Sitting of 16 July 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o.Incumbered Estates (West Indies) Act Amendment; Marriages (Moscow, Tahiti, and Ningpo).
2o Jews; Law of False Pretences Amendment.
3o Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Continuance; Charitable Trusts Acts Continuance; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements; Copyhold and Inclosure Commissions, &c.; Indemnity; Army Service; Friendly Societies Act Amendment; Reformatory Schools (Ireland).

CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT CONTINUANCE BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee,
Clause 1,
Amendment proposed,
"To leave out the words 'to pay the actual travelling expenses,' in order to substitute the words 'to provide conveyance for any voter for the purpose of an election; but it shall not be lawful to pay any money or give any valuable consideration to a voter for or in respect of his travelling expenses for such purpose.'"
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he thought the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) very objectionable, and intended to divide the Committee against it. In the first place, it would occasion

1591
the necessity of employing a great number of agents, and thereby increase considerably the expenses of a candidate at an election. He also thought it was calculated to create great abuses. The words "conveyance for the purposes of an election" were too vague, and might cover conveyance to the nomination as well as to the polling. The conveyance which the candidate should provide should be strictly confined to the journey to the poll. It would be very difficult to work the clause in practice without exposing candidates to petition. The only two courses open to the Committee were either to generalize the language of the clause, which would, perhaps, be the better plan, or to particularize by laying down a scale of mileage. He would suggest the insertion of the words "it shall be lawful to pay the 'necessary' travelling expenses of any voter resident at a distance of more than one mile from the place of polling," leaving it to be determined by a Committee whether any given expenses were "necessary" in the event of any question arising.
MR. VANCEsaid, he thought that the clause, as amended, would entail enormous expense on candidates. There was a freehold qualification for voters in Dublin, and they were scattered all over the country. If this clause were adopted, the candidates would have to send railway tickets to all parts of Ireland. He should prefer the law remaining as it was, rather than that it should be altered in the form proposed.
SIR W. FRASERsaid, it appeared to him that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would not only negative the principle involved in the original clause, but that it would be impracticable in its operation. He regarded the words "bona fide travelling expenses" as sufficient. Such a definition had always been admitted by the practice of Election Committees. The Amendment was impracticable, because it would not permit the payment of any money to a non-resident voter. Was the candidate, then, to be expected to send a special train for him? It was astonishing that this legislation to reduce election expenses should emanate from quarters professing to be liberal. It was a mockery to extend the franchise to the poorer classes, and then say that they should not have the means of exercising their right.
MR. BAGWELLsaid, he should support the Amendment exactly because he sat on
1592
the Liberal benches. Without some such provision the power of the landlords at Irish county elections would be overwhelming.
MR. BOOTHsaid, he should cordially vote for this proposal, because he believed that in the vast majority of cases there would be no difficulty experienced in working elections with the aid of travelling orders or tickets.
MR. LOWEsaid, the clause of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) seemed founded on the distinction between money and money's worth—a distinction which in the matter of bribery was of no great value. As he understood the proposal, if a candidate wanted to bring up a voter from a remote village he could not send him the money to pay for his journey by post-office order. But if the candidate knew anybody else living in the same village, he might transmit the post-office order to him, and then get him to go to the railway station with the voter and buy a ticket for him. If, on the other hand, he did not know any inhabitant of the place, the candidate must send an agent down there expressly to go through the process of taking the man to the railway station, and then obtaining a ticket for him.
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last could not understand the question, because in the county of Durham, at least, which was, perhaps, more intersected with railways than any other part of the country, the common practice was to provide the voters with blank travelling tickets, and the arrangement was well recognized between the different railway companies. No inquiry was made at the railway station for which candidate the elector meant to vote; and each candidate had to pay his proportion of the cost of these tickets. The fears conjured up by hon. Gentlemen as to the effect of this provision were, therefore, purely imaginary.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was afraid the noble Lord viewed this Bill with too exclusive reference to his own particular county. The plan which had just been described might work exceedingly well in Durham, but might not be so convenient for districts possessing inferior facilities for communication. Neither ought the case of boroughs to be wholly overlooked. In Taunton, which he represented, there were about ten or twelve non resident electors,

1593
whose votes at a contested election would probably turn the scale, and it was obviously a great object to get them up to the poll. The candidates, however, were often in great perplexity to decide whether they ought or ought not to write to the voters, offering to pay them their travelling expenses if they came to vote. At the last election he had himself been in this position; but he had thought it safer, owing to the uncertain state of the law, to prevent his agent from making such an offer. It would be only fair both to the candidate and to the voter that the Legislature should settle this doubtful question. The payment of the actual expenses of the voter might reasonably be allowed; but, in his opinion, the original clause would carry that principle out better than the proposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. If it was desirable that an elector should come up from Kent to an election in Somersetshire, how could he be got to do so unless his expenses were paid? He thought the Amendment, indeed, would not work, and he should therefore support the clause as it stood originally.
MR. MILESsaid, he understood the sense of the Committee to be in favour of allowing fair travelling expenses to the elector, and the only question was, which was the safest mode of giving effect to that principle. He thought that the clause as originally proposed would be open to great difficulties, and, if adopted, would lead to a large amount of litigation and bribery, which must be the case if money were allowed to pass between the candidate or his agent and the voter. On the other hand, the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite would, in his opinion, remove all difficulties, and settle the question in a distinct and satisfactory manner. It seemed to him that they were really straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. There was no difficulty in making arrangements for the conveyance of soldiers, and why should the case be different for the conveyance of voters?
MR. DEEDESsaid, he intended to vote against the proposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, because it would open a door to bribery. If the Amendment was, as he hoped it would be, negatived, then the Committee ought to pause before it assented to the first clause at all. Nothing but the absolute refusal of travelling expenses altogether would check abuse. Supposing a non-resident voter had omitted to procure one of the recognized tickets
1594
before starting on his journey, and afterwards claimed repayment of his fare from a candidate's committee before voting. If refused, the man might turn round and say, "Oh, very well; I know where to go; they are not so particular over the way!" This was not an imaginary case, but one that had actually occurred.
GENERAL THOMPSONsaid, he thought the whole of the discussion would be viewed by the country as an effort to give elections to the longest purse. What chance could the poorer candidate have against the rich man who could bribe under the thin disguise of paying for travelling expenses? The clause was nothing but bribery ill-wrapped up. He had sufficient acquaintance with elections to know how the thing would go. The out-voters would find business to settle or friends to see at the place of poll, and then they would ask which of the candidates would pay for their travelling, and to him they would promise their vote. It was just as much bribery as any other manner of offering pounds, shillings and pence for a vote. It was said that the poor voter must have the means of exercising his franchise. If that was not a hollow pretence, let those who urged it show their sincerity by proposing that the Consolidated Fund, or the county rate, or anybody except the candidate, should pay the money.
SIR ARTHUR ELTONsaid, he advocated the payment of the poor voter's conveyance on the same principle as he advocated the ballot. He wished to place him on an equal footing as regarded the exercise of his franchise as his wealthy neighbour. If privileges were conferred on the poor man, they ought to be a reality, not a mockery. At the same time it was essential that none of the candidate's money should touch the palm of the elector. He could not share in the morbid sympathy shown for the candidate's pocket. If a candidate without large fortune fairly threw himself upon the sympathies of the great mass of the electors, he was not likely to be left without support.
MR. A. MILLSsaid, there was a large class of cases of constructive bribery which the hon. and learned Member's proposal would not meet. In a late election in Northamptonshire in which a noble Lord, now a Member of the other House, was a candidate, all the carriages and chaises in the district were hired at an expense of as much as £7,000. Abuses of that kind required correction as much as any others,
MR. HORSMANsaid, he concurred with the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Deedes) in condemning the principle of allowing a voter's travelling expenses at all. The elector did not go to the poll on the candidate's business; and if he was indifferent to the exercise of his suffrage, it would be better that he should stay at home. The spirit of modern legislation was to raise and purify the franchise, though he could not but fear that recently they had been retrograding on this subject. As they would next year have to discuss a new Reform Bill, he thought that they should not now he called upon to enunciate a principle of such doubtful policy at the fag end of a Session. This clause had given rise to much difference of opinion, which there was no hope of their now bringing to a mature and satisfactory adjustment; and he suggested that it would be much more expedient, instead of entering upon new ground, to make the measure simply a continuance Bill.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that if the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) had been present yesterday he would hardly have made the speech which he had just delivered, as at the commencement of the discussion the same objection was raised as that he had just now made. The answer he gave was this: that certain difficulties had arisen in the law of the case which rendered it necessary for the Government to deal with this question; and it was intimated on the part of the Government some months ago, that the point under discussion would be dealt with by a Bill introduced at the end of the Session. When the right hon. Gentleman said they were introducing a new principle he would remind him that the question as to the legality or otherwise of the payment of the elector's travelling expenses by the candidate had never yet been decided by either courts of law or Election Committees. Moreover, a majority of nearly two to one had recognized the propriety of legalizing travelling expenses under certain conditions; and the only question was what was the least objectionable form in which that principle could be carried out. If direct money payments were allowed, there was the danger of larger sums than the real cost of conveyance being obtained from the candidate, which might have the effect upon a scrutiny of vitiating the purity of particular votes. On the other hand, if the candidate was left to provide the conveyance,
1596
he believed that in the great majority of cases nothing would be more easy than for orders to be given to the various railway authorities to grant the voter a ticket for his conveyance to the poll. There might, no doubt, be some cases in remote parts of the kingdom in which there would be a difficulty of settling the matter in that way, but oven in those cases the difficulty could be easily surmounted in another way. Weighing the difficulties on both sides, and considering which of the two propositions before the Committee was preferable, he had no hesitation in saying that that of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was the least open to objection. To disallow those expenses in all cases would in effect be to disfranchise a large number of electors. He was of opinion that the clause, as amended by the hon. Gentleman, would have the effect of allowing those expenses in such a shape as would at the same time shield the voter from any corrupt influences.
Mr. MASSEYsaid, he agreed that this clause did not introduce any new principle whatever. For his own part he thought the conveyance of the elector to the poll was the business of the elector, and not the business of the candidate, and he thought the House would be guilty of evading its duty if it neglected this opportunity of clearing up the present uncertainty of the law. He was satisfied that if any money was allowed to pass from the candidate to the voter there would be a great deal of bribery. In the case of overcharge no candidate or agent would have the moral courage to tax the voter's demand, and bribery would follow as a matter of course. Contrasting the two plans before the Committee, he thought the proposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was entirely free from the objections which attached to the former.
MR. BRADYsaid, he should oppose this clause in any shape, as he thought that it would open the door to the grossest acts of bribery and corruption. The measure, in his opinion, was a perfect delusion, and was calculated to demoralize the voter, instead of to protect his interests. If the House were really anxious to put down malpractices at elections, let them pass a stringent measure which would be intelligible to all parties, and not attempt such patchwork legislation as this, which, in his opinion, would legalize bribery in its worst form. Besides, under the clause this practical difficulty might arise, that if

