name on the Commisson; but, upon the understanding that the Lord Advocate should take the opportunity between this and the third reading, of communicating with the Dissenting interest, and of putting another name with that of Mr. Alexander Hastie, to represent that same interest.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, as several hon. Members were suggesting names, he would put in a claim for the country gentlemen. They all concurred in the propriety of inserting the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman in the Commission, but there was another name he should wish to see upon the Commission—namely, that of Colonel Muir, a gentleman who was formerly a Member of that House. He, however, thought upon the whole it was better to leave the responsibility of the names of the Commissioners upon the Government, and for the House itself to abstain from proposing any names.
  MR. BLACKsaid, it appeared to him that the number of the Commission ought to be thirteen. There was one gentleman whose name on the Commission, he knew, would give the greatest satisfaction to the Dissenters of Scotland. This was a gentleman who was well qualified to act as Commissioner, and who was, moreover, a medical man, by no means an unimportant consideration, when it was remembered that there was a large body of medical students deeply interested in the government of the Universities. He therefore proposed that the name of Dr. John Browne, jun., be inserted as a member of the Commission.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, he was not certainly aware of its being intended to propose his name as a member of the Commission, and he offered his thanks to the hon. Member who made the Motion, and

  961
  to his other hon. Friends who supported it. If he had been aware of such a course being intended he should have used his utmost efforts to endeavour to dissuade his friends from persevering in it, as he well knew the delicacy of those affairs. His great anxiety had ever been to see the Commission so framed as to avoid every occasion of jealousy or doubt. He was much gratified at the expressions of kindness with which his name had been received; but, so far as his personal feelings went, he should have preferred that his name had not been proposed.
  Motion agreed to.
  Name of Mr. DUNLOP inserted.
  MR. BLACKthen moved the appointment of Dr. John Browne, jun.
  MR. E. ELLICEappealed to the Lord Advocate to assent to this addition. If the Commission went out as at present constituted, it would create great dissatisfaction.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEput it to the House, whether he had not assented to the number of the Commissioners being increased to twelve by the addition of the name of the hon. Member for Greenock, upon the understanding that the Commission should not be further increased. He felt, therefore, quite justified in resisting this last addition.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he would certainly support the learned Lord in resisting the Motion. If the learned Lord were obliged to yield to the addition of one named, and then to the addition of another, they would be increasing the Commission to an unnecessary length.
  VISCOUNT MELGUNDsaid, if the House went to a division, he would support the proposition of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, for the appointment of Dr. John Browne, jun., than whom no better man could be found for the situation of Commissioner.
  Question, "That the name of Dr. John Browne, jun., be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. GLADSTONEthen moved the following clauses:—
  "If Her Majesty shall be pleased at any time within the duration of the Commission, to grant a charter for the foundation of a National University for Scotland, the Scottish Universities named in this Act, or any of them, may, if they shall think fit, surrender to the Commissioners the powers of examining for and of granting degrees, with or without the exception of degrees in theology, and to become Colleges, one or more, as the case may be, of the said National University."
  962
  Clause to follow Clause 15:—
  "No such surrender or consent as is herein-before mentioned of any Scotch University named in this Act, with a view to becoming a College or Colleges of a National University for Scotland, shall be valid, except it be signified in writing by the Chancellor and by the University Court of the University concerned therein, nor except it be declared by the said Court that the said surrender or consent respectively is given with the approval of the Senatus Academicus, and likewise of the University Council."
  Clauses agreed to.
  In Clause 16,
  COLONEL SYKESproposed to insert in page 9, line 35, after the word "provided," the words, "That a faculty of arts, being such as shall afford a course of education sufficient to qualify students to be examined for degrees in arts, shall be maintained in each of the said King's College and Marischal College." The hon. and gallant Member said, he had received a telegraphic despatch from Aberdeen, showing that the Bill, as it stood, would be a breach of the articles of union, one stipulation of which was, that the Universities and Colleges of Scotland should remain as they were at the time of the Union for ever.
  LORD HADDOremarked upon the petitions that had been presented from certain rural labourers and other working people, expressing their belief that this proposed system of educating the people would prevent them from enjoying the advantages of those establishments. The Lord Advocate stated that those persons were ignorant of the merits of the measure; but the advocates in Aberdeen had expressed the same opinion, and the country gentlemen from all parts were also remonstrating against the union of the Colleges; and, lastly, the students of Aberdeen expressed a strong opinion on the subject. And now, in opposition to those united opinions, what authority was there on the other side. They had had the opinion of the Chancellor of King's College in Aberdeen; but that learned functionary had not expressed any desire for the recognition of this principle. If the House should determine otherwise, he (Lord Haddo) should regret it, but he would take it as an additional proof of the influence of the learned Lord Advocate in that House.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEshould remind the noble Lord and his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes) that an important alteration had already taken place in the measure before the House, and the dis-

  963
  tinction between the Amendment and the clause was therefore very much narrowed. Now, except as regarded the local situation of the building of the two colleges, they were entirely amalgamated. The effect of the clause itself would leave the Commissioners themselves to determine, upon full inquiry, whether it was necessary to have a duplicate set of professors in arts, &c. As far as regarded this question, he thought it better to leave the matter in the hands of the Commissioners. The proposal of the hon. and gallant Colonel really did nothing to meet the evil. The clause he proposed would fail to carry out the object which he had in view.
  Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 142: Majority 95.
  Clause 19.
  MR. BAXTERproposed to add the following proviso:—"Provided always that it shall not be lawful for the Commissioners to apply any portion of such money to the salary of any Principals or Professors required to subscribe religious tests, and not included in the provisions of the Act 16 & 17 Vict., c. 89." Under this clause power is given to certain Commissioners to apply and appropriate, at their own discretion, monies to be hereafter granted by Parliament for purposes connected with the Scotch Universities. The object of his proviso was to prevent the Commissioners granting any part of these monies either for adding to the salaries of the present theological chairs, or for endowing new ones. According to an Act of the Scottish Parliament passed in the reign of Queen Anne, every principal or professor in a Scottish University was required to be a member of the Church of Scotland. But the provisions of that Act had been repealed, so far as the secular chairs went, by the Act 16 & 17 Vict., c. 89. So that at the present time it was only the theological Professors in the Scottish Universities who were required to subscribe tests; and his object was to prevent the theological Professors getting any of the money that may hereafter be granted by Parliament. At this moment two-thirds of the population of Scotland dissented from the Established Church. They were connected with the Free Church or the United Presbyterian Church, or one or other of the smaller religious denominations; and he (Mr. Baxter) objected, in their name, to any portion of the taxes of
  964
  the United Kingdom being applied for the endowment of Professors who were necessarily connected with the Established Church to which these Dissenters did not belong, and from which they derived no benefit. But he had another argument, and one which, he had no doubt, would have even more weight with the House of Commons. If they passed this Bill without the proviso, they would have ecclesiastical controversy and struggle over the whole length and breadth of Scotland. They would have the Established Church coming to Members of Parliament, and begging them to carry the vote for these theological purposes; and, on the other hand, they would have a large non-conforming majority striving to secure the rejection of these votes. If they did not make a stand now, they would have a new Maynooth question—a second edition of the Regium Donum controversy—a controversy of bitterness and angry feeling both in Scotland and in that House. He cared not whether Members were Dissenters or Churchmen. He asked them whether this is the consummation they desired? He asked them whether they did not desire to see Ecclesiastical debates taken out of that House? If that were so, he begged them not to add another subject of Ecclesiastical controversy; and he begged the Scotch Members, a great part of whom opposed the grant to Maynooth, to preserve their consistency in this matter. He might appeal to men of all religious opinions not to take a course which would inevitably be but the beginning of strife. When he moved upon this subject in the Committee upon the Bill, the Lord Advocate took two objections to the course he proposed; and, first, that he proposed to fetter the free action of Parliament. Now, he (Mr. Baxter) proposed nothing of the kind. He proposed merely to fetter the Commissioners, the great body of whom are not members of the Church to which the majority of the people of Scotland belong. The second objection taken by the Lord Advocate was, that he should consistently have struck out all religious endowments already existing in the Established Church in connection with these chairs. That, however, was not then the question. They were not at that moment called upon to consider whether there should be an Established Church in any part of the United Kingdom. They were only called upon to discuss and decide whether the Church of Scotland should be further endowed