1597
there were three candidates, and the outlying voters were brought in to vote for them, each candidate might be made to pay separately for the same man's conveyance. Again, in the case of split votes, what check would there be upon double, charging? Their legislation would therefore open the flood-gates of bribery under a new form. Was there, he asked, any hon. Member in that House—["No, no!"] There was, perhaps, many a true word spoken in jest. Was there any hon. Member who was not aware that unjustifiable practices were carried on at elections which were apparently the most pure?
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, it was an answer to the case put by the learned doctor, to say that no one voter could go to the poll in three omnibuses.—[MR. BRADY: There might be three candidates.]—But the voter could only go in one omnibus. He agreed that there might be difficulty in carrying out the clause. He himself had had some considerable expense—he meant experience as to the costs of cabs and omnibuses. When he contested Middlesex, a county which was said to exhibit great purity, a Bill was brought to him for cabs and omnibuses, amounting to £1,200 and upwards. The electors seemed to have got an idea that it was contrary to the British constitution to walk to the poll, and he thought such a feeling was encouraged by such speeches as that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Bath (Sir A. Elton) who talked of the "morbid sympathy for the candidate's pocket." He, for one, confessed to having a morbid sympathy for the pockets of candidates, but that was only because he had a sympathy for the electors, and a wish that they should preserve their position and respectability. What necessity was there for disfranchising electors in counties in consequence of not providing conveyance? why not increase the number of polling places? If they legalized this payment for conveying voters to the poll, they would open a door to bribery on a large scale. He had so much morbid sympathy for the pockets of candidates, and for the respectability of voters, that he hoped that the clause would not pass. If the matter, however, came to a division, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member, Mr. Ayrton.
Mr. P. O'BRIENsaid, he thought it necessary that this clause should pass in its present shape, and not as it was proposed to be amended. In many parts of
1598
Ireland it would be impossible for a candidate to provide conveyance for voters, and the only way of getting them to the poll was by paying them their expenses.
MR. SPAIGHTsaid, he believed that a system of direct money payments for so-called travelling expenses would demoralize the electors and ruin any candidate in the south and west of Ireland.
MR. GREERsaid, he hoped that the word "reasonable" or "suitable" would be inserted before the word "conveyance" in the Amendment. He believed, however, that a majority of the Committee was in favour of leaving the law as it now stood, without any alteration at all, and that that was the effect of the decision arrived at by the Committee on the day previous.
MR. AYRTONsaid, they were simply passing a declaratory act on a doubtful question. The right hon. Member for Kidderminister (Mr. Lowe) had said with his usually ingenuity that there was no difference between money and money's worth, but he would put a case on that point. If the right hon. Member got a number of likenesses of himself printed at a cost of half-a-guinea each and presented them to his constituents, would that be the same as if he had presented them each with half-a-guinea? The likeness would be not money, but money's worth. This Amendment was peculiarly suited for Ireland, for otherwise six voters would go to the poll in one car, and they would each charge for the car. If his proposition were adopted, the carman would be paid once for the car, and there would be no bribery. He submitted, therefore, that by his proposition it would be impossible to carry on any system of bribery, while it would effectually establish the principle of enabling the poor voter to exercise his franchise without any difficulty or inconvenience, by compelling the payment of his travelling expenses in such a manner as would avoid any direct money advances to the individual elector.
MR. M'CANNsaid, he was decidedly opposed to the payment of any travelling expenses in any manner; and thought that the number of polling places should be increased.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, be must protest against legislating in this direction at all, and especially to the introduction of such a principle in a continuance Bill. He should vote against the Amendment, though he admitted it was an improvement on the original clause.
MR. WHITEsaid, he would not use any strong language about Pharisaical intentions or whited sepulchres, but must avow his invincible repugnance to this Bill. He would therefore oppose it to the utmost of his power. The people out of doors would put their own construction upon the conduct of the Committee. They all knew that they were rapidly approaching to a general election, and this clause was intened to apply to it. He believed, that by this clause the whole flood-gates of corruption would be opened, and that to pass it would be a disgrace to the legislation, honesty, morals, and character of the country.
Question put, "That the word 'pay,' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 145: Majority 106.
MR. COXsaid, he believed there were many hon. Members who were in the same position as he was, that they did not know exactly on what they had been dividing. He wished them now to decide the question whether candidates ought not to be precluded, not merely from making direct money payments to voters but even from providing conveyance for them at all. He was against doing either of those things, and thought that the number of polling places should be increased. In his own case a number of voters went down to Brighton, and sent word that they would vote for him if he would pay their expenses up to town. This was nothing but a system of bribery, and he should therefore take the sense of the Committee against the Amendment.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the only thing decided by the last vote was that it was better to provide a conveyance for the elector than to pay him any money for travelling expenses. The question which the hon. Member wished to be settled could be best decided upon the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
MR. VERNON SMITHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered his suggestion, made yesterday, as to inserting the word "actual," or "suitable," or some such word, in reference to the conveyance of voters?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he did not intend to propose any such word, but would consider any Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
Question put,—
"That the words, 'provide conveyance for any voter, for the purpose of an Election, but it shall
1600
not be lawful to pay any money or give any valuable consideration to a voter for or in respect of his travelling expenses for such purpose,' be there inserted,"
The Committee divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 58: Majority 75.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would move to add the following proviso to Clause 1:—
"Provided always, that a full, true, and particular account of all such payments, signed by the candidate or his agents, shall he delivered to the election auditor, with the names and addresses of the persons to whom such payments have been made; and the amount of such account shall be included in the general account of the expenses incurred at any election, to be made out and kept by such election auditor."
MR. W. EWARTasked whether it was compulsory on the auditor to publish those accounts?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the Act itself made it compulsory upon him to do so.
Proviso agreed to.
On the Question that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill,
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEregretted that any such matter as that which they had been discussing should be introduced into a Continuance Bill. He thought that a candidate should not be called on to pay anything at all. So long as candidates paid anything, so long would they have corrupt practices. One hon. Member thought that the possession of the vote was a privilege, and another thought that it was a right, but he thought that it was best described neither as a right nor a privilege, but as a perquisite. That House had done all it could to make it be so considered. It was all very well to say that the expense of elections had diminished; but he should like to know what would become of a poor candidate in Middlesex—a man who could not pay down £1,000 for cabs and omnibuses. He would move the insertion of these words:—
"Provided that every candidate shall be reimbursed his expenses out of the county, city, or borough rate, as the case may be, in which the voter's name may appear on the register."
That was something tangible. He apprehended that they would need no further Reform Bill, and that there would be no bribery if his Amendment passed. He made the Motion in order to elicit discussion.
MR. CLAYsaid, it might be an excellent thing to relieve candidates of all expense; but there was this trifling objection to the somewhat original Motion of

1601
the hon. Member for Dovor, that it would enable one party to order the expenditure, and impose on another the duty of paying it. He doubted whether, if candidates had the borough or county rate at their command, the expense of elections would be diminished. The only way to stop bribery was a declaration by the candidate at the hustings, repeated when the Member took his seat, that he had not paid anything beyond the strictly legal expenses, and this declaration should be so framed that no gentleman who had paid anything more than the legal expenses could make it without forfeiting his character as a gentleman. They should render bribery in-famous if they wished it to be discontinued.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he thought the proposal of the hon. Member would convert this into a taxing Bill, creating as it would a new charge upon the county or the poor rates. In that case, he put it to the Chairman whether it would not be necessary that notice should be given of any such Motion, and that the measure should also assume the shape of a money Bill.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Amendment did not propose to deal with any public fund, but merely with local rates, applicable to local purposes. It would not, therefore, come within the category to which the right hon. Baronet had referred.
MR. BARROWcharacterized the proposal as a monstrous one, which would encourage the most mischievous and costly electoral contests in every county and borough in the kingdom.
MR. COXsaid, he believed that nothing was so likely to prevent needless expense for conveyance to elections as to require those who used such conveyance to pay for it themselves. That would be the practical effect of this Amendment. As, however, the proposal was liable to the objection that it enabled one authority to order and required another to pay this expenditure, it would be better to withdraw it for the present.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he would support the Amendment. He saw nothing monstrous in the proposition, as it had been described by the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Barrow), who probably looked upon county rates as a sort of sacred deposit, only to be dispensed by county magistrates themselves; but there were many complaints of the way in which the money was spent by them in
1602
the various counties throughout the kingdom. The Government had already conceded one point of the charter in abolishing the property qualification of Members, and he did not see why they ought not to take another step and return to the old principle that the place represented should pay the expense of representation. He supported the principle of the Amendment, but would advise his hon. Friend to bring it forward at some future period.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, as the sense of the Committee was so clearly against him he would beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, which he had only brought forward in order to ventilate the question. He thought, indeed, they would never get rid of bribery whilst Members paid voters' travelling expenses.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BYNGsaid, he was of opinion that the candidate should not pay for or provide conveyance. As to the disfranchisement of voters, he thought that if a man could not provide his own conveyance to the poll he disfranchised himself, and had no right to complain. He should divide the Committee against the adoption of the clause.
MR. BRADYsaid, he thought that if the clause passed it would lead to a good deal of litigation, for claims would be made for expenses, and suits would arise.
SIR WILLIAM DUNBARsaid, he concurred entirely with what had been said by the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Byng).
Question put, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 68; Majority 57.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2.
MR. A. MILLSsaid, he would move in line four to leave out after "provided," to the end of the clause, and insert "the said further commission shall cease to be payable on and after the passing of this Act." The object of this Amendment was to put an end to the payment of the election auditor by a per centage on the expenses incurred by the candidates. That principle appeared to him to be a most objectionable mode of paying the auditors, as it exposed those officers to a temptation to connive at improper expenditure, and that temptation ought to be removed. The fee of £10 proposed by the Bill was quite sufficient remuneration in all cases, whether of large or small constituencies,

1603
for an officer who had no functions to perform beyond those which might readily be discharged by any attorney's clerk.
MR. J. H. PHILIPPSsaid, he should support the Amendment. He thought that these appointments of auditors were objectionable.
MR. COXsaid, that in his own case two-thirds of the expenses were paid before the day of nomination, and he objected to pay an election auditor a per centage on money with which he had nothing to do. He thought that a payment of £10 by each candidate was sufficient without any per centage.
MR. DEEDESsaid, he also would express a hope that the payment of the election auditor would in future be by a fixed payment, instead of by a per centage.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he should also support the Amendment, for he could not conceive a more objectionable mode of paying the election auditor than by a per centage. There might be a question as to whether the £10 would be sufficient remuneration, but he thought the principle upon which payment should be made was clear.
MR. GREERsaid, he thought the creation of election auditors had failed to achieve the object which was intended to be attained—that of preventing bribery and treating. He hoped that next year the Government would take into consideration the propriety of discontinuing them. He would support the Amendment.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he agreed that the system of a per centage should cease, and suggested that payment should be by fixed sums, one amount to be paid where there was no contest, and a higher amount—say an additional £5, where there was a poll. He hoped the Government would adopt the Amendment with the alteration he had suggested.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he doubted whether an election auditor was of any use in any case, but he could not for the life of him understand of what use he was when there was no contest. In his case his expenses had been nearly doubled in consequence of there being an election auditor. He had gone through two uncontested elections in eighteen months—one at the general election and one on taking office. The expense of the two elections was only £22, and yet he had had to pay the auditor in addition ten guineas on each occasion.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he confessed he was rather puzzled to say what was the best mode of paying the auditor; and, in fact, he was in as great doubt about the matter now as when the discussion commenced. His own impression was that as. this was only a Continuance Bill it should place the matter on the same footing as it was on before. As to the question of the value of the auditor, he thought that had better be postponed until another year; but hon. Members informed him that one result from having an auditor was that expenses were much diminished. A candidate was enabled to say—"I cannot allow this particular item because it will be published as part of the costs." He would propose, in order to give fair remuneration, that the auditor should be paid £10 in respect of the first £200 of expenses, and above that sum the commission should be 2 per cent; but he would add, "in no case shall the first fee and further commission exceed £20 from each candidate."
MR. HUTTsaid, he believed this proposition would be generally satisfactory to the Committee.
MR. A. MILLSsaid, that on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 3 and 4 were agreed to.
MR. E. C. EGERTON, on behalf of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr.Macaulay), said, that he wished to move that the following clause be added to the Bill:—
Clause,
("For better securing to Returning Officers the expenses incurred by them in taking polls at Elections, Be it Enacted, That the persons proposing any candidate shall be jointly liable with such candidate for the payment by him to the Returning Officer of an equal share of the said expenses."
brought up, and read 1o and 2o.
Question put, "That the clause be added to the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 34: Majority 110.
House resumed.
Committee report progress; to sit again this day.

OCCASIONAL FORMS OF PRAYER.

  ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONappeared at the Bar and read the following reply of Her Majesty to an Address of the House (13th of July):—
  "I have received your Address, praying

  1605
  that I will take into My consideration the Proclamation of the first year of My Reign, commanding that Forms of Prayer and Service made for the 5th day of November, the 30th day of January, and the 29th day of May, should be annexed to the Book of Common Prayer of the United Church of England and Ireland, to be used yearly on the said days, with a view to the discontinuance of those Forms of Prayer and Service.
  "And I shall take care that the subject of your Address receives the careful consideration which its importance demands."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer what course he intends pursuing with regard to the Superannuation Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: said, that his intentions with regard to that Bill would depend very much upon the progress of the public business, and therefore he must decline to state exactly what course he intended to pursue with regard to it. He would, however, take that opportunity of mentioning to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) and some other hon. Gentlemen who had requested the Government to make arrangements which would enable them to bring on Motions of importance, that he proposed that the hon. and learned Gentleman should bring on his Motion with regard to the Hudson's Bay Company on Tuesday next. As he did not think that there would be any morning sitting on that day, and the House would therefore meet early, he anticipated that that Motion would not occupy the whole evening; and probably the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford) would find it convenient afterwards to bring on his Motion with respect to the destruction of timber in the Gulf of Bothnia. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bute (Mr. S. Wortley) and the hon. and gallant Member for Weymouth (Colonel Freestun) also had notices upon the paper which he should like to see disposed of on Tuesday; but if that was found to be impossible, he would try to meet their convenience at another opportunity.