  965
  by a vote which would be disputed every year in that House by Gentlemen who object to these votes, which would set one denomination in Scotland against another, and would be the means of reviving disputes which all wise and good men desired to see buried in oblivion. He had heard, to his great amazement, since he entered the House that night, that it was to be objected to his proviso; that it was very different from the proviso that he nearly carried on a previous occasion. He understood that some hon. Members had said that they were prepared to vote against endowing Professors in Theology, but not against endowing all Professors who were required to take religious tests which could include the Professors of Biblical Criticism and other matters which were not theology. But in the 16 & 17 Vict., he found the following definition of Chairs of Theology:—
  "Which, for the purpose of this Act, shall be taken to mean Chairs of Divinity, Church History, Biblical Criticism, and Hebrew."
  So that his Motion is precisely the same in every respect as that for which these hon. Gentlemen voted on a previous day, and which, he understood, some of them would oppose this day. He submitted that they ought at once and for ever to get rid of these questions. He cared not whether the Commissioners were or were not likely to endow such professors. He asked the House now to stop in a course which could not, he was persuaded, be beneficial even to the Church of Scotland.
  Amendment proposed,—
  In page 12, line 28, after the word "conferred" to insert the words, "Provided also, that it shall not be lawful for the Commissioners to apply any portion of such moneys for the salaries of Principals or Professors required to subscribe a religious test, and not included in the provisions of the sixteenth and seventeenth Victoria, chapter eighty-nine."
  MR. ELLICEsaid, that it appeared to him that the proposition of his hon. Friend was neither more nor less than an abstract declaration of voluntaryism. That might be very well were this a question of the voluntary principle; but there was nothing in the Bill that affected that privilege either directly or indirectly. He did not think that on looking through the Bill (with the exception, he was afraid, of the alteration just made in the constitution of the Commission) they could find any part of its provisions which could by any ingenuity be said to be hostile or un-
  966
  fair to any religious denomination. On the contrary, it appeared to him to have been the laudable intention of the Lord Advocate, and in that he had been successful, to make the Bill, as far as he possibly could, a fair and equitable law as regarded all sects and denominations of religious denominations. What was the case before the House? They had a Bill which altered materially the present government of the Universities; and it appointed Commissioners to carry out such reforms as these Commissioners might upon inquiry find necessary. It also gave them power to administer the funds which might be provided by Parliament, amongst other things, for increasing the salaries at present attached to the Professorships and other officials in the Universities. If the Commissioners under the Bill had power to give money over which they had control to the Professors, amongst whom were the theological Professors, then he could understand what the Amendment was practically in point, but such was not the case. The Commissioners had no other power whatever than to recommend what they might think proper to Parliament; and they did not in that House know what their recommendation might be until it was on the table, and whether they might recommend the theological Professors for additional remuneration or not. Even supposing the Amendment of his hon. Friend carried, it did not at all control the Commissioners, because the Commissioners might still make that recommendation on behalf of the theological Professors. The real fact was, that the power still remained in Parliament. The theological Professors were not even named in the Bill. No funds were provided for raising the salaries by this Bill; and even if the Commissioners were to recommend the theological Professors as requiring additional remuneration under this clause, their Report would have to lie on the table of the House, and might either be assented to or dissented from by them. The money that would be required for meeting the recommendations of the Commissioners, and for adding to the salaries of the Professors, must hereafter be voted by Parliament, and then would arise the time when the Motion of his hon. Friend would be very apposite. But it is not so at the present moment, for it had nothing to do with anything contained in the Bill. When he saw that no practical object is to be gained by this Motion he must look for

  967
  some other. He did not know whether the object of his hon. Friend was to commit the House or get the principle of maintaining the theological chairs in the Universities in connection with the Establishment. That proposition he did most thoroughly object to. He believed that theological Professors must be maintained in the Universities; and that being the case, and not seeing that there is anything in the Bill that warranted or had any reference to the matter alluded to in the proposition of his hon. Friend, he should feel it his duty to oppose it. He did not see any advantage in introducing into the Bill an element which had no proper connection with it, and which could only be regarded as a slur upon the able body of men who now filled the theological chairs. At the same time, he must admit the grave difficulty that there was in the way of calling upon Parliament to vote money for the purpose of theological chairs when tests were still required. He saw every year a growing indisposition to vote grants very analogous to these, as in the case of Ireland. He himself was strongly opposed to such grants, and he did not know very well that he could defend the application of one principle to Ireland and another to Scotland. Therefore he thought that if a Vote was to be proposed in that House for the additional endowment of the theological chairs it would meet with great opposition, and be open to very serious objection. But seeing that, and admitting the whole force of the abstract proposition involved in his hon. Friend's Amendment, he still could not help being very anxious that the position of the divinity Professors in Scotland should be improved. He believed it was generally admitted that theological teaching was inseparable from the University system of Scotland, and he believed that it is equally admitted that if there were to be theological Professors at the Universities—theological Professors useful to all denominations, for it is not only the students belonging to the Established Church but to all denominations in Scotland that they taught—it was necessary, for the safety of the students, that the persons who bad charge of the theological teaching should be subjected to some test for the security of the students over whom they presided. He thought, then, if that was admitted, as he believed it was generally, that it was essential that the chairs, if they were maintained at all, should be maintained in their efficiency,
  968
  so that the respect due to their position might be kept up. Now, seeing the difficulty that there was in the way of a grant of public money in aid of these Professorships, he did hope that the Commissioners, in concert with the Government, would be able to derive some means out of existing funds applicable to such purposes, to raise the condition of their Professors without having recourse to tax the public funds. He could only say that he thought this would meet the exigency of the case. He was quite sure that there was no body of men who, from the zeal and assiduity they had employed, were more worthy of the respect of all denominations in Scotland, than were the theological Professors. He was sure that there were no body of people who more deserved public sympathy and support in the position they had to fill.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 118: Majority 16.
  Bill to be read 3o To-morrow, and to be printed.

SALE AND TRANSFER OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 87 (Duty payable on Proceedings. Rate of Duty to be 10 s. per cent where the value shall be less than ten thousand pounds; and £1 per cent where the value amounts to ten thousand and upwards).
MR. VANCE MR. VANCE moved that after the word "respectively," in line 15, the rest of the clause should be omitted. He thought the rate of duty imposed should be uniform, because it would be extremely unjust to charge large estates with a higher amount of duty than smaller ones, and such a regulation would only induce owners of large estates to divide them into small portions when they were submitted for sale. He moved the Amendment with the view of proposing that the duty should be fixed at an uniform rate of 10 s. per cent., which would be amply sufficient to render the Court self-supporting.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONregretted that he could not consent to the Amendment. It was the wish of the Government that the Court should be self-supporting, but the effect of the Amendment would be to throw a portion of the expense of maintaining the Court upon the public Exchequer.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that

969
originally they had intended to propose a graduated per centage, to be fixed by the Court, but not exceeding 1 per cent. should be deducted from the purchase money. As he could not fall back upon the Resolution which he had formerly given notice of on this point, he was inclined to agree to the Amendment. The trouble and expense of investigating the titles to small estates were often quite as great as in the case of large estates. He did not think that the Court ought to be self-supporting, and he thought that a uniform rate of 10 s. would be preferable to the duties provided for in the clause.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that in 1856 the purchases under £5,000 were 1,098; over £5,000 and under £10,000, 265; over £10,000 only 23. In 1857, under £5,000, 1171; over 5,000 and under 10,000, 238; over £10,000, 16. In 1858, under £5,000, 1402; over £5,000 and under £10,000, 182; over £10,000, 26. It was estimated that the amount which would be received by sales of estates under £5,000 during the next year would be £2,000,000, and that to be received for sales of estates over £5,000, £1,000,000. This would, by the per centage proposed by the Bill, give £10,000 and £5,000—making £15,000. They expected to squeeze £5,000 more out of the Bank, making in all £20,000; while the expenses of the Court were about £18,500. The revenue anticipated would therefore about cover the expenses. It was stated by the solicitors and others who had had great experience in the Incumbered Estates Court, that the Parliamentary title given by that tribunal raised the value of estates to the amount of four years' purchase. Now, the greater the sale the greater the advantage bestowed by the Court in the particular case, and, therefore it was but fair that a larger amount of per centage should be paid in the case of large sales. Should it hereafter be found that the amount received by the proposed per centage exceeded the expenses of the Court that per centage should be reduced, and he should presently move a proviso enabling the Lords of the Treasury to make the necessary variations.
MR. GROGANsupported the Amendment. He thought that the per centage should be uniform. The plan of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside) would lead to proprietors dividing their estates into small lots when bringing them to a sale. As to the future reduction of per centage promised by his right hon. and
970
learned friend in case of a surplus, at best that reduction would not take place till after a great number of persons had paid the high rate proposed by the clause.
MR. MONSELLdemurred to the calculations of the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Whiteside) as to the probable amount of property that would pass through the Court. Seeing that the incumbered estates and estates which were not to be sold at all would pass through it, he thought the sum would be much greater than was stated by the Government.
MR. ESMONDEbelieved that a uniform per centage of 15 s. would be better than two scales of 10 s. and £1 respectively. The fairest plan was to calculate the duty to be paid in reference to the value of the estates, and it was clear that the largest estates would derive the greatest advantage from the Court.
MR. DOBBSexpressed his intention of supporting the Amendment.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSdid not see why this Court should not be maintained out of the Consolidated Fund, the same as any other legal tribunal throughout the country. He regretted the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman, if present, would not drive the Irish Members to a division on this question,
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that as the sale of estates was a matter by which private individuals benefited, he thought that those who resorted to the Court should pay the expenses of it. He therefore thought the proposition of the Attorney General for Ireland perfectly just.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDexpressed a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accede to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dublin. He believed that 10 s. per cent would be sufficient to meet all the expenses of the Court and leave a considerable surplus, so that the right hon. Gentleman need not apprehend any loss upon the public revenue.
MR. CLAYsaid, that when there was uncertainty as to the amount of business which a Court might have to transact, there might be good reason for throwing the expense of it on the Consolidated Fund; but when the business was known, as in the Incumbered Estates Court, he did not think it unreasonable to ask the suitors to pay one-half per cent on the sales effected.
MR. GRIFFITHsaid, that the expenses of the Court must be very uncertain, inas-

971
much as the Bill introduced a new element, which was that estates not intended for sale might pass through the Court. Now, the experience they had had of the late Incumbered Estates Court did not give them the means of calculating what would be the probable expense of the new Court; but his own belief was that the business would be trebled or quadrupled, because people would go into the Court solely for the purpose of obtaining a Parliamentary title. He considered that the proposition contained in the Bill was opposed alike to the maxims of justice and political economy, and was a step in the wrong direction.
MR. S. B. MILLERsaid, that it would be a greater burthen on the owners of small estates if they paid the same amount of per centage as the owners of large estates. That consideration should guide his vote.
MR. WILSONsaid, this proposition of the Government was contrary to all the Legislative practice of late years, to all commercial practice, to all the principles of economical science, and to what common sense would point out. It was enough that a small property was to pay a small sum, which it would do if the assessment were the same; but it was unreasonable that the assessment should in itself be smaller than that upon large properties.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the principle on which his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside) proceeded was a very simple one, namely that the rate should be 1 per cent for estates of the value of £10,000, and 10 s. per cent for estates under that amount. He thought that a fair principle to adopt, and one that was not opposed to the principles of political economy. This was not the case of a duty for the purpose of raising a revenue, but for the purpose of making a Court self-supporting.
MR. SPAIGHTalso held that if the Court were to be made self-supporting the charge for the sale of small properties ought to be small. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would consent to keep the Courts for the people of Ireland he would then certainly agree to the proposition of having one uniform charge.
MR. VANCEwas sorry that he should appear in so prominent a position as the objector to any portion of this Bill, which would hand down the name of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General with honour to posterity. His object was to have a uniform rate, and he wished
972
his right hon. Friend would propose a 15 s. rate. If not he must go to a division.
Question put, "That the words 'when such value shall be less than £10,000' stand part of the clause."
Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 104:—Majority 13.
MR. WHITESIDE MR. WHITESIDE moved to insert the following proviso:—
"Provided that it may be lawful for the Lords of the Treasury to lower or raise such rate of duty from time to time within the limit of the rate hereby provided as a maximum, according as such rate or substituted rate shall to them seem sufficient to provide a fund for the support of such Court."
Proviso agreed to.
COLONEL GREVILLE COLONEL GREVILLE moved in Clause 87, at the end, to insert:—
"Provided always, that no such duty shall be payable in respect of any property which shall be sold in pursuance of an order of the Commisioners of the Incumbered Estates Court made before the passing of this Act."
And asked the Attorney General for Ireland whether he was aware that, in consequence of this Bill, the sale of some 200 estates in the Incumbered Estates Court had been delayed, and which, when sold in a few months, would be liable to the duty under this new Bill, in consequence of the delay that had arisen. He (Colonel Greville) thought these particular estates should be excluded from the Act.
MR. WHITESIDE, in consideration of the assistance of the hon. and gallant Member to enable him to pass the Act as speedily as possible, would assent to the proviso.
Proviso added. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 88 (Power to Commissioners of the Treasury to invest unproductive cash. 4 & 5 Will. IV., c. 78).
MR. ENNIS MR. ENNIS moved art Amendment to insert the words "public funds" for "public securities," and to add "or in the stock of the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland respectively."
MR. G. A. HAMILTONhad no objection to the first part of the Amendment; but with regard to the second, though there could be no doubt of the security of the Bank, it was right that the investments should be confined to the public funds.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDwanted to know how any deficiency that might arise in the price of the funds, between the time of the investment and the time of the withdrawal of the money was to be made good?
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that as the State took upon itself the expenses of the Court, it would also take the interest that might arise from the balances, and this would go in reduction of the expenses.
MR. WILSONsaid, that as the clause stood, the suitor would be at the loss of a fall in the funds, in case the money was required under the provisions of the Act.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALexplained, that there were two funds—under the titles of "the Suitors' Fund" and "the Suitors' Fee Fund," and the hon. Gentleman had confounded the two. If a suitor paid in cash, he expected to get cash out.
MR. BUTTmaintained that the suitors were not only entitled to their principal, but the interest upon it.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that where suitors came forward and desired that their funds should be invested, this would be done; but the clause was meant to provide for those cases where the suitors did not do so, and the proposal was that the interest of those funds should go towards the expenses of the Court. A similar provision had been made as to the Court of Chancery in Ireland.
MR. SERJEANT DEASYobjected to the Lords of the Treasury having power to invest the "loose cash." The House ought to be distinctly informed, if there was any loss, on whom it was to fall.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that the reason why in this case the investment was to be made by the Treasury, and not by the Court, was because it was the Treasury that was answerable for the expense of the Court, and the Treasury would take care to have the funds so invested as to guard against loss.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, on the Report he would alter the clause so as to meet the objection of the hon. Member for Cork County.
MR. BUTTsaid, that the House ought to have an answer to a plain question—who was to bear the loss if there was one?
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 89 and 90 agreed to.
MR. SERJEANT DEASY MR. SERJEANT DEASY moved the following clause:—
"Upon Stephen Woulfe Flanagan, Esq., ceasing to hold his present office of Master, it shall and may be lawful for Her Majesty, her heirs, and successors, by any letters patent under the Great Seal of Ireland, to give and grant to him an annuity or yearly sum not exceeding £1,000, to be paid out of such monies as may be provided by Parliament for that purpose, during his life: Provided always, that in case the said Stephen
974
Woulfe Flanagan shall hereafter be appointed to any office under Her Majesty, the amount of the salary he shall receive in respect of his said office shall be deducted from the amount of retiring pension which he is entitled to receive under this Act, or his retiring pension shall be deducted from the amount of his salary, as the case may be; and provided also, that in computing the time on the expiration of which the said Stephen Woulfe Flanagan, Esq., shall be at liberty to retire from any office to which he may hereafter be appointed, or in computing the amount of any retiring pension to which he may become entitled on such retirement, the period during which he shall have held the office of Master shall be counted as if he had served such period in such office to which he may be so hereafter appointed."
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, it was intended on the Report to propose a clause to meet such cases as those alluded to in the clause now moved.
Clause negatived.
MR. BUTTurged the necessity of extending the principle of this Bill to estates less than fee simple, and he should propose a clause to that effect on the Report.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday, and to be printed.