THE BILLETING SYSTEM—QUESTION.
GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government intend to take any steps for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Billeting System.
GENERAL PEELreplied that, in order to prevent the possibility of a mistake on so important a subject, he wished to state that in the early part of the Session a Committee was appointed for the purpose of considering how the objections raised against the present Billeting System could be removed. The hon. and gallant Member for Greenwich would see that it would be perfectly impossible to carry out the recommendations of that Committee in the course of the present Session, involving, as they would, an expenditure which was not provided for in the Estimates. One recommendation of that Committee was that no Militia Regiment should be billeted except on a line of march; but the House would see that it would be perfectly impossible to comply with such a recommendation, inasmuch as they would have to provide barracks for the men when they were called out for training. He would, however, endeavour to do all in his power, to meet the evils complained of, especially as to Scotland, and would communicate with the Lords Lieutenants of counties to see what could be done. It was the intention of the Government to carry out as far as practicable the recommendations of the Select Committee on this subject.

THE TURKISH MEDAL.—QUESTION.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he wished to inquire of the Secretary of Sate for War when the Medal promised by the Turkish Government is likely to be distributed to the Officers and Men who served in the Crimean Campaign?
GENERAL PEELsaid, that two years ago the Turkish Government promised a medal to the soldiers engaged during the Crimean war. That promise was afterwards extended to the Navy and to the Turkish Contingent. He believed it would require 70,000 medals to provide for the Army, and 99,000 including the Navy and Turkish Contingent. These medals had not yet arrived, but as soon as they did they would be distributed.
On the Motion that the House at rising adjourn till Monday,

THE SLAVE TRADE.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. HUTTstated, that as he could not regard the division come to on Monday night as any indication of the real feeling of the House upon the important subject of the Slave Trade; and as he had received various communications bearing upon the question, it was his intention to renew the discussion in the course of next Session. He trusted that upon that occasion no attempt would be made to import into the debate any of those acrimonious and personal observations, or any of those unjustifiable imputations, which were so freely used on Monday night by noble and hon. Members. He himself was utterly indifferent to these things,—and, indeed, their bad intention was sufficiently neutralized by their obvious folly and absurdity; but he felt assured that the House must suffer in its dignity and moral influence by such exhibitions.
ST. JAMES'S PARK.—COLONEL BROWNE AND MR. O'FERRALL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COGANsaid, he had a notice on the paper to call attention to the convenience it would be to many Members of the House if permission, under whatever restrictions might be considered advisable, were granted to Members of Parliament, coming to or returning from the House of Commons, to ride and drive through the Park by Constitution Hill and the Horse Guards, or by Storey's Gate; but that he did not think he should be justified in detaining the House on this subject at the present late period of the Session. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would turn his attention to the subject during the recess, and would extend the accommodation he desired as far as possible consistently with the preservation of the privacy of the parks. At the same time, he wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he intends to lay on the table of the House the Reports and Letters of Colonel Browne and Mr. O'Ferrall to the Irish Government in December and January last, in reference to the organization of the Dublin Metropolitan Police?
  MR. WHITESIDEremarked, that the Chief Secretary having stated, in moving the second reading of the Dublin Police Bill, that in the metropolitan force as at present constituted the Roman Catholics greatly outnumbered the Protestants, the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr.
  1608
  J. D. FitzGerald) attempted to account for the fact by asserting that the Protestant members of the force were continually withdrawn from it by private merchants and traders. That statement was made on the authority of Colonel Browne, but as he himself was at the moment in possession of another statement of Colonel Browne somewhat different from that reported by the hon. and learned Member for Ennis, he thought it right to lay it before the House. It was contained in a communication addressed by Colonel Browne to the Irish Government, and was to the effect that the reason why Protestants declined to join the Dublin police force, or to remain in it was, that they did not get fair play. He (Mr. Whiteside) had then admitted that Mr. O'Ferrall had protested against that statement of Colonel Browne, so far as it might be supposed to reflect upon him. And he must say that the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Deasy) and other hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House seemed to have a very singular acquaintance with the correspondence of Mr. O'Ferrall with the Government. No doubt it was the duty of that Gentleman to have written a long statement on this subject to the Government, but he doubted whether it was equally his duty to communicate it to hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, all he (the Attorney General) did, was to repeat what Colonel Browne stated to the Government. He did not say whether Colonel Browne or Mr. O'Ferrall was accurate, but only argued that when they had a police force managed by two gentlemen who entertained such different opinions, the best thing was to superannuate both and place the force under wiser and better heads. It was a mistake to suppose, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to do, that there had been a correspondence between Colonel Browne and Mr. O'Ferrall. There were statements addressed by both these gentlemen to the Government on a variety of matters connected with the police force, but it was not the intention of the Government to submit them to the House. The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Deasy) had looked over the correspondence with the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and had come to the conclusion that it would not be advisable for the sake of either party that it should be laid on the table.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, what he understood his hon. and learned Friend

  1609
  the Member for Cork to have stated was this. Having met the noble Lord the Chief Secretary by appointment, and gone through the correspondence, the noble Lord called his attention to the fact that it would not be for the public service that the correspondence should be produced, and it was on the strength of that representation that his hon. and learned Friend did not think it necessary to press for its production. What he complained of now was that although the correspondence was not fit to be laid on the table, the right hon. and learned Attorney General had read a passage from it to the House which reflected on the character of an absent and honourable man. He did not think that was a fair course in dealing with a public servant who had served the country twenty-three years, on whose character there was not the slightest stain, and who held a position as high as that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He wished to know whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have any objection to produce so much of the correspondence as Mr. O'Ferrall deemed necessary for the justification of his character?
  LORD NAASsaid, that after what took place on a former evening, the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Deasy) called on him on Saturday morning last. At the conclusion of the conference, which was a protracted one, and after looking over the letters, the hon. and learned Gentleman agreed with him (Lord Naas) that it would not be satisfactory, either for the public service or for the parties concerned, that this correspondence should be laid on the table. At the same time he (Lord Naas) told the hon. Gentleman that if a question were put in the House he would answer it distinctly. Colonel Browne had stated his opinion in the terms read by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General the other night. At the same time, in a subsequent part of his letter, he stated his belief that his brother commissioner was not to blame, and that he felt convinced that if these matters were brought before Mr. O'Ferrall he would be prepared to deal impartially and fairly with them. Mr. O'Ferrall, in a letter which he addressed to the Government, referring to that passage of Colonel Browne's letter which had been read the other night said, "In reference to the belief of Colonel Browne, I have to state that nothing ever came before me to lead me to coincide with him in that opinion."
  MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he could not but express his satisfaction at the statement of the noble Lord, which if made before would, he believed, have put an end to all controversy or unpleasantness on this question. The Irish Members had thought it right, in the interest of an absent man, to bring this matter before the House.

CONVICT CHILDREN.—QUESTION.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has made any inquiry into a statement which appeared in the Public Papers relative to a feast having been given to the convict children in the St. Bernard's Reformatory, and what has been the answer to such inquiry, whether the Reformatory at St. Bernard's received Public Grants on account of such convicts; whether other children not convicts are received at St. Bernard's; and, if so, whether the convicts associate with such children; if the Secretary of State will lay on the table of the House a Return of the names of such convicts, where they were convicted, and whether the parents of such convicts have contributed towards the maintenance of their children in that Reformatory, and to what amount?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had no objection to the production of the return mentioned by the hon. Member. He had made inquiry into the statement which appeared in the public journals, and the result was that an assurance had been given that such feasts, accompanied by public demonstrations, would never be repeated again. The Reformatory certainly received public grants, and other children, not convicts, were received into it. The return would give all the information which the hon. Member required.

SALE OF POISONS BILL.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had an announcement to make that would no doubt save many hon. Members a good deal of trouble. It was with reference to the Sale of Poisons Bill. Intimation had been sent to him from every quarter, and almost every village in the kingdom, that the chemists entertained serious objections to the Bill. He did not agree with all that was said of it, but at the same time he thought the Bill required great amendment, and he therefore did not propose to press it this Session.
THE LADIES' GALLERY.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR EDWARDS: Sir, I rise to move that the temporary experimental alteration in the central compartment of the Ladies' Gallery, with some immaterial modification, having been generally approved, a similar change should be made in the side compartments, and the whole permanently completed under the superintendence of Sir Charles Barry. In accordance with the Resolution I have placed upon the paper for the consideration of the House, I have now to suggest whether it would not be desirable to increase the present most inadequate accommodation in the Ladies' Gallery; and in doing so, I sincerely trust no opposition may be made on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will act with the same degree of generosity I have already experienced at the hands of the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works. It may be in the recollection of hon. Members, that some weeks ago I brought the question before the House, and received a promise from the noble Lord that an experiment should be made. That has now been effected, as far as the central compartment is concerned, and we have seventeen if not eighteen seats, where before only seven could be placed, in consequence of the space allotted to the anteroom. Should the House think it desirable to sanction my Resolution, and alter the side compartments in a similar manner, they will afford additional accommodation for thirty-three persons, making in all fifty-four seats, instead of twenty-one. Since the question was first mooted, I have heard of two objections, and two only—one, that in dispensing with the ante-room you took away the tea-rooms—the other, that one compartment should certainly be left untouched, in order that Members of the Royal Family might visit the House. The first objection falls to the ground at once, when we consider the rooms available for that object in the immediate neighbourhood, in the same gallery. And with regard to the second objection, I really cannot imagine what harm can arise to any Royal visitors from increasing their accommodation. We are not often favoured with the presence of Royalty; but should one compartment be required at any time, it can be kept free for that purpose. I would, therefore, propose, that the three compartments should be furnished in a similar manner—one be-
  1612
  ing reserved for Royalty in case of notice being given, but occupied at other times as the other two. The cost of refitting the whole permanently would not exceed £300, according to an estimate I have received from Sir Charles Barry, and the comfort from improved ventilation would be greatly enhanced. The majority of the Members of this House, I believe, will bear me out when I state the difficulty hitherto experienced in procuring admission to the ladies' gallery; and I think, in addition to the contemplated extension, we must look forward to some reform as to the admission of ladies to the gallery. Your own gallery, Sir, is always full on the occasion of an interesting debate. The one in question is frequently partially unoccupied till a late hour of the night, because certain privileged parties have their names on the list—and perhaps never intend to come at all—to the exclusion of the families of less fortunate Members and their friends. I, therefore, beg to move that—
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. and gallant Member was out of order in proposing the Motion of which he had given notice.
  MAJOR EDWARDSsaid, he would then ask whether there would be any objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the alteration he had suggested?
  MR. MALINSthought that, although the space allotted to ladies in the gallery appropriated to them was somewhat limited, the alteration proposed by the hon. and gallant Member would be productive of considerable inconvenience. Under the existing arrangements the ladies had front seats in the two side compartments, and they had a very comfortable lobby behind in which they hung up their bonnets and cloaks. The hon. and gallant Member had suggested that the partition between the seats and the lobby should be taken down, in order that a second seat might be placed in the compartments; but he (Mr. Malins) did not think any lady who had been induced to occupy the back seat would ever be willing to do so again. He hoped that, although the Government had given way to the vagaries of the hon. and gallant Member with regard to the central compartment, they would not make similar alterations in the side compartments. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that the limited space now afforded to each visitor in the central compartment was quite incompatible with the present style of ladies' dresses. He hoped that before hon. Gen-

  1613
  tlemen expressed any opinion on this subject they would walk up to the ladies' gallery and judge for themselves.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he thought that perhaps the Government might not object to appoint a Committee on the subject, in which case it would be necessary to examine those who alone could give evidence, the ladies themselves.

ENCROACHMENTS ON EPPING FOREST.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that some of the Crown rights of Epping Forest which are nearest to London, and most frequented, have been sold by the Government during the last few months? and to call the attention of the House to the importance of securing the yet uninclosed portions of Epping Forest for the recreation of the inhabitants of the metropolis. He believed that the rights of the Crown had been disposed of for a mere trifle, and the enclosure of the forest would be a great disadvantage to the poor and labouring classes of the eastern districts of the metropolis, who were accustomed to resort to Epping for exercise and recreation. There had been more land enclosed in the last two years than in the foregoing twelve years.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that as the hon. Member had not given notice of his intention to ask this question of the Chief Commissioner of Works, he had omitted to obtain the requisite information on the subject; but he would take an opportunity of inquiring into the matter, and ascertain whether the statement on which the hon. Gentleman relied was correct.