JUDGMENTS (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. WHITESIDE MR. WHITESIDE moved that this Bill be read a second time; but the Motion being objected to by some of the Irish Members,
Motion made and Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The House divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 34: Majority 55.
Bill read 2o, and committed for Wednesday next.

CASE OF WILLIAM HENRY BARBER.
MR. BRADY MR. BRADY moved, "That Viscount Goderich be discharged from further attendance on the Select Committee on the petition of William Henry Barber; that Mr. Caird be added to the Committee." The hon. Member said, the necessity for this Motion arose from domestic affliction.
MR. HARDYobjected to the Motion. The inquiry being of a quasi-judicial character, he thought it very undesirable to make this alteration. He had no objection to the hon. Member (Mr. Caird).
MR. LINDSAYdid not see why, when a vacancy had arisen, the number fixed by the House—namely, fourteen—should not be made up.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobjected to a debate on the subject at that late hour (a quarter past one). He moved the adjournment of the debate.
MR. WILSONsaid, the filling up of the number would certainly not be unprecedented. He was himself opposed to the appointment of the Committee, thinking the inquiry one of the worst that had ever been instituted. As, however, the inquiry had been granted, he saw no objection on principle to the Motion before the House.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the Committee had been carefully struck, and it was undesirable to disturb the proportions.
Motion made and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."
The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 41: Majority 10.
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
House adjoured at half-past One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Treasure Trove; Incumbered Estates (West Indies) Amendment; Herring Fisheries (Scotland); Marriage Law Amendment.
2a Joint Stock Companies Acts Amendment; Marriages (Moscow, Tahiti, and Ningpo).
3a County Management.

THE POST OFFICE.—FALSE CHARACTERS TO SERVANTS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he wished to ask a question of the noble Lord the Postmaster General in reference to a subject of some importance. Several instances had lately occurred of domestic servants obtaining situations by means of forged characters, and he feared facilities to their doing so had been afforded by the carelessness of country postmasters. In a recent case a party applying for a situation produced a character signed by a Mr. Freeman, at Aylesford. The gentleman to whom this was shown wrote to the address given, and in return received a letter confirming every statement of the applicant. The character and letter afterwards proved to be forgeries, and the case was now under prosecution. When the postmaster at Aylesford was applied to on the subject, he said the letter addressed to Mr. Freeman had come to his hands, and he delivered it to a lad who asked for it, although he had never seen him before. It appeared the address was within the delivery of his office, and he ought to have sent out the letter in the ordinary way. He wished to know what were the instructions issued to country postmasters in reference to the delivery of letters within their division, and whether there would be any objection to lay these instructions on the table?
  LORD COLCHESTERstated, that in all cases where there was a delivery by letter-carriers the postmaster was not allowed to deliver any letters to persons applying at the office; but in the few districts where a delivery by letter-carriers had not yet been established, the postmaster was authorized to deliver letters from the window to the parties applying for them. The instructions on the subject were contained in the printed book of regulations.

MEDALS FOR THE ARMY IN INDIA. SIR COLIN CAMPBELL.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEbegged leave to ask some questions of the noble Earl at the head of the Government with respect to the honours which were to be conferred on the gallant army now serving in India. He would not meddle with a subject of that kind, which affected the rights of the Crown, if it had not already been announced in both Houses of Parliament that such honours were to be bestowed. It had been stated some four or five months ago that it was the intention of the Crown to confer a medal on those soldiers who had served in the recent campaigns in India, and to give clasps to the men who had been engaged in the siege of Delhi and in the relief of the garrison of Lucknow, which had taken place last autumn. He had been informed that the die for those medals had already been approved of by the Crown. He wished to know whether that was so, and whether it was likely that the medals would soon be conferred. It should be remembered that every day some of those gallant men were losing their lives, and that the survivors were naturally anxious to receive the distinction at the earliest possible moment. He wished, further, to take that opportunity of asking whether it was intended that clasps should be granted for the capture of Lucknow in the spring of the present year?
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was quite prepared to admit that no unnecessary delay ought to take place in bestowing those honours. With respect to the time at which the medals would be issued, he had to state that the die had already been seen and approved of by Her Majesty; that the lists of the men who were entitled to the distinction had already been ordered to be sent from India, and he was informed that by the time those lists were received the medals and clasps would be ready for distribution. In reply to the second question of the noble Duke, he had to say, that clasps would be given not only for the defence of Lucknow, but for each of the reliefs of the garrison last summer and autumn, and for the capture of that city in the spring of the present year.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had no distrust in the noble Earl at the head of the Government, but their Lordships would, no doubt, be glad to know when the national
  912
  expectation would be fulfilled, by some signal mark of the favour of the Crown being conferred upon Sir Colin Campbell.
  THE EARL OF DERBYmust remind their Lordships that two months ago he had announced that Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to command that Sir Colin Campbell should be called to a seat in their Lordships' House. The only reason why there had been no notification in the Gazette of that honour was, that before the patent was issued it was necessary to communicate with Sir Colin Campbell, in order that he might signify by what title he desired to be called to the Peerage. Some communication with Sir Colin Campbell was all the more necessary, as he need not remind his noble and learned Friend that there was already one Lord Campbell in the House.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that the commander of the forces in India might be called Lord Campbell of Lucknow or Bengal.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEmade some observations which were inaudible.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that perhaps the noble Viscount would do him the honour to recollect that when the Vote of Thanks was before their Lordships early in the Session he had specially directed attention to the gallant conduct of Sir John Inglis. There was no more remarkable event in modern history than the gallant defence of Lucknow by Sir John Inglis. He should not, on the present occasion, enter upon the question as to what honours should be conferred by the Crown. Nothing could be more prejudicial to the public interest than for that or the other House to compare the merits of individuals in the service of the Crown with respect to those honours which the Crown alone had the right to confer. He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would not encourage the practice which had been growing up of interfering with the prerogative of the Crown in these matters, and would not suppose that the Crown was not fit to judge of the worth of the services of individuals and of the proper rewards for them.

SALE OF POISONS, &c., BILL.

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  On Order for considering the Amendments,
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWwished to know if the Act would be extended to Ireland.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the Bill had been introduced on the recommendation of the Select Committee, and he could not at the moment say that it would be extended to Ireland.
  LORD TALBOT DE MALAHIDEsaid, he had given notice of certain Amendments with regard to the selection of Examiners under the Bill, but would postpone them until the third reading in the hope that the noble Earl would give them his consideration. He thought they were much indebted to the noble Earl for having brought forward the measure.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not think that the noble Earl could be expected to give any opinion on these Amendments at present; but he trusted that the noble Earl would be prepared on the third reading to agree to them.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEthought, that the best safeguard against the improper sale of poisons would be to place the sale of them in the hands of respectable and trustworthy persons. There were poisonous substances which the Bill did not specify, and he was afraid that it would be extremely difficult to legislate with effect on the matter.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, his present impression was that it would be better to allow the Bill to remain as it at present stood. He would give the Amendments of the noble Lord opposite his consideration, and would inform the noble Lord of the result on the third reading.
  Amendments reported (according to Order); further Amendments made, and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

TENANT RIGHT—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwished to ask, whether Her Majesty's Government had announced or formed an intention to introduce into Parliament a Bill to render compulsory by law the custom which prevails in parts of Ireland commonly called tenant right. He put this question to the noble Earl in consesequence of a statement which he had seen in an Irish newspaper to the effect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated in reply to a deputation which waited upon him on this subject, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill in the next Session of Parliament. He did not want to put any construction on the words used by a Member of the Government, but after what had
914
already taken place, and after the language used by the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in 1853, he was not afraid that any measure embodying the principle of what was called tenant right, or the principle of conveying one man's property to another, would be introduced by Her Majesty's Government. He was not opposed to any measure for remedying practical grivances. The agricultural population of Ireland was now in a more sound, prosperous, and contented state than any of their Lordships had ever known them to be, and it was to be regretted if any language should be held which would have the effect of disturbing men's minds, and encouraging hopes which were not likely to be realized.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, of what had passed at the deputation to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which the noble Marquess had alluded, he knew nothing; but if the noble Marquess had referred, not to a report in an Irish newspaper of the proceedings at that deputation, but to the Report of what had been said and done on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the House of Commons on the second reading of the Tenants' Compensation (Ireland) Bill, he would have ascertained what were the opinions of the Government on the subject. The noble Marquess was probably aware that that Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) for the purpose of carrying out tenant-right, and had been rejected on the principle on the second reading by a large majority. Most undoubtedly his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had never pledged himself or the Government to introduce any measure of the kind referred to by the noble Marquess—namely, "to render compulsory by law the custom called tenant-right which prevails in certain parts of Ireland." All that his right hon. Friend had said, and all that he had pledged the Government to do, was, that the Government would, during the recess, take into consideration the existing state of the law relating to landlord and tenant, and that, if they found it practicable, they would next Session introduce a measure such as they might deem requisite for correcting the acknowledged anomalies and inconveniences in that law; and he (the Earl of Derby), having every reason to believe that the feeling which existed in 1852 on both sides of this ques-

915
tion had very much diminished, and that there was now much more good sense and moderation exhibited on all hands with respect to it, was not without hope that it would be perfectly possible to introduce a measure which might have the effect of removing the existing defects and blemishes in the law, and of giving satisfaction to all parties concerned; and as the noble Marquess had already tried his hand upon the subject, if he had any advice or recommendation to offer in reference to it, it should receive the attentive consideration of the Government.

INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT BILL.

  ORDER FOR SECOND READING DISCHARGED.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that he proposed to postpone the Second Reading of this Bill, which stood on the Order for this day. The object of the Bill being to apply the Act of the 52nd Geo. III. touching bankrupt Members to all persons, whether traders or non-traders, and, therefore, to the Members of both Houses of Parliament, necessarily the Bill would apply more to the Members of the other House than to this; but he denied altogether that their Lordships were precluded on that account from dealing with the question, as he held it to be the undoubted right of their Lordships' House to initiate measures not withstanding that they might affect the other House alone. As an instance of what had been done by their Lordships in former times respecting Bills which directly affected the House of Commons he would mention that the two most important clauses in the Bribery Act—that which raised the penalty from £50 to £500, and that which made the last Resolution of the Election Committee conclusive and without appeal—were both inserted in their Lordships' House. He would have been glad to proceed with his Bill, especially as there was another measure in the other House of Parliament, which went much further than his; inasmuch as it proposed to abrogate all privilege of Parliament in respect to debt. But beside this measure a noble Friend and connection of his (Lord John Russell) had introduced into the other House a Bankruptcy Amendment Bill, which consisted of about 500 clauses, and therefore could not be passed this Session; but that measure would make an important change in the law of Bankruptcy; and he thought therefore it would be well to see how those alterations affected the present question,
  916
  and to wait until that Bill—or, indeed, both Bills—should be submitted to their Lordships' House. He saw no prospect of either measure being passed in this Session, and he therefore proposed to with draw his Bill.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read and discharged.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
The Bill was read a second time.

JEWS BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee.
THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of opposing your going into Committee upon this Bill. After the division of last Thursday, I am bound to say that the opinion of the House appears to be so decidedly pronounced against the further exclusion of Jews from Parliament, that I should not be justified in obstructing the further progress of the Bill. My object in now addressing your Lordships is to endeavour to obtain from the noble Earl at the head of the Government answers to two inquiries that were embodied in my address to your Lordships on Thursday last, upon which I thought and still think the House ought to have received information in the course of that debate. The noble Earl, however, did not take part in the debate, having adopted the somewhat unusual course of making a previous address to your Lordships upon the two Jew Bills at the time awaiting a second reading, and of practically deciding the new issue about to be proposed respecting the admission of Jews to Parliament before the question was submitted. I am quite sure the noble Earl had no other object in so departing from the usual forms of the House, but that of expediting public business; but it should not have prevented his discussing the Bill when it was brought regularly before the House. Had he done so, I should probably not now have had occasion to recall attention to it. Your Lordships will recollect that the noble Earl recommended the Bill to your favour as a measure calculated to terminate in a satisfactory manner a