EXPENSES OF WITNESSES—QUESTION.
MR. PHILIPPSsaid, he would beg to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the expediency of an early settlement of the Scale of Expenses allowed in connection with Criminal Prosecutions. The hon. and learned Member for Wigan (Mr. Powell) had asked a question on this subject some time since, and he was told that the Government had appointed a Commission of Inquiry, and they were awaiting their report. He had hoped that the information the Commission would afford would have been received in time for the Government to take steps in the matter before the last quarter sessions or the present assizes, but that had not been the
1614
case. It was a matter of extreme importance, for it constantly happened that there was a failure of justice owing to the unwillingness of persons to conic forward as witnesses when the remuneration they received was so small.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that as a member of the Royal Commission which inquired into the subject, he could say that the Commissioners had come to a conclusion with regard to the course they could recommend, and the matter was now under the consideration of the Home Secretary.
Motion agreed to.
House at rising, to adjourn till Monday next.

JEWS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL LORD JOHN RUSSELL moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, at the request of a number of honourable friends, in conjunction with whom I have opposed the admission of Jews to Parliament for several years, I have undertaken to move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months; and I think some apology is due to the House on my part, because on a former occasion I felt it my duty to move the rejection of clauses in the Oaths Bill, which, according to the understanding of myself and my hon. Friends, would have had the effect of abrogating the Christian character of this House—a matter the importance of which I fear hon. Gentlemen opposite undervalue. For one, I wish to observe, and in this I know I speak the sentiments of others, that the opposition to this proposal of the admission of Jews to Parliament, has been with us no mere party question; but that it is founded in a deep conviction that the Legislature of this country, which under its various phases has ever been Christian by its constitution, should so continue—a deep conviction that there is nothing injurious to real freedom in those restrictions which are necessary to preserve this character, but that, on the contrary, the Christian character of the Legislature and the constitution of the country constitute the great guarantee for the freedom of the people, a freedom that has survived the vicissitudes which have proved fatal to

  1615
  the liberties of the nations that surround us. I cannot conceal that it would be a piece of futile hypocrisy on my part if I attempted to conceal the deep regret which I feel at opposing a Bill which has the sanction of the vote, if not of the judgment, of the noble Earl at the head of the Government. For many years I have been a very humble but very determined supporter of that noble Earl. Upon the reconstruction of the Conservative party in 1846, it was my lot to be appointed to one of the offices upon which so much of the efficiency and good conduct of this House depends. That office I held until the year 1851, and when I resigned it I assured the noble Earl that he should never need a man to collect the opponents of those whose object is to destroy the Christian character of Parliament. After this lengthened connection with the noble Earl, and after the many assurances I have given to others that his convictions on this subject were so firm that he might be implicitly relied upon, it is with the deepest regret that I have seen the noble Lord change his course of conduct, at a period when, as I believe, there was really no occasion for his doing so. I desire not to speak disrespectfully to this House when I say that I am firmly convinced—more firmly convinced perhaps than I have ever been—that those who advocate the admission of the Jews to Parliament do not truly represent the feelings of the people of this country; I say this because, that since it has been felt that this change in the law is now, I fear, inevitable, I have seen no indications of satisfaction on the part of the people in whose name the change has been urged. I therefore feel entitled to assume that the measure has been forced upon the country; for, so far as I can observe, the only feeling which the probability of its passing has caused throughout the kingdom is one of disappointment, enhanced, perhaps, by the fact that the proposed change is to be effected by the powerful aid of one from whom such a measure was little to be expected. Hon. Members opposite can show me no demonstrations of satisfaction to prove that, in seeking to abrogate the Christian character of Parliament, they are acting thoroughly in accordance with public opinion. With reference more immediately to the Bill upon the table, I feel that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London adopted an unseemly course, when on a former occasion, before the Bill came down from the House of Lords, he moved
  1616
  the adjournment of the House in order to dictate the course we should pursue with respect to this measure when it came down from their Lordships, and while doing this sneered at the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, because that noble and learned Lord had declared that if the House of Commons had been so misguided as to attempt to override the law for the sake of admitting a Jew to a seat in this House, he would not have shrunk, in the performance of his judicial duty, from vindicating the majesty of the law, but would have abided the consequences of its true administration be those consequences what they might. There is not too much public spirit operative in this country, and it was with much regret that I heard a Member of this House, occupying so high a position as the noble Lord, speak sneeringly of a declaration which, I think, does the highest honour to the noble and learned person who uttered it, and to the profession of which he has so long been an ornament. What more did the noble Lord the Member for London say? He proclaimed that the House of Lords, by having yielded on this question, had established the supremacy of the House of Commons—not, mark you, merely in relation to financial matters, but on the widest and deepest religious and constitutional question that has been submitted in modern times, perhaps ever, to Parliament. Sir, this House is a proud and a powerful assembly; but I scarcely think it is consonant with the feelings of the great majority of the Members of this House to find themselves congratulated upon having established this House as the supreme authority in this country, by having overridden the convictions of the House of Lords, or to have it implied that they consider it as ridiculous on the part of the Lord Chief Justice to declare that he is prepared to vindicate the majesty of the law against a Resolution of this House. I do not believe that, if the House of Lords had adhered to its sincere convictions against the admission of Jews to Parliament, that the House of Commons would have been so misguided as to attempt to override the law. If, however, it had done that, so grave and serious an event would have required Lord Derby, as the constitutional Minister of the Crown, to advise Her Majesty at once by a dissolution to appeal to her people, whether they are prepared to submit to the authority of this House as supreme, when no longer Christian by its constitution, and

  1617
  after this House had overridden the independence of the House of Lords, and had even assailed the pure administration of the law. The noble Lord the Member for London did not condescend to state what might be the probable result of such an appeal, though he said the decision of this House might possibly have led to much inconvenience. That inconvenience, I believe, would have been felt by the noble Lord especially, if he had ventured to recommend the adoption of a Resolution such as that to which he had alluded; it would, also, have been felt by every other Member of this House who ventured thus to assail that which is the great guarantee for the personal freedom and safety of every Englishman. I regret, deeply regret, that this question, involving, as it does, the Christian character of this House—that this issue was not fairly placed before the country—that the people have been deprived of the opportunity of declaring their will upon this subject. I shall not trouble the House with any observations upon the frame of the Bill now before us; I deprecate the measure, because it will accomplish the destruction of the Christian character of Parliament. Like all departures from sound principle, it involves incidental circumstances which can scarcely recommend it to the general approval. I allude particularly to the provision of the Bill which enacts that, in the case of every Jewish Member, there should be in fact a second election before he takes his seat in this House. Let the House consider the principle which is involved in that clause. It tends to constitute the House of Commons a close corporation. It provides that the House shall not be satisfied by a free election on the part of constituencies in certain cases, and gives to Members of this House the privilege of declaring their objection to receive a Member upon grounds which are not stated in the law, but merely in accordance with the decision of a majority of this House, based on no recognized grounds, but cogent when the Member presents himself for the purpose of taking the oath and his seat. There can be little doubt that if, after the passing of this Bill, Baron Rothschild, a very wealthy man, should present himself at that table to be sworn, he would be admitted to a seat in the House under the Resolution which the Bill provides. There is little doubt if Alderman Salomons, a very convenient person, were elected and presented himself here, he would be recommended to the majority of this
  1618
  House; but I want to know why the law should not declare what are the circumstances under which the House ought by Resolution to admit a Jew. If this measure pass, why should not this principle be extended? Why should not this or some other Bill provide for the admission of avowed atheists to seats in this House? We should then have to make a pick among the atheists who might be elected and presented themselves to take their seats. How should we be able to distinguish among them? Let us, then, for the sake of illustration, further test the principles of the Bill by extending the application of them; and suppose that you had admitted the Jew and the atheist by Resolution, why should not the principle be applied to others? Why should not some Christians be esteemed objectionable by the majority of the House? Tell me, therefore, what is the security that this House, if this principle be extended, should not by Resolution select from the candidates who have been sent up by the constituencies such as may at the time please them best, and reject others, on grounds and for purposes not recognised by this or any other law? These are, however, considerations relating to comparatively minor matters. If you pass this Bill, and destroy the Christian character of the House, that step will tend first to the alienation, and then to the separation of the Church from the State. But, observe, this Bill anticipates that evil, for it provides for the severance of the State itself. No one doubts that if this Bill passes, the House of Lords will refuse to admit a Jew to their assembly, whilst the House of Commons will admit him to theirs. Thus you will sever the only bond of union in principle which remains to connect the two branches of the Legislature; you will have this House invested with the supremacy which the noble Lord ascribes to it, but constituted upon a totally different basis from that of the House of Lords; and do you not see in that severance and that supremacy elements of confusion? I can regard this as no settlement whatever. It marks our first entrance upon a new phase of political existence for the country. It is the first step in a course which I myself view with the greatest apprehension; and I very much doubt whether many hon. Gentlemen on the other side have weighed the extent of the change which they are about to effect; but of this I am confident, that wherever in a State

  1619
  this principle has been introduced, where-ever a State that was Christian by its constitution has ceased to be so, the freedom of that State has not been long maintained; and I challenge hon. Gentlemen to produce me an instance to the contrary. Upon this stage of the Bill I will not further intrude upon the patience of the House; but in justification of my own vote and the vote of those who have asked me to propose the Amendment, I will read the Reasons of the House of Lords for insisting on their Amendments to the Oaths Bill which involve the justification of their long continued opposition to the admission of Jews to Parliament.
  "1. Because, although the words 'on the true faith of a Christian' were originally introduced into the oath for the immediate purpose of binding certain Roman Catholics, it is unreasonable to assume that the Parliament which so introduced them did not intend that the profession of Christianity should be a necessary qualification for admission to the Legislature, when they enacted that a declaration of that faith should form part of the oath required to be taken by every Member of both Houses.
  "2. Because the constant intention of the Legislature may be further inferred from the fact that neither at the time of the introduction of these words were the Jews admissible, nor have they at any subsequent period been admitted to sit and vote in either House of Parliament.
  "3. Because exclusion from seats in Parliament and offices of the State on the ground of religious opinion, and for other reasons, when the general good of the State appears to require it, is a principle recognized in the settlement of the succession to the Crown, and in other cases; and has moreover been further and recently sanctioned by the House of Commons in some of the provisions of the present Bill.
  "4. Because, in the prayers with which both Houses daily commence their proceedings, they implore in Christ's name the Divine assistance and guidance in all their undertakings, professing themselves his unworthy servants; and this act of worship will become a mockery when among those who are therein declared to be gathered together in His name are numbered those who deny Him through whose merits alone those prayers can be acceptable.
  "5. Because, when the Commons plead in support of their views, in a matter which equally concerns the constitution of both branches of the Legislature, their repeated recognition of the expediency of removing this disability of the Jews, and admitting them to their Councils, the Lords desire to refer to their equally firm adherence to the principle of retaining those privileges which they believe to be peculiarly and inseparably attached to Parliament as an exclusively Christian assembly."
  Sir, these Reasons have been drawn by men who are so completely my superiors in intellect that I think comment upon them on my part would be altogether idle
  1620
  and superfluous. I humbly submit, and in saying this I believe I represent the feelings of the people of this country, that these Reasons fully justify the resistance of the House of Lords to all the attempts that have been made during the last eleven years to strike down the Christian character of Parliament, but I am sorry to say these Reasons likewise condemn the decision of that exalted assembly in favour of the Bill before the House. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  MR. SPOONERseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he had hoped to have heard something from the other side of the House. He was not in the habit of addressing that House often, and especially when he could not do so for an object. He knew that anything he could say would be in vain to undo what had been done, but still he could not give a silent vote on the present occasion. He had hoped to have heard some remarks from the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) on the Bill. Although he (Mr. Spooner) had formerly contented himself with giving a silent vote on this question, he was not of those who had altered their opinions, and he could not follow the example of those high personages who, retaining their opinions, had altered their votes. He had changed neither his opinion nor his vote. He had no vulgar prejudice against the Jews. No one could regard their past history, or contemplate their future destiny, without feeling deep respect for them, and a full belief that they would ultimately be restored to their high destiny. Respecting the Jews as a nation, and many individuals of that nation with whom he had the honour to be acquainted, he felt that no such consideration would justify his vote for their admission to legislate for a Christian people. He believed that real conscientious Jews would feel themselves in an awkward position, although they had been relieved from taking the oath with the words "on the true faith of a Christian," when they were called on by their allegiance to the Crown to legislate for Christianity in that House. The Reasons of the Lords seemed to be conclusive against such a measure as this. The fourth Reason stated their Lordships' opinion, that a Jew was "morally unfit" to take part in Christian legislation, and

  1621
  yet a Bill was sent down to this House by the same parties who had communicated that Reason, for the purpose of enabling them to admit a Jew, though it had been so declared that he was morally unfit to take his place in a Christian Legislature, and that without the other House of Parliament going into such an unconstitutional proceeding, while at the same time the great prerogative of the Crown and the ultimate veto to all their proceedings were set aside. He agreed with his hon. Colleague that they were introducing a new principle into the Constitution; that they were giving the House the power to say by Resolution whether a Member should sit in that House or not. If there were one thing of which they should be more jealous than another, it was that the House should not be able by a majority to say to one man you shall, and to another you shall not, sit in this House. Would the noble Lord agree to such an unconstitutional proceeding? It was said that the admission of Jews had become a necessity, and that the Bill under consideration was the result of pressure. What was the feeling of the people out of doors on this question? Why, up to July of this Session there were only two petitions before the House in favour of the admission of Jews, and those petitions contained two signatures. There had been 250 petitions sent up against the measure, signed by 11,808 persons. Was that the pressure to which the House of Lords had yielded? No; it was to pander to the views of party that the principle on which the Legislature had so long acted in this matter was to be abandoned. He had extreme fears that the passing of this Bill would inflict a deadly blow on the Constitution, and sure he was that the confidence of the people in the other House of Parliament, to which they had long looked as the bulwark of their liberties, had been shaken beyond the possibility of redemption by the unfortunate concession they had made on this question. He was old enough to remember the impression made, and which had not passed away, by a declaration made in the House of Commons of that great public man Mr. Fox, held in veneration by Members on the opposite side of the House—namely, "that what was morally wrong could never be politically right." That was the motto which ought to have governed the conduct of Parliament in this matter. A great historian, and now a noble Lord, once wrote, "Talk to me of
  1622
  a Christian Legislature; you might as well talk to me of Christian cookery." He (Mr. Spooner) did not think the country was quite prepared to coincide with that view; but he did feel that if this Bill passed an irreparable blow would be inflicted on the Christian character of that House. Expediency had done more to shake the Throne than anything that could have occurred. It had broken in on our Constitution in 1829, and had led from change to change, until, in this Bill, we have the last vestige of the Christian character of our Legislature taken away. He should have gone down to his grave with deep sorrow if he had not made this protest against so great a dereliction of duty on the part of the other House of Parliament. He deplored what had been done chiefly for its effect on the Christian character of Parliament, and he looked on it, moreover, as a great error in that it was calculated to take away from a large portion of the thinking people of this country that confidence which they were willing to repose in the Government of the Earl of Derby. It had greatly shaken his (Mr. Spooner's) confidence in that noble Lord who headed the party with whom he had been in the habit of acting. He trusted that support had always been given as became an independent Member of Parliament. Hon. Gentlemen opposite knew well that he had frequently supported measures brought forward by them when he was convinced their measures were right. He would give the same kind of support to measures proposed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but instead of yielding his opinion, as he had hitherto done, on matters where lie entertained doubt, and presuming that to be right which was not proved to be wrong, he must now adopt another course, and support only such measures as be conscientiously believed were proved to be right.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he thought that the silence which was maintained with regard to this Bill by the distinguished Gentleman who had hitherto taken the most active part in promoting the admission of Jews to Parliament was most remarkable. The noble Lord the Member for London seemed disposed to force the measure through the House without condescending even to explain its principles or details. But were the House of Commons a flock of sheep that they were to be thus treated? Had they nothing else to do but to obey the nod of the noble Lord, and read the

  1623
  Bill a second time without discussion? He did not know whether they were prepared to adopt that course, or not; all he could say was that he was not, and that he should trespass for a few moments upon the attention of the House for the purpose of stating his opinion with regard to the position in which the two sides of the House now stood, and particularly the position which was occupied by the other House in reference to this question. As yet they had not heard one word in favour of the measure, which was an entirely new one, based upon entirely different arrangements, and, in the opinion of many who were even favourable to its object, was open to very grave objections. Before the House went to a division, therefore, he trusted they would be favoured with the views of the noble Lord upon the principle and details of the measure—upon its probable effects on the position of the two Houses of Parliament; and whether or not he was perfectly satisfied with the manner in which it dealt with the important question at issue. He would not go into the question of the noble Lord's consistency on other matters, nor would he draw comparisons between his conduct in and out of office, but, to give him his due, he had for many years past been most consistent, determined, and energetic in his endeavours to insult the Christian community of the country, and to destroy the Christian character of that House. Now, if they destroyed the Christian character of the Senate of this country, they would seriously impair its polititical efficiency, and shake the confidence of the large majority of the people in this House by giving them the impression that they were not influenced in their conduct by religious considerations. The question was not one of civil and religious liberty; it was simply a political question, and that a political question confined to a very small circle of persons. There was neither civil nor religious liberty mixed up in the matter. It was an attempt to destroy the Christian character of the Senate of England for the purpose of carrying an insignificant political object; and the only political object that had been attained by its agitation up to this time was that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was the representative of the City of London instead of some small and obscure constituency. The portion of the subject that he approached with the most anxiety was the position taken by- the House of Lords with regard to this measure. No
  1624
  well-wisher of his country could have witnessed what had taken place in the other House of Parliament during the last few weeks without feeling the most sincere regret at the extent to which the events occurring there had lowered the character of public men in that branch of the Legislature. He wished he could entertain a doubt upon that point; but he was sorry to say that he could not. At no period since the melancholy year 1846 had public men so utterly and irretrievably lost their character, or exhibited such a degree of tergiversation, as in reference to the question now before the House; but it so happened that the present case was worse than that of 1846; for whatever might have been the demerits of those who in 1846 sacrificed their opinions and their characters, the question upon which they did so was a financial question; whereas the subject now under discussion had been argued upon religious grounds. It had been held that on these grounds Jews ought not to be allowed to occupy seats in a Christian Legislature; and he entirely concurred in the argument, and said that it would be a desecration of the character of this House as a Christian assembly, and a mockery of their profession of Christianity, if they did so. But what became of the consistency of those who, having always hitherto opposed the claims of the Jews, now turned round and sent the present Bill down to this House? He must again express his sincere regret at the position in which the House was now placed; and he regretted it the more, because the majority were the representatives of the £10 householders, and the feelings of the £10 householders upon this question did not represent the feelings of the people of England, who, he believed, were opposed to the admission of the Jews to Parliament, He was convinced that what had recently passed in this House and in the other House of Parliament was calculated to derogate in the highest degree from the estimation in which the two Houses were held by the people, and he trusted he should never again witness proceedings so disreputable to the character of all concerned in them.
  MR. ADAMSsaid, he had no intention to attack hon. Members for want of consistency, which he thought was sometimes carried to far too great an extent, until it degenerates into obstinacy, nor would he impute any improper or personal motives to the noble Lord the Member for London. He was not surprised that the

  1625
  noble Lord had not risen to advocate the Bill of which he had moved the second reading, because it was not the noble Lord's Bill; and he very much misunderstood the noble Lord if he would ever have produced, had the task been left to him, a measure of the character which was now submitted to the House. As he understood the matter, the noble Lord had accepted the Bill with a view to avoid what might appear to him to be a greater evil; not that it was his choice, but that necessity had forced it upon him. And he could not concur in the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) that the noble Lord had been actuated, with reference to this question, by personal considerations; or that it had been the means of placing him in the position, which, as a statesman of high standing, who had for many years enjoyed the esteem and confidence of this House, he so worthily occupied, and was so well entitled to assume, of Representative of the great and important constituency of London. His (Mr. Adams's) objection was not so much to the admission of the Jews to this House on principle as it was to the form in which the Bill was presented to the House. Had the other House been pleased to accept the Bill which was sent up from this House he should have cheerfully acquiesced in their decision, as being in strict accordance with the rules and principles of the Constitution, though he might have entertained the opinion that it was a dangerous innovation for them to make; but to that Bill he entertained strong objections. In the first place, he held that the Bill, which had been called a compromise, was no compromise at all, but that it was a concession—a giving up of the whole question. He repeated, however, that his chief objection was to the form—the insulting form—in which the Bill had been sent down from the House of Lords, inasmuch as it had come down accompanied by Reasons which were as complete and thorough a condemnation of it as they were of the Oaths Bill itself. One of those Reasons stated that the Jew was morally unfit to take part in the legislation of this professedly Christian country; yet the Bill would admit him to a seat in this House upon a Resolution of the House. But supposing it should be the grace and favour of the Sovereign to grant a peerage to a Jew; why, was he not as worthy to occupy a seat in the House of Lords as in this House? Wherein was the
  1626
  House of Commons inferior, as far as moral standing was concerned, to the other branch of the Legislature? He contended that a man who was fit for the society of the House of Commons was equally fit for the society of the members of the House of Lords, and that the other House had no right to send down a Bill for the admission to seats in this House of persons who, in their reasons against the Oaths Bill, they branded as morally unfit to sit in a Christian Legislature. For his part, he thought the separate legislation now proposed to be established was a most dangerous and unconstitutional, though not unexampled proceeding; and he feared that the other House, which had now set the example of declaring that the House of Commons might by their own Resolution seat any one particular individual, would find that the practice of separate and independent legislation might again be carried, as it had been in former times, to an inconvenient extent by which their Lordships would be the sufferers. Hitherto their principle of legislation had been concurrence between the two Houses of Parliament. Now they might have a Resolution of that House absolutely opposed to the practice of the House of Lords. The measure had come down to the House in the most offensive shape. It was conceded as an almsgiving to an importunate beggar, not gracefully given, but thrown in the face of the applicant; and he regarded it, in every point of view, as most objectionable.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he thought the House would not expect him to go into arguments which had been repeated over and over again on the subject of Jewish disabilities, but some points had been raised and some references made to him by previous speakers which he could not wholly overlook. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire seemed to suppose that in the event of the present Bill being rejected it was his (Lord J. Russell's) intention to propose or at least support some Resolution contrary to the law. The hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him, for the fact was that the only ground upon which he intended to ask the House to support a Resolution in favour of the admission of the Jews, would be that it was in conformity with the law, and in so doing he would be resting upon a very high authority, that of the late Attorney General. Upon that question he should have been glad to hear, what he never had heard, the opinion of the present Attorney

  1627
  General; but, fortunately, the House was spared the necessity of going into that subject, thanks to the Bill now under consideration. It had been observed by an hon. Member (Mr. Adams) that he (Lord J. Russell) could not possibly like the present Bill; but, as the House of Lords had sent down the Bill, and desired the concurrence of the Commons to it, he was simply moving, in accordance with that desire, that the House should concur in the Bill thus sent down. He certainly considered that the Bill sent up to the Lords, with part of which the other House disagreed, was in its nature a compromise, because he thought that no Bill could be entirely satisfactory which made a distinction in the form of oath between Protestants and Roman Catholics, and he endeavoured to put the oaths in a form which would meet with the concurrence of both Houses. The hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) spoke about pandering to passions. With all that he had nothing to do. With respect to the conduct of those who had all along been opposed to the emancipation of the Jews, and who now consented to the proposed mode of admitting them to Parliament, he could only say that he thought the mode effectual for the purpose, though the manner of concession was not the most gracious. If the House did not accept the present Bill, it must either go on in a continual contest with the House of Lords, asking their consent to a Bill, to which they were not prepared to consent, or carry a Resolution which a majority of the House might have concurred in, thinking it agreeable to law. But that might have been a question in a court of law, it might have led to very much dispute, and caused very much inconvenience, and possible collision with the courts of law. With these alternatives before him, he must confess that, though he should never himself have proposed the present Bill, he was glad to take a course in which both Houses could concur, and which relieved the House from the difficulties he had mentioned. That was the reason why he recommended the Bill to the acceptance of the House. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had spoken as if the only object of carrying the Bill was to enable him (Lord J. Russell) to retain his seat for the City of London. He certainly valued highly the possession of that seat, but the object to be attained by the passing of the Bill was of a very different nature. It was
  1628
  unnecessary for him to enter upon that topic now. The great majority of the House understood the principle of religious liberty, in accordance with which Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters had been admitted to Parliament. Those were principles with which, he was afraid, if the contest was to go on for another ten years there would be no imbuing the mind of the hon. Member. He had now stated very shortly the grounds on which he recommended this Bill to the House. He believed that it would furnish a practical solution of the difficulty he had adverted to, with some inconvenience in the way, but not with the inconvenience insisted upon by the hon. and learned Member for Boston (Mr. Adams). So far as the terms of the Bill went, both Houses were placed upon an equality, and either House might say that it would, or would not, admit a Jew. According to all experience, it was probable that when a Jew presented himself to be sworn at the table, the House of Commons would be disposed to admit him. At present, it was not likely that any Peer would present himself to be sworn in the other House, objecting to the words "on the true faith of a Christian" on the ground of being a Jew; and by the time that any Jew would be enabled, by the favour of the Queen, to receive a patent of peerage, it was likely that the Peers would have come to a different opinion from that they entertained at present. The sons, in many instances, were wiser than their fathers, and probably the House of Lords would then agree to admit the Jew. When the Bill was read a second time, he should give notice of the course he proposed to pursue with respect to the Oaths Bill.
  MR. DRUMMONDsaid, that the question was whether the matter in dispute should be settled in this shape, or in that desperate manner which some of the advocates of the admission of Jews had alluded to—namely, by a Resolution of the House, which Resolution was to be taken as equivalent to an Act of Parliament. A more revolutionary doctrine than that he had never heard broached. They had lately been told by a high authority that that House was supreme in the State; but he had always humbly thought, in his ignorance, that they were living under a constitutional monarchy. It seemed, however, that such was not the prevailing opinion. Tories and Conservatives by profession had heard that statement with-