917
difference of long standing between the two Houses of Parliament, an object which he appeared to consider of paramount importance. Admitting, my Lords, that it is very desirable that a good understanding should exist between Lords and Commons, and that therefore this House should not oppose itself without good reason to any decidedly expressed wish of the other House, I cannot think that you are justified in giving way in the present case. There is a first as well as a third estate of the Legislature, and I cannot help apprehending that your Lordships in seeking to terminate your controversy with the Commons, by conforming to their wishes regarding the admission of the Jews, may be unwittingly committing the grave error of uniting the two Houses of Parliament, the second and third estates of the Legislature, in a course opposed to the conscientious convictions of the highest estate. We know that practically the Crown does not, and could not, without serious inconvenience, act independently of the two Houses of Parliament by putting a veto upon what they jointly recommend; but this acquiescence in the views of the Lords and Commons of the realm must have a limit where there may exist a conscientious objection upon religious grounds to any Bill proposed for the Royal consent. It is well known that George III. entertained such objections to the admission of Roman Catholics to sit in Parliament, and that he would have exercised his prerogative in withholding his consent from any measure presented to him for that purpose, had the occasion for it arisen; it is also known that during the first years of his reign, George IV. entertained similar objections, and this House, I believe, on more than one occasion, stood between the desire of the House of Commons and the scruples of the King, with regard to the removal of the disabilities of his Roman Catholic subjects; and, by rejecting the Bills sent up from the other House, saved the King from being obliged either to have recourse to an independent exercise of the Royal prerogative, or to violate his conscience. But when the consideration of the Catholic claims was recommended in a gracious speech from the Throne the case was changed, the consideration of the question was then relieved of one great difficulty, and the measure called "Catholic Emancipation" soon after received your Lordships' concurrence. The course pursued in that great and important change
918
in the constitution of the legislature was highly commendable, and ought to be followed in every similar case, not only to save the Crown from any difference with the two Houses of Parliament, but as a means of insuring a careful consideration by the responsible Minister of the Crown of what Parliament may be called upon to do, and of affording to the public the best notice of the change proposed to be made; but it is especially desirable in a case, such as the present, where it is proposed to confer a great boon upon a particular class of the subjects of the Crown, that the proposition should originate in a gracious Message from the Throne, instead of allowing an act of grace, to which the Crown gives a willing consent, to have the appearance of either having been extorted by the will of the two Houses of Parliament, or to have the appearance of being of too little consequence to receive at the hands of the Sovereign any other notice than might be bestowed upon the passing of a railway Bill. I suggested, therefore, in the course of my address to the House last Thursday, that your Lordships should consider and satisfy yourselves regarding the position of the Queen as Temporal Head of the Church, as bearing the title of Defender of the Faith, and as the Christian Sovereign of a Christian people, whether, in the event of your passing this Bill, she might not object to take counsel in the fulfilment of the high duties of her exalted station with those who deny the Christian faith, whether she might not object, as conscientiously as any of your Lordships have objected, to the admission of Jews to sit and vote in Parliament, and whether, if she does so object, she might not retain and act upon her convictions with greater consistency than you have done. It would be satisfactory, I think, to the House, as no indication of the Royal mind upon the subject has been conveyed to Parliament in the ordinary manner, to be informed whether the noble Earl, in recommending your Lordships to accept as a solution of the Jew question, the Bill now under consideration, has done so with the approval of the Sovereign, and if not, whether he is nevertheless prepared to advise Her Majesty to give her Royal assent to its enactment. The other point upon which I had hoped to have received an answer in the discussion last Thursday, and which I think most material to the consideration of a Bill recommended, as this was, as a final settlement of the Oaths

919
question, is whether the noble Earl in so recommending it had duly considered in what condition it would place the Roman Catholic Members of Parliament by the side of those of the Jewish profession, that while by the terms of the oath the law at present imposes upon him the Roman Catholic is precluded from exercising any privilege to which he is or may become entitled, to weaken or disturb the Protestant religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom—the Jew is allowed the fullest freedom of legislative action to operate, if he so chooses, not only against the Protestant Church, but for the overthrow of Christianity itself, the difference of the liberty accorded to those who are professedly Christians, and to those who are professedly not Christians, is very marked. Is the noble Earl prepared to maintain it? Is he fully prepared to resist the agitation already commenced for the repeal of the Roman Catholic Oath—an agitation which the passing of this Bill will immensely increase? The noble Earl can hardly have overlooked the points to which I have ventured again to direct your Lordships' attention. Having undertaken a leading part in opposing this Bill, I shall be excused, I am sure, by the noble Earl if, in the fulfilment of a public duty I press for the information that the House is entitled to receive at his hands, considering the responsibility he has accepted regarding this Bill, and the position he holds in the government of the country. Nothing can compensate for the sacrifice of principle involved in the measure; but it may, in some degree, reassure the public with regard to its consequences if the noble Earl can return satisfactory answers to the questions I have submitted.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHdrew attention to the circumstance, that under the Roman Catholic Relief Act any Roman Catholic who might rise to the highest judicial or ministerial position was not entitled to present to benefices; but that the proposed measure placed no restriction upon Jews, although it would be competent for a member of that persuasion to obtain a seat in the House of Commons and to become Prime Minister. The first Bill which was introduced upon this subject by the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) contained clauses by which Jews who were returned to Parliament bound themselves, as the Roman Catholics did, not to use any efforts or powers of which they might become possessed to the
920
prejudice of the religion of the country as by law established; but there was no such provision in the present measure. He thought that it would have given general satisfaction to the country if some securities had been taken to prevent the abuse of powers with which the non-Christian portion of the community were now for the first time to be intrusted. At all events they had no claim to be placed in a better position in this respect than our Catholic fellow subjects.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he was so satisfied of the unconstitutional nature of the present Bill, that—without questioning the decision of the House or raising any objection at this stage to the relief that had been granted—he could not refrain from once more calling their Lordships' attention to the mode of their proceeding. After all that had passed, he did not mean to object again to the admission of the Jews to Parliament, though he retained those objections as strong as ever; but he invited their Lordships to reconsider the mode in which it was proposed to be done. It was an evil precedent to give permission to either of the two Houses to Act by a Resolution of its own; though he owned it presented an easy method of "settling," as it had been called, the difficulty, and they were all too ready to consider what was easy for the moment without considering the danger of the precedent they were setting. But what evil there might be in precedent might be learned from an incident that had occurred in the other House with regard to this very Bill. Many years ago a Member of Parliament, who was absent on the Welsh circuit, was appointed a member of Committee without having taken the oaths. He (Lord Redesdale) did not believe that he had acted in Committee without taking the oaths, but there was no proof of the fact, and the consequence was, that Baron Rothschild was allowed to act on a Committee without having taken the oaths. Thus one concession followed another, and it was impossible to say what they might come to. The practical effect of this Bill would be that Jews would be admitted by it into the other House of Parliament. Well, why not do that directly by Bill? Now, there were solid objections that might be urged for confining the operation of such a measure to the other House of Parliament; the Members there were elected by the voice of a constituent body, and they were returned only for seven years at a time;