  1629
  out a murmur, and he surely thought their squeezability must be of a most extraordinary character. But that was not all. It was said besides, that if that House by its own authority passed a Resolution admitting the Jew, and if Lord Campbell, in interpreting the law, should punish and fine the Jew for sitting and voting in the House without taking the oaths, the House would be bound to protect the Jew from the consequences of the breach of the law. It really was high time that they should have a dissolution, in order that the constituencies should speak their minds upon this matter. He should like to know, moreover, how that House could set about such a proceeding. It was said, that if the House did pass such a Resolution, the Judges would be squeezable, and would be, no doubt, disposed to interpret the law according to the decision of the House of Commons. Now, he did not believe that Lord Campbell or any Judge on the bench at present would dishonour himself by such conduct. But that was not all, for the House had been told that it could, by Resolution, take the government and direction of the army and navy off the hands of the Crown, totally irrespective of the laws. Now, all the mischief done in the beginning of the French Revolution was done by Resolutions. By Resolutions they abolished primogeniture, they abolished nobility, and they abolished tithe. ["Hear!"] He thought, from that cry of "Hear," that there was at least one hon. Gentleman willing to walk in the footsteps of those revolutionists. It was also said that if the Jews were not admitted, the House of Commons could stop the supplies. That was rather a strong measure. It was said, "We will stop the supplies and refuse the Mutiny Bill." Well, what would be the effect of such a proceeding? Why, he supposed the army, the navy, and the police would help themselves. They would live at free quarters until Parliament passed the Mutiny Bill and paid their wages. But these were mere idle threats, which were never meant to be carried into execution. He agreed with those who thought that the legislation they were now asked to sanction was the beginning of a new system. It was no answer to say that this was only the climax—the necessary consequence—of the repeal of the Test Acts, the Emancipation of the Catholics, and other similar measures. It was a perfect farce for hon. Gentlemen to talk about a conciliatory measure with reference to
  1630
  church rates. As far as he was concerned he would have no conciliatory Bill; he would have church rates or nothing. The Dissenters acted honestly on this subject. Mr. Miall, of The Nonconformist, had argued the question with great fairness and ability, and avowed that the Dissenters only sought by means of the abolition of church rates to insert the small point of the wedge, and that what they were really fighting against was tithe. He (Mr. Drummond) believed this was the necessary consequence of previous legislation on such questions. With regard to the Test Acts, he remembered that several persons of notoriously immoral character, who blazoned forth their opinions to the offence of all honest and decent people in the city, received places under the Crown, and when they went to St. Martin's Church to receive the sacrament, the clergyman, although very much disgusted at being required to administer it to them, instead of doing his duty by refusing to administer it, came to that House and prayed for the repeal of the Test Acts. The legislation adopted at that time and since must go on, and it was impossible now to maintain that, as was formerly the case, the Church of England and the State were one. He was not referring to these things to frighten the House, but he was only anxious to point out to them the course upon which they had entered, and he knew that its consequences were evident to many hon. Gentlemen. The ablest man among those whom he called advanced Liberals—the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright)—had foreseen them. There was no necessity for hon. Gentlemen to go into Committee-room No. 11, or elsewhere, to find a head; for the hon. Member for Birmingham was the only man among them who had, from the first, foreseen the end of these measures, and who had honestly and plainly expressed his opinions; and if that hon. Gentleman lived as long as he (Mr. Drummond) wished he might do, he would see his anticipations realized. They were now merely considering in what manner they should admit the Jews to Parliament, for they had settled—be it right or wrong, religious or irreligious—that whether the House became infidel, or what not, have the Jew they would. Of all the measures lie had seen on this subject, the one now under consideration was, in his opinion, the least likely to lead to public disturbance. The simple question for the House to determine was, what was the best and

  1631
  least mischievous mode of admitting Jews to Parliament?—and as this Bill seemed to provide the least mischievous means of effecting that object, he would give it his support.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was anxious to defend the course he had pursued on this, question from the charges made against him. He denied that he had recommended the House to act upon any revolutionary principle. He had found that the great constituencies of the City of London had repeatedly returned a Jew to that House, and as he conceived that the House was justified under the existing law in proceeding by Resolution, he had recommended the adoption of such a course with the view of admitting Baron Rothschild to a seat. He was justified in that course by the opinion of some of the most eminent English jurists who had written upon constitutional law, by the express declaration of the late Lord Canterbury, and by the opinion of a late Premier. He felt strongly the force of the objections which had been urged against this Bill by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He thought it unsatisfactory, inconsistent in its character, and objectionable in the highest degree, because it did not secure the admission of the Jew to Parliament, unless the House decreed by a Resolution that they would do so; and practically, therefore, he remained excluded. They would only have continually party fighting and personal squabbles from religious motives every time a new Parliament was elected. If a Jew were qualified to sit in that House, it was not the House itself which ought to exclude him; and he objected to the Bill because it gave them a right to do so. The present measure was no final settlement of the question, and was altogether so objectionable in its principle that he hoped it never would be allowed a place on the statute-book.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he was unwilling, after what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond), to give a silent vote with respect to this measure. His hon. Friend was one of those who had always entertained the opinion that the admission of Jews to Parliament would destroy the exclusively Christian character of the Legislature of this country. His hon. Friend had given a somewhat severe lecture to noble Lords in "another place," as well as to those who usually agreed with him upon political questions in that House, with reference to
  1632
  the mode in which great legislative measures should be treated; and he had spoken, with considerable apprehension, of the course which Parliament was now pursuing. In many of those views he (Mr. Walpole) heartily concurred; but, he must say, he thought it would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had contented himself with entering a silent protest against the principle to which he objected by recording his vote against it. His hon. Friend thought the question of admitting the Jews to this House was settled. Consistently, however, with the views which his hon. Friend said ought to be taken by the statesmen of this country, he believed that if they apprehended evil from any measure submitted to Parliament it was their duty, in whatever minority they might be left, to record their vote against it. The House had so often indulged him by listening to the expression of his opinions on this question that he would not repay them so ill as now to trespass on their attention at any length. All he could say was, that he saw no reason for changing his opinions; and that being so, though the measure might be supported by those for whom he entertained the sincerest respect—he might say, the warmest affection—he could not yield up his convictions on the subject. Having said so much on that part of the question, he would add that there was one point which he thought even those who supported the admission of the Jews ought deliberately to have considered before they adopted the present measure. For the first time, as far as he knew, in the legislation of this country they were now enabling either House of Parliament, if it pleased, to do away with a general law by a Resolution. Now, general laws when passed ought to be maintained as general laws; and he must say that if the House of Lords were prepared to give way upon this question it would have been better and more satisfactory if they had frankly acquiesced in the Bill sent up from this House, instead of passing what was but a patchwork measure, and one which could not be a permanent settlement of the question. It was a patchwork measure, because it enabled the Houses of Parliament, not upon any general principle, but according to the opinions entertained by them at the time, to say whether they would or would not admit the Jews to the Legislature. But, besides this, if there existed a reason why the House of Commons should admit a Jew to a seat, he

  1633
  contended that the Crown ought not to be deprived of the right to place a Jew in the other House, independently of any opinion which that House might choose to entertain on the subject. Again, he thought the worst part of the Bill was that the Resolution which must be carried would not constitute a law of a permanent character, but might be reversed by the next House of Commons, whereupon the whole controversy upon this much-vexed question would revive, and it would be found much more difficult to deal with the subject on principles of sound policy. In conclusion, he would willingly have given a silent vote; but he could not forbear expressing his conviction that, in a constitutional point of view, they were not settling this question in the best manner; and, at the same time, he wished to enter his solemn protest against the admission to a Christian Legislature of those who, according to all the principles of our constitution, could not, he believed, safely and properly be allowed to sit there.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he was unwilling to give a silent vote on this question, lest he should be supposed to assent not merely to the object and effect of the Bill, but the manner in which that object was attained. He entirely concurred with the right hon. (Mr.Walpole), in regretting that those who in the House of Lords had made up their minds to pass this Bill should not have resolved fairly and handsomely to settle this question. He quite concurred, also, in the objections stated to the method by which the admission of Jews into this House was to be accomplished; and he confessed it was with considerable reluctance that he gave his support to the present Bill. He felt so strongly, however, the expediency and the justice of admitting the Jews into Parliament that he was content to accept it on the ground on which it had been objected to by some hon. Gentlemen—namely, that it was the first instalment of a larger and more complete measure. He could not believe that a Bill so objectionable in principle, upon constitutional grounds, would be allowed to remain permanently upon the statute-book, He was persuaded that those who had hitherto opposed the admission of the Jews, having conceded so much, would in the course of no distant period go a step further, and would yield to the claims of their Jewish fellow-subjects not by the objectionable mode of a Resolution passed by one House of Parliament,
  1634
  but by the more constitutional operation of a general law.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he must also express his dissatisfaction with the mode in which this question was to be settled. They could not, as had been supposed, admit one Jew under the Bill and exclude another; but a Resolution passed in one Parliament might be thrown out in the next, and while on one day the House of Commons resolved to seat the Jews the House of Lords might on the same day resolve to exclude them. He regretted that the House of Lords, if they felt disposed to settle this question, had not done so in a straightforward, manly way, by passing a general law binding on both Houses.
  Question put "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.
  The House divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 65; Majority 91.

  List of the Ayes.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Evans, Sir De L.

  Bagwell, J.

  Evans, T. W.

  Bailey, C.

  Ewart, W.

  Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

  Ewing, H. E. C.

  Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

  Fergus, J.

  Bernard, T. T.

  Feruson, Sir R.

  Beale, S.

  FitzRoy, rt. hon. H.

  Beecroft, G. S.

  Forster, C.

  Bethell, Sir It.

  Fox, W. J.

  Black, A.

  Freestun, Col.

  Botfield, B.

  Garnett, W. J.

  Bouverie, rt. hn. E. P.

  Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

  Brady, J.

  Gifford, Earl of

  Brand, hon. H.

  Gilpin, C.

  Briscoe, J. I.

  Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

  Brocklehurst, J.

  Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Bruce, H. A.

  Greer, S. M'C.

  Buller, J. W.

  Gray, Capt.

  Butler, C. S.

  Griffith, C. D.

  Buxton, C.

  Gurdon, B.

  Byng, Hon. G.

  Gurney, J. H.

  Caird, J.

  Gurney, S.

  Campbell, R. J. R.

  Hadfield, G.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Hall, rt. hon. Sir B.

  Cheetham, J.

  Hamilton, Captain

  Clay, J.

  Harris, J. D.

  Cogan, W. H. F.

  Hay, Lord J.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Headlam, T. E.

  Collier, R. P.

  Heard, J. I.

  Coningham, W.

  Henniker, Lord

  Coots, Sir C. H.

  Hodgson, K. D.

  Cox, W.

  Holland, E.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Horsman, rt. hon. E.

  Crawford, R. W.

  Ingham, R.

  Cubitt, Ald.

  Ingram, H.

  Dalglish, R.

  Jermyn, Earl

  Davey, R.

  Jervoise, Sir J. C.

  Denison, hon. W. H. F.

  Kelly, Sir F.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Kinglake, A. W.

  Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

  Kinglake, J. A.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Duke, Sir J.

  Knatchbull-H., E.

  Dunbar, Sir W.

  Langton, H. G.

  Duncombe, T.

  Laurie, J.

  Elton, Sir A. H.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  1635

  Levinge, Sir R.

  Saint Aubyn, J.

  Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.

  Schneider, H. W.

  Locke, John

  Scholefield, W.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Smith, J. B.

  Luce, T.

  Smith, A.

  Macarthy, A.

  Smith, Sir F.

  M'Cann, J.

  Somerville, rt, hn. Sir W.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Spaight, J.

  Mangles, R. D.

  Stanley, Lord

  Martin, J.

  Stapleton, J.

  Mellor, J.

  Sullivan, M.

  Morris, D.

  Sykes, Col W. H.

  Napier, Sir C.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Nicoll, D.

  Tancred, H. W.

  Norreys, Sir D. J.

  Thompson, Gen.

  North, F.

  Thornely, T.

  O'Brien, P.

  Tite, W.

  Ogilvy, Sir J.

  Trueman, C.

  Osborne, R.

  Turner, J. A.

  Paget, C.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

  Watkins, Col. L.

  Palmerston, Visct.

  Weguelin, T. M.

  Philips, R. N.

  Western, S.

  Pinney, Col.

  Westhead, J. P. B.

  Pugh, D.

  White, J.

  Puller, C. W. G.

  Williams, W.

  Ramsden, Sir J. W.

  Wilson, J.

  Ramsay, Sir A.

  Wingfield, R. B.

  Rawlinson, Sir H. C.

  Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

  Ridley G.

  Wood, W.

  Robartes, T. J. A.

  Wyld, J.

  Roebuck, J. A.

  Roupell, W.

  TELLERS.

  Russell, Lord J.

  Hayter, Sir W.

  Russell, A.

  Smith, J. A.

  List of the NOES.

  Adams, W. H.

  Hotham, Lord

  Adderley, rt hon. C. B.

  Kendall, N.

  Alexander, J.

  Knight, F. W.

  Baillie, H. J.

  Knightley, R.

  Bernard, hon. Col.

  Langton, W. G.

  Barrow, W. H.

  Lefroy, A.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Lowther, hon. Col.

  Bective, Earl of

  Malins, R.

  Bentinck, G. W. P.

  Manners, Lord J.

  Beresford, rt. hon. W.

  Miller, T. J.

  Booth, Sir R. G.

  Mills, A.

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Moody, C. A.

  Burghley, Lord

  Morgan, O.

  Cairns, Sir H. M'C.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

  Cecil, Lord R.

  Neeld, J.

  Charlesworth, J. C. D.

  Nisbet, R. P.

  Cole, hon. H. A.

  Noel, Hon. G. J.

  Conolly, T.

  Peel, rt. hon. Gen.

  Cooper, E. J.

  Pevensey, Visct.

  Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

  Robertson, P. F.

  Du Cane, C.

  Rolt, J.

  Edwards, H.

  Stanhope, J. B.

  Farquhar, Sir M.

  Stunt, N.

  Fellowes, E.

  Taylor, Col.

  Forester, rt. hon, Col.

  Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.

  Forster, Sir G.

  Vansittart, W.

  Gard, R. S.

  Walcott, Adm.

  Goddard, A. L.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Grogan, E.

  Warren, S.

  Hamilton, G. A.

  Williams, Col.

  Hardy, G.

  Willoughby, J. P.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  TELLERS.

  Hodgson, W. N.

  Spooner, R.

  Hopwood, J. T.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Main Question put, and agreed to;
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Monday next.

SUPPLY.—REPORT,
MR. FITZROYbrought up the Report of Supply.
Three first Resolutions agreed to.
"(4.) That, in addition to the sum of £14,118, already granted to Her Majesty, to defray the salaries and expenses of the several Offices in Her Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh, to the 31st day of March, 1859, the sum of £1,000 be granted to defray the salary of the Keeper of the General and Particular Registers of Sasines, making together the sum of £15,118."
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he rose to object to the reception of the Resolution, as some papers had been laid upon the table since the last discussion which had a material bearing upon the subject. He should propose to reduce the Vote by £1,000, being the amount of the salary of the Principal Keeper of the Registry of Sasines, and he did so without intending to adopt a personal course towards the present holder of the office, who, being entitled by Act of Parliament to receive fees, could not be without remuneration. The office was one which the Treasury in a Minute, passed some years ago, had recommended should not be filled up without holding previous communication with them, with a view to reconstituting the office. It became vacant on the 2nd of September, 1857, and on the 23rd of February last a Mr. Brodie was appointed to it. Now, in moving the reduction of the Vote, he merely sought to learn the grounds upon which the former Minute of the Treasury had been disregarded. He wished also to draw the attention of the House to a letter contained in the papers he had referred to, in which Mr. Brodie recommended Mr. Fraser, the Assistant Keeper of Sasines, to the favourable consideration of the Lords of the Treasury for an increase of his salary. In that letter he admitted that Mr. Fraser had performed the whole duties of the office to the satisfaction of the profession and the public. He wished, therefore, to hear from the Government any reason they might have to offer why on that occasion the offices of Principal Keeper and Assistant Keeper were not consolidated, which would have put an end to the objectionable practice of performing the duties by deputy, while by having one gentleman to fill the office, at a salary of £1,000 a year, a saving to the country of £500 a year, would have been effected.
Amendment proposed to leave out "fif-

1637
teen," and insert "fourteen" instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That fifteen stand part of the Resolution."
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman had admitted the importance of the office and the efficiency of the gentleman who filled it, and he (Mr. Hamilton) could not believe the House would adopt so strong a measure as to deprive that gentleman of his salary. That gentleman filled the position in question when the present Government came into office, and it would have been a manifest dereliction of their duty if they had not included his salary in the Vote. Besides, on the vacancy occurring, an investigation was instituted by the then Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State, the result of which was, that it was thought essential to the public interest that the office should be filled.
MR. WILSONstated, he had been asked a question on a former occasion, whether the Marquess of Dalhousie drew his salary as Principal Keeper during the time he was Governor General of India. He was now enabled to state, from inquiries he had made, that in 1847, when his Lordship received that appointment, he caused a communication to be made to the Government, that during his absence he should not draw that salary, and accordingly he had not drawn it. When the late Government left office arrangements as to the office in question had so far proceeded that it was intended to reduce the salary of the Principal Keeper from £1,500 to £1,000, and to increase that of the Assistant Keeper from £500 to £800 a year. He could bear testimony to the merits of Mr. Fraser, the Assistant Keeper, and he hoped the present Secretary of the Treasury would keep that arrangement in view, seeing that the Treasury could carry it out without any application to Parliament, as the office was paid by fees, and an increase of salary would throw no burden on the country.
SIR WILLIAM DUNBAR: I rise, not with the object of expressing any opinion of my own, for I feel that I am not competent to give an opinion as to whether or not the office under discussion could have been consolidated or abolished with advantage to the public interests, but simply for the purpose of explaining what is the nature, and, to a certain extent, the responsibilities, of the office in question. The office of Keeper of the Registry of Sasines is that in which all conveyances of land,
1638
mortgages, burdens, and transfers relating to land are registered, and upon their registration these instruments depend for their efficacy. In every purchase or mortgage of land, the purchaser or mortgagee searches the register to discover if there are any encumbrances or burdens affecting the land; and when the House considers the magnitude of the interests involved, and that the Principal Keeper of the Registry is personally liable in the consequences of any inaccuracy arising either from his own fault or that of his subordinates, I think it will appear sufficiently plain that such an office cannot be an unimportant one—far less a sinecure. The office itself is paid by the fees derived from the public for the privilege of searching the register. It is a patent office, the Principal Keeper receiving the fees, and accounting for the balance to the Treasury after paying the expense of the department. It never was upon the Consolidated Fund, and the only reason for its appearing in the Estimates is, that the Treasury draws the reversion of the fees, which, instead of being so drawn, ought, in my opinion, to be applied to the reduction of the charges exacted from the public. At one time the salary drawn from the fees used to be £3,000, and the duty was to a great extent performed by deputy; but by a statute passed early in the century, the office was prospectively put on regulation. In 1845, the whole subject was, as I am informed, fully considered by the present Lord Justice General—then Lord Advocate M'Neill—along with the right hon. Member for the City of Oxford and the late Sir Robert Peel; and I understand that the Lord Justice General retains the opinion that he never came to a Resolution with more certainty that he was right than in fixing the salary of the office at £1,000 a year, and keeping it on that footing. [An hon. MEMBER: £1,500 a year.] Mr. Pringle was appointed to the office in 1845, and held it till his death last year. In the interval, I have the authority of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leith for stating that important reforms were under consideration. It was intended to remove the local registers to Edinburgh, to improve the system of the indices which are essential to the operation of searching, and to alter materially the system of transfer of land, which the late Lord Advocate has now carried out. All this required considerable skill and ability in the department. On the death of Mr. Pringle, various applications

1639
for the office were made to my hon. Friend the then Lord Advocate, and among others, from persons holding subordinate offices in the Register House. Of these, Mr. Fraser was undoubtedly the best qualified, having done much of the duty of the department during the lifetime of Mr. Pringle. Knowing Mr. Fraser, and bearing willing testimony to his qualifications, I should have been glad if the late Government had considered it consistent with their duty to promote him as a deserving public officer. At the same time, common justice requires me to say that they could not possibly have appointed any one to the office more competent for the discharge of its duties than Mr. Brodie. From personal acquaintance with that gentleman, I am enabled to assure the House that there are few men more able, and none more eminent in the profession to which he belongs. With regard to the recommendation to fill up the office in October or November, 1857, to which the hon. Member for Ayr has referred, I think it is abundantly evident that that recommendation could have no possible connection with the change of Government which took place in the subsequent February. At that time Mr. Brodie was Crown Agent, a scarcely less responsible office, which he held from 1846 to 1858; and I believe I am right in saying that the present Lord Justice General, the late Lord Advocate, the Committee of the Faculty of Advocates, and also Mr. Cosmo Innes, than whom, I believe, on such a subject there is no better authority in Scotland, were all in favour of maintaining the office. With such a weight of authority, concurring, no doubt, with his own sentiments, I think it is not surprising that my hon. Friend the Member for Leith should have decided in keeping up the office; and whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the person who should have been selected to fill it, I think no one can doubt that it has been placed in hands fully competent to discharge its duties with efficiency. For these reasons, I cannot assent to the withdrawal of the Vote.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he apprehended that there could be no ground for opposing the appointments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he rose to call attention to the Report of the Pub-
1640
lic Moneys Committee. After the long inquiry of the Committee, he thought their Report should not be allowed to pass by without the attention of the House being directed to it before the close of the Session. He wished to call attention to the necessity of legislation on the points suggested by the Committee. It was impossible matters could be allowed to remain in their present position. The House had adopted the principle that the gross revenues should be paid into the Exchequer, and that no money should be issued for the public service except by the vote of Parliament. There were, however, exceptions to that rule. One great exception was the case of the Woods and Forests. About a quarter of the revenue arising from the Crown lands was expended without passing through the Exchequer. The Committee recommended that the same principle adopted with regard to the other departments should be carried out in respect to the Woods and Forests; but it appeared from a minute that the Treasury had not acceded to that proposal, and postponed the consideration of the subject until another settlement of the hereditary revenues. He hoped, however, that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would come to a different conclusion, especially since the proposed alteration would not interfere in the slightest degree with the dignity or comfort of Her Majesty. The next point to which he would refer was the state of the Pay Office. The Pay Offices had been consolidated, which was a wise step, but considerable doubt existed as to whether the regulations of the office were consistent with the law. It was clear that the one or the other must be altered, and the Committee recommended that the difficulty should be got over by an alteration of the law. The tendency of late years had been to employ the Pay Office for the receipt of certain sums while on their way to the Exchequer, but the Committee thought that wherever possible the payment should be made at once into the Exchequer, and not by way of the Pay Office. So in regard to deposits. Moneys were deposited with the Pay Office, and employed for the public service without proper authority or control. The Committee recommended that this practice should be altered, and that the deposits should be kept in a separate account. This he thought would become a matter of serious imporance if the India Bill were passed and the revenues of India came into the