921
but he could see no reason why they should not do what they proposed to do by a direct legislative enactment, instead of by the unusual and unconstitutional method of sanctioning proceeding by a Resolution of a single House of Parliament. He did not oppose the object of the Bill, much as he disliked it, but he opposed the way in which that object was proposed to be accomplished.
VISCOUNT MELVILLEwas understood to oppose the Bill, on the ground that, if passed into a law, it would give admission to Jews, Turks, infidels, and heretics.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he could see no force in the objection of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. It was quite common for Resolutions, not of a House of Parliament, but of a Court of Justice, to have the force of law. Scarcely an Act was passed for improving the procedure of the courts of law, but power was given to the Judges to frame rules for carrying it out, and these rules virtually became a portion of the statute. He did not think the present was the best course that might have been adopted, and thought it would have been better to accept the proposition of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst); but still it was a course to which he saw no solid objection. He found that he had somewhat misstated the object of the Bill on another subject, which might be expected from the other House. At present it applied only to Members of the House of Commons, but he had no doubt that the first thing their Lordships would do, when it came before them, would be to make it include themselves.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I feel some little difficulty, my Lords, in replying to the different objections with regard to various portions of the Bill now before your Lordships, and which have been alluded to by noble Lords rising one after another; and that predicament, or rather difficulty, has been somewhat increased by the noble Lord, who entered on a discussion with regard to another Bill, on which my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) has made some little divergence from the ordinary mode of proceeding, on the principle, it might be supposed, of having a few more last words. I will do my best, however, to answer their different objections. I hope it may not be supposed that in abstaining from offering any observations in the course of the discussion that took place the other night that I had the slightest wish
922
to treat with disrespect or want of consideration the observations or arguments that fell from the noble Earl behind me, against the second reading of the Bill. My noble Friend (the Earl of Clancarty) asked me two different questions, or rather he has suggested two different objections to the course now proposed to be taken. In the first place, he states his opinion that in seeking to reconcile the opinions of the Houses of Lords and Commons we shall bring both Houses into collision with the Crown. Now, my Lords, on a question of that kind, involving as it does a political question, I am quite sure that the last thing my noble Friend desires, and that which, in the opinion of the noble Lord and of your Lordships, would be the least consistent with propriety of principle, would be to canvass in Parliament the personal opinions of the Sovereign of this realm; but all I have to say is, that I have not the slightest reason to suppose that, if the House of Lords or Commons should think fit to pass either or both these Bills, Her Majesty would have the slightest disposition to interpose Her prerogative for the purpose of preventing this Bill becoming law. I have no reason to suppose that Her Majesty entertains such an opinion: and certainly I have no ground for entertaining any apprehension that the course of proceeding now adopted would be likely to bring the two Houses into collision with the Crown. My noble Friend says if it had been the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to recommend an alteration in the laws with regard to the admission of Jews into Parliament, that the proper course would have been to send down a Message from the Crown, intimating that such was the view they took. But he appears to forget, that, even admitting there were any force in the argument in any case it entirely fails in this, because neither the one Bill nor the other—neither the Bill introduced into the other House nor the Bill introduced into this—were Bills introduced on the part of the Government at all. The first Bill was originally introduced in the House of Commons, and, so far from conferring the boon on Gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion, the course of action your Lordships took was to strike out those clauses which proposed to confer on the Jews by Act of Parliament the advantage which the Bill from the Commons proposed to confer on them. Then my noble Friend (the Earl of Lucan) proposed another course, which appeared to him susceptible

923
of reconciling the differences between the two Houses—namely, that of enabling the House of Commons, with regard to the admission of its own Members, to take its own separate course, and leaving to the House of Lords the power and the privilege of taking its own course, in conformity with its own predeclared and separate opinions, with regard to the admission of Jews. Another objection taken by the noble Earl, was, that the introduction of certain words into this Bill places the Roman Catholic Member on a footing of inferiority compared with the Jews, and he asked whether I was prepared to meet the agitation and excitement which would naturally arise in consequence of this, and whether I was prepared to maintain the provisions of the Act of 1829. My only answer to that is, that I do not conceive that by this Bill the Roman Catholic is placed in the slightest degree in a position of inferiority to the Jew. Now, a provision was introduced into the Act of 1829 for the purpose of meeting a very generally entertained objection on the part of Protestants. They were apprehensive that the Roman Catholics, being a rival body within the Christian Church, were naturally hostile to the establishment and temporalities of the Protestant Church of England and Ireland, and it was feared that they would avail themselves of their position in Parliament for the purpose of injuring the temporalities of the Establishment, and injuring the Establishment itself; and, consequently, with the entire and unhesitating assent of the Roman Catholic body words were admitted into the Bill which bound them in the strictest manner to make no use of any Parliamentary privilege or position for the purposes apprehended, and to that extent they were required to disclaim it—in the oath. I have no reason to suppose that any dissatisfaction has arisen out of that, although individual Members have objected to it. But I cannot by possibility conceive that any such analogous question can arise out of the admission of the Jews into Parliament. No such question has arisen. No such question of rivalry can arise between the Jews and the Protestant Church, or any desire on the part of the former to overthrow or interfere with the temporalities of the latter. The Jews, no doubt, believe the Christian religion to be an erroneous religion, but I never yet heard imputed to the Jewish persuasion a desire to interfere with the temporalities or status of the
924
Church as by law established in England. Therefore it was not thought necessary to take any security against a danger which no one ever apprehended. My noble Friend on the cross benches (the Duke of Marlborough) has referred to the limitation placed upon Roman Catholics with regard to offices in the Church and elsewhere. Now, with regard to the power exercised by persons of the Jewish persuasion, my noble Friend is aware that the Bill makes no alteration whatever; but I think it right to mention that since this question has been under discussion, I have been in communication with my noble and gallant Friend who introduced the Bill (the Earl of Lucan), and I pointed out to him, that whereas his Bill gave a limited power of admission into the House of Commons to members of the Jewish persuasion, and which had been struck out by your Lordships from the Bill as sent up from the House of Commons, it was absolutely necessary to insert in this Bill the same clause that was omitted from the former Bill—namely, that which excluded persons of the Jewish persuasion from holding those same offices from which Roman Catholics also are excluded. It was therefore found necessary to reintroduce a clause upon this point. A good deal of discussion has taken place with regard to the possible effect of the Bill as amended by your Lordships, and sent down by the House of Commons, rendering it necessary for persons of the Jewish persuasion to take the oath of abjuration in certain cases in which they are not now by law required to take it—or rather they were required to take an oath which is substituted for the oath—of abjuration and for the oaths of allegiance and supremacy—in cases where, by an alteration in the law, they are now enabled to take the oaths of allegiance and of supremacy, and not the oath of abjuration, being covered, within the period necessary that they should take it, by the annual Act of indemnity. I have also been in consultation with my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, who, though be entertains a different opinion, nevertheless thinks that there is sufficient doubt with regard to the question to justify the introduction of a clause which shall clearly show that your Lordships have no intention to impose additional restrictions on members of the Jewish persuasion, and such a clause will accordingly be introduced. Much has been said with reference to proceeding by Reso-

925
lution; and no doubt this Bill makes it competent for either House to do so; but it will confer on either House the right, not to pass a general Resolution for a general purpose, but if it should think fit to pass in a specified case a Resolution for that specific purpose. Beyond that the provision does not go, and it only enables the House, when they think fit, to do that by Resolution which they cannot do without an Act of Parliament, and which is strictly limited and defined by the terms of the Act of Parliament itself. My noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) said, do you not believe that this will not practically be introducing the Jew equally to the Houses of Lords and Commons, and that your Lordships will find it necessary to pass a Resolution dispensing that privilege in his favour? Now, I look upon it in rather an opposite light. I look upon it as placing an obstacle in the way of the prerogative of the Crown, and that it will be a moral restraint on the prerogative of the Crown to create a Jew Peer, if it be known by the law that a Jew, when so created a Peer, cannot take his seat in your Lordships' House. My noble Friend's proposition comes substantially to this—that by Act of Parliament a Jew can be admitted to the House of Commons, and excluded from the House of Lords. I do not see how such an Act of Parliament could be maintained; but I do not see that your Lordships abandon in this case the views you have entertained, and which, in your own judgment, lead you to the conclusion that it is not desirable or advantageous that the Jew should exercise the right of sitting and voting in Parliament, either in this or in the other House; but what you do virtually is this, you say to the House of Commons, "We retain our opinions, and we send you our reasons for retaining them, and why we object to the sitting of Jews in Parliament; but notwithstanding, in deference to your long and frequently expressed opinion, a difference of opinion fortified by increasing majorities during a period of ten years, and during five successive Parliaments, while we distinctly admit that the main question has never been distinctly put to the constituencies of the country, and while we cannot tell whether those constituencies do agree with the House of Commons or not. Nevertheless, if you think it fit that the law shall be altered and altered in this particular only, we will concur in an Act of Parliament to dispense with the operation in the law in this particular instance." My
926
noble Friend objects to the power given to the House of Commons of dispensing with the law by Resolution. But I will refer to the known effect of a Resolution of the House of Commons in effecting a suspension of the law. There is no law to prevent your Lordships voting for a Member to serve in Parliament. The law says that any person, being possessed of certain qualifications, shall have a right to vote for the election of a Member of Parliament; and what is there that prevents your Lordships from voting? I believe that no returning officer could refuse to receive your vote.
LORD CAMPBELL: A Peer has no right to vote, by the common law of England, for the election of Members of the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I certainly must say, that while I receive with great respect, it is also with great surprise, that opinion of the noble and learned Lord. I certainly was of opinion that there was no law to that effect, and that that which alone prevented a Peer's vote from being received before the House of Commons was a Resolution of the House of Commons itself.
LORD CAMPBELL: The Resolution only declares the common law.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I certainly should bow with deference to the experienced legal opinion of the noble and learned Lord, if I had not heard strong expressions of dissent from another noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst); but when such eminent legal doctors differ, who amongst us shall decide? But now, with regard to the difference between proceeding by Act of Parliament and by Resolution, there is this very broad and prominent difference and distinction. If you proceed by Act of Parliament you give to the Jew the absolute right of sitting in the House of Commons. If you proceed, as proposed by the present Bill, retaining your objections and the reasons why you think it unadvisable, but at the same time deferring, I will not say to the authority, but to the opinion of the House of Commons—if you permit them to pass a Resolution allowing the Jew to enter that House, and that House only, by the omission of certain words required by law, the Resolution is only good and valid so long as it remains unrescinded by the House of Commons, and the Resolution is only good and valid during the Parliament that passes the Resolution. Consequently, if upon an

927
appeal to the constituencies at large there should be a strong feeling against the admission of Members of the Jewish persuasion to serve in Parliament, that opinion so signified by such constituencies would have the effect of rescinding the Resolution if at the wish of the House of Commons; whereas nothing short of an Act of Parliament would have the effect of rescinding an Act for the Admission of Jews, either into this or the other House. I consider, therefore, that the mode of proceeding by Resolution, limited and defined as it is by the Act of Parliament which confers the power to pass Resolutions, has this advantage—that it leaves it optional to the House of Commons to pass or not to pass it; and moreover that it leaves the whole subject open for the consideration of the constituencies at a general election, and whether a future House of Commons should confirm the judgment of the present, or consider that the vote should be rescinded. After a general election, if the attention of the country and the constituencies is directed towards the specific point, which I have no doubt it would be, then the opinion of the House of Commons may really be taken to be the exponent of the opinions of the country on the subject. If that opinion should be favourable to the admission of the Jews, that Resolution would of course be confirmed, but if adverse would be rescinded. The result will be, that the House of Commons will not avail themselves of the liberty given them by the Act of Parliament, but the Act itself, the law of the land, excluding Jews from sitting in this or the other House, will remain unaltered; the only exceptional permission given to the House of Commons will fall to the ground, and the law will remain as it stands. For these reasons, and consistently, I think, with the view your Lordships have taken of the subject, and with the objections you still continue to entertain to the admissions of Jews into Parliament, combined at the same time with your Lordships' desise to meet the wishes of the House of Commons and to enable them to act with regard to their own judgment in reference to their own House, I think the course suggested by my noble and gallant Friend is one that, better than any other, meets the difficulty—I will not say altogether satisfactorily, and I do trust that your Lordships will assent to sending these Bills down together, as inseparably connected, to the other House, and in order that this much-vexed question
928
may be brought to a final and satisfactory termination.
LORD CAMPBELLrejoiced in the prospect of seeing this long-vexed and agitated question brought to a conclusion. In reference to what had been said on the subject of the authority of Resolutions passed by either House, he had to observe that the Resolutions of neither House of Parliament altered or affected the law of the land. The Resolutions of the House of Lords or of the House of Commons affecting to alter the law of the land would, in Westminster Hall, be regarded as so much waste paper. It was not by Resolution of the House of Commons that Peers were prevented from voting for representatives in the House of Commons, but it had been an ancient, immemorial law of England that Peers sat in their own right in their own House, and had no privilege whatsoever to vote for Members to sit in the other House of Parliament. Since the Reform Bill passed Peers had frequently sought to register their votes for the election of Members of the House of Commons; but the revising barristers had invariably and most properly refused to allow them. Such Resolutions would be regarded as nonentities, and, whatever the consequences, he should, in his capacity as judge, direct a jury to give their verdict totally apart from such Resolutions. He would submit to their Lordships whether it would not be better that their Lordships should pass the Bill of the noble and gallant Earl with the Amendments suggested by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), and allow the other Bill to fall into oblivion. Otherwise he did not see how Reasons were to be framed consistently with the dignity of the House for rejecting the Bill of the Commons while they agreed to the Bill of the noble and gallant Earl. The abjuration oath would still have to be administered in the other House; but it would only be for a very short time. He believed, after all that had been said, that the proper course would be simply to repeal the oath of abjuration. That oath was agreed to late in the reign of William III. It was not introduced at the time of the Revolution, and its object was to protect the reigning Monarch against the family of the new Pretender. There was no such family at present in existence, and all classes looked with loyalty and admiration to the dynasty now upon the throne.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, it did not clearly appear what the Amendments of

929
the noble Earl were to be; but he supposed they would be printed, and that there would be an opportunity of considering them at a future period. As far as he understood the Amendments, they would make the Bill resemble the measure which at the suggestion of his noble Friend the Earl of Derby he had himself laid upon the table. He believed that the clauses would be in substance precisely the same, and that there was no difference between the course he had proposed upon the suggestion of his noble Friend and that which the noble Earl now himself proposed to take. He could not conceive that his noble and gallant Friend could be the author of this Bill, because he would have gone straight to the mark, instead of approaching it in so circuitous and involved a manner; it was clear that the noble and gallant Earl had consulted some professional adviser—some gentleman accustomed to be paid according to the number of words. Their Lordships might have supposed that this gentleman before he drew the clause referring to the oath of abjuration would have looked to that oath. When he was taking certain words out of the oath, leaving a residue to be sworn to, the party who dictated the words to be taken ought to have been accurate. The clause appeared to be very precise, because the word "and" was struck out. It enacted that any person professing the Jewish religion might omit the words "and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian." After these words were struck out the rest might be sworn to. But these words to be struck out were not in the oath of abjuration. The professional person whom the noble and gallant Earl had consulted had not taken the trouble to read the oath of abjuration, but had taken the words of the oath from the Bill of the House of Commons, and that was the ground of the blunder he had committed. He had looked through the Bill with considerable care, and he was convinced that the gentleman who drew the Bill of the noble and gallant Earl was paid for the words in every instrument he drew. He advised the noble and gallant Earl to amend the clause by striking out the unnecessary rubbish, and by making the recital of the words of the oath of abjuration correspond with the oath itself. He had thought it his duty to point out these objections to his noble and gallant Friend's Bill; and he was sure his noble and gallant Friend, so far from being of-
930
fended, would take in good part what he had said, as he could not have been the author of a Bill so illegally and so improperly framed.
THE EARL OF LUCANthought it would have been more regular if his noble and learned Friend had allowed the Bill to go into Committee, and then proposed the alterations which he had pointed out. He would ask the House to go into Committee merely pro forma, in order that the Amendments to be introduced might be printed, and the Bill re-committed on a future day.
Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported, without amendment; Amendments made; and Bill recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
LORD, LYNDHURSTstated that he would postpone his Bill sine die.
House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'Clock till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'Clock.