1641
hands of the Crown. The Committee recommended another arrangement of great importance. All the transactions of the Pay Office had not hitherto been very well known to that House. For instance, they did not know that the Turkish loan had come into the hands of the Paymaster. So, part of the money for the Duke of Wellington's funeral had remained in the Pay Office up to a very few months past, and it was clear that that would not have been allowed if the circumstance had been known; and the Committee very properly suggested that some officer should be appointed from the Audit Office who should be cognizant of all transactions in the Pay Office, and constitute a check upon the proceedings there. The officers of the Audit Board stated before the Committee that there were £2,000,000 of civil services with which they had nothing to do; and the Committee proposed that those accounts should be audited like other accounts at the Audit Office. An important part of the system was what was called the appropriation check,—that was a check on the part of the Audit Office to provide that the money voted by Parliament should be employed for the purposes specified by Parliament. A great part of the public expenditure was quite free from that check. The accounts of the revenue departments and pretty nearly the whole of the miscellaneous expenditure were audited at the Audit Board, but the Parliamentary appropriation check did not exist there, and the Committee recommended that they should be brought under the rule. With respect to the civil expenditure it was proposed on the minute of the late Government that the audit should take place at the Treasury, but he thought that a subordinate officer of the Audit Board would be placed in an awkward position if he were called on to check the expenditure of Secretaries of State and Lords of Treasury, with one Secretary of State on one side of him and another Secretary of State on the other. In his opinion, the check should be exercised at the Audit Office itself. With respect to the Votes for the Army and Navy there was the power to transfer the excess on one Vote to supply a deficiency on another; but this power might be to a greater extent than was ever intended, and ought to be used with some discretion. At one time there was a surplus of £600,000 on the Militia Vote, and there appeared to have been an intention, though very properly it was not carried into execution, to
1642
transfer that sum to other services in the War Department. An important recommendation was made by the Committee, to the effect that every year the Speaker should select a certain number of Members to form a Committee to examine the public accounts. The propositions he had submitted to the Committee were more stringent than the recommendations they had made; but they had offered many valuable suggestions, and he hoped the House would never consent to give up those checks which in olden times had been deemed of so much importance.
MR. BOWYERsaid, that as a member of the Committee on Public Moneys he wished to say a few words in support of the views advocated by the right hon. Baronet. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he held the same office a few years ago, expressed his intention to bring before the House the state of the public accounts. Afterwards, during the administration of the noble Member for Tiverton, he (Mr. Bowyer) called the attention of the House to the subject, and he believed the consequence was the appointment of the Committee on Public Moneys, which had not produced all the results that had been expected from its labours. It appeared from the investigations of that Committee that there was a regular struggle between the Treasury and the Exchequer, and the then Secretary to the Treasury expressed his opinion that the checks which had been provided by the constitution for the safe custody and application of the public money were perfectly useless, and that the public money should be paid to the account of the Treasury, the Treasury having an unlimited power of drawing upon that account. He (Mr. Bowyer) regarded that as a very unsafe system, and deemed it of the utmost importance that Parliament should not abandon that ancient system of check with regard to the management of the public money which was the real security of the public. In his opinion the Treasury should be intrusted with the application of money, and the Exchequer should exercise a control over that expenditure, taking care that the provisions of the appropriation Bill were duly observed, and that the money should be expended in accordance with the direction of the House of Commons. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would give the Report of the Committee on Public Moneys their careful and attentive consideration.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that he much regretted the revival of this controversy, but he was quite prepared, if it were necessary, to defend the opinions he had expressed in the Public Moneys Committee on the subject of the Exchequer, and which had been reprobated by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed the House. He could not accede to the doctrine of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the check exercised by the Comptroller of the Exchequer over the issues of money was an ancient constitutional check; for no longer ago than the reign of Charles II. there was no division between the Treasury, the Exchequer, and the Bank, but the Exchequer was the place in which the money was received, from which it was paid, and in which the then Lord High Treasurer held his sittings. Since that period, however, the Treasury had been separated from the Exchequer and the payments of public money had been transferred to the Bank of England, and now the function of the Exchequer was simply to exercise a sort of check upon the issues of money, the attempt being to establish an audit before payment. The Public Moneys Committee did not recommend any substantial alteration in the functions of the Comptroller of the Exchequer, and therefore it was unnecessary to enter into any controversy on that point. There was one observation of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) on which he wished to remark. The right hon. Baronet truly said that there was considerable doubt whether the present mode of making payments in the Paymaster's Office was perfectly in accordance with one provision of the Exchequer Act, and that the disuse of that provision originated during the late war.
SIR F. BARING: No: I said that the difficulties arising from that disregard had only been made apparent during the late war.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: All he could say was that the provision had never been complied with, that the practice which existed during the war was the same as had existed ever since the Act was passed, and that he was not aware that any particular inconvenience had made itself apparent during the late war. One word in defence of the Treasury Minute of the late Government respecting the payment into the Exchequer of the gross proceeds of the Land Revenue. The right hon. Baronet said there would be no difficulty in altering
1644
the law, and in making the practice regarding the Land Revenue uniform with that of the Customs and Excise. There was, however, this material difference between the two cases:—At the commencement of Her Majesty's reign an arrangement was made between the Crown and the public respecting the land revenue. That settlement was to last for the lifetime of the Queen, and all the public were entitled to under it was, not the gross but the net revenue. There was, in fact, in the Crown a reversion of the present property, and also a life interest in the expenditure necessary for the maintenance of the property. If the House, therefore, called upon the Crown to pay the gross revenue into the Exchequer, it would amount to a revision of the bargain made with the Crown at the commencement of Her Majesty's reign. Now, that was a matter which involved serious consideration; it affected the interest of future Sovereigns, and was not that simple question of the mere payment of gross revenue into the Exchequer which arose when we had to deal with Customs and Excise. But then the right hon. Baronet said, at present there was concealment, and that wherever there was concealment there was always a suspicion that something was wrong. Now, that was an axiom the abstract truth of which be did not dispute; but he did dispute the groundwork of its application, because there was annually laid on the table of that House, in the amplest form, the details of all the expenditure of the Land Revenue. First there were the national Finance Accounts, and then a detailed report by the Commissioners of the Land Revenue, in which might be found many more details on the subject of this expenditure than hon. Gentlemen generally would perhaps have the patience to examine. He could not, therefore, admit that there was the smallest concealment with respect to this branch of the expenditure.
MR. A. SMITHsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman asserted that there was no concealment with regard to land revenues, but there was concealment in this way—that information did not come to the House as soon as it ought. As an instance, although the House had voted the establishment of the present year, the accounts of the land revenues of last year were not yet before them. The land revenues should be made up so as to be before the House prior to the Estimates

1645
being voted for the department. He demurred to the assertion that the public was only entitled to the net revenues. There had been shadowed forth an idea that these lands could be resumed by the Crown, and he had heard congratulations uttered that the revenues had so much increased as almost to be sufficient to provide for the Civil List. But these lands were originally bold by the Sovereign to carry on the whole civil government of the country, and the country had as much right to them for the support of the judicial, diplomatic, and other departments of the State as the Sovereign. Nothing was more dangerous than the notion that the arrangement which had so long existed could be brought to an end. The surrendering of the Crown Revenues at the beginning of a new reign was only a constitutional fiction, and it was impossible that they could ever be recovered by the Crown. The country had purchased them over and over again by the sums given to meet the deficiencies in the revenues of those lands. He was glad that the right hon. Member (Sir F. Baring) had brought forward the question, and he hoped that in future Sessions an estimate of the expenditure upon the Crown lands would be produced, and that the income arising from them would be placed upon the same footing as every other branch of the public revenue. The whole of the property belonged to the public, and therefore the House should insist upon having a control over the expenditure by placing it in the regular Estimates.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the whole of the Crown Revenues were surrendered in consideration of the grant of the Civil List, but it was the gross and not the net revenue which was given up. There had been great extravagance in the management of the Crown Lands. The House ought to have some control over that expenditure, of which there ought to be an annual Estimate. He hoped the Government would take the subject into consideration.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that before the House went into Committee of Ways and Means he wished to make a few observations in reply to the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) He was not at all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman who had presided over the Committee upon Public Moneys, with that knowledge and ability which he brought
1646
to bear upon all subjects, should be unwilling that that labours of that Committee should be passed over without notice. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was under a misconception if he supposed that the present Government had treated the results of that investigation with neglect. He could exonerate also those who preceded the present Government from a similar charge, for when he first entered upon the duties of his office he received an earnest and friendly admonition from his predecessor to give particular attention to the Treasury Minute which had been drawn up under his superintendence. There could be no doubt that the recommendations of the Committee and the Treasury Minute drawn up in consequence were entitled to the gravest consideration, and, he might add, generally speaking, to the adoption of the House. But all who had paid attention to the subject must be aware that the necessary measures were of too great importance to be adopted without a laborious investigation into questions of detail connected with that department of the public service. And not only inquiry, but legislation would be required in order to carry out the recommendations of the Committee and the terms of the Treasury Minute, and he would put it to the House impartially to say whether the position of the Government had been such as to afford them or the House sufficient time and opportunity to devote the attention necessary for the consideration of such a subject. The establishment of an independent and complete audit was, in his opinion, a necessary measure. The present Government had had a measure with that object under their consideration, which they had hoped to be able to introduce this Session, but which he trusted to find, next Session, an early opportunity of laying before Parliament. In order to carry into effect the Treasury Minute, with some modifications which he deemed advisable, would require, not one Act merely, but several Acts, and therefore the subject was not one to be lightly disposed of. He could say generally on the subject which the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward, that there was no part of the Treasury Minute, and of the investigations of the Committee on Public Moneys, which had not received the attention of the Government, and on which they had not formed an opinion; and they would be prepared, at the right time, to introduce

1647
measures accordingly. With respect to the management of the revenues of the Crown lands, he could not agree with the observations that had been made by several hon. Members. He concurred with the right hon. Member for Radnor (Sir G. C. Lewis) that it was not for the advantage of the country to criticize too severely the terms of the agreement entered into between the Crown and the country upon Her Majesty's accession. He hoped the time was far distant when the subject would have again to be laid before Parliament; bnt, in the meantime, he must express his opinion, after a laborious and complete investigation of the matter, that the agreement which had been entered into was certainly not to the disadvantage of the country. There were two ways in which the agreement could be considered, first with reference to the general independence of position of the Crown, which was considered as better secured by the Sovereign being in possession of a certain estate than by receiving a mere allowance for life therefrom; and, secondly, as to the position of the Crown in a mere pecuniary point of view. He need not enter into the discussion of the first point, upon which every one could form an opinion. As far as the pecuniary advantages of the Crown were concerned, that was a point upon which no one could form an opinion without going into details, but his was clearly that it was not for the interests of the country to carp and cavil at the contract that had been made, for, having regard to the increased value of property and other considerations, he believed it was greatly to the advantage of the country.
House in Committee.
Account of Unfunded Debt [presented 22nd June] referred.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was proposed, to make good the Votes for the service of the year, that a sum of £11,226,255 1s. ld. be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
Vote agreed to.
The next Vote that a sum of £4,327,292 18 s. 11 d. for the service of the year be issued out of the surplus funds of the preceding year, was also agreed to.

1. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of £11,226,255 1s. ld. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

2. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there be issued and applied to the service of the year 1858, the
1648
sum of £4,327,202 18 s. 11 d., being the surplus of Ways and Means granted for the service of preceding years.

House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.

CHELSEA BRIDGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committe read.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he must repeat his objections to this Bill, on the ground that it was a violation of the principle and sanctioned a course of proceeding to which the House ought not to lend itself. He had no objection to open Chelsea Bridge free to passengers, if that could be done consistent with keeping public faith; but he thought it was perfectly impossible, without committing a breach of public faith, to make any alteration in the original agreement. A positive bargain had been made, by which the tolls were to be liable for the amount lent for the construction of the bridge, together with interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum; and he contended that the agreement so entered into ought not to be violated on any pretence whatever.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that as soon as the West End line of railway was completed to Pimlico the revenue of the bridge would dwindle to nothing. He only regretted that the Bill did not go further and throw open the bridge. He was of opinion, that all bridges across the Thames in the metropolitan district should be free.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he rose to move an Amendment, the effect of which was, to abolish the toll on foot passengers after the passing of the Bill. Practically the toll of a half-penny, which was really a penny (for nobody was allowed to turn round on the bridge and go back, however much he might desire it—he must go to the other end, and pay again to come back) operated to the deprivation of the poorer classes, for whose benefit the park had been formed, of its enjoyment. The Earl of Derby had stated to a deputation which waited upon him that he would be ready to assent to the abolition of these tolls if it could be proved that the value of the land belonging to the Crown in Battersea Park would be proportionately increased. Before a Committee which had inquired into the subject Mr. Pennithorne, the ar-

  1649
  chitect of the Board of Works, had stated that by freeing the bridge of foot-toll the land in the neighbourhood of Battersea Park would let both more quickly and at a higher price. He was informed that a builder had that day applied to the Board of Works to know the price of this land; and he had been informed that even now it was £3,000 per acre, whereas it had been estimated at £2,000 an acre, so that there was every ground for saying that a much larger sum would be realized than was taken into the account by the Government. In a financial point of view it would he wise policy to take off the toll. They had made a bad speculation in spending £300,000 in forming a park. They had done so on the recommendation of the Royal Commission, who reported the Battersea Fields were a nuisance. They formed a park for the working classes, and then they found that nobody would go to it, and that the land around it would not let. They built a bridge at an expense of £80,000 to get out of that difficulty, and they placed a toll upon it, which destroyed the efficiency of the remedy. If they took off the toll people would go to the park, and the land would be readily taken up at £3,000 an acre or more, and they would get back at least some of the money which had been so badly spent.
  Amendment proposed,—
  In page 3, line 14, to leave out from "after the," to "aforesaid" in line 16, in order to insert the words "passing of this Act."
  MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he rose to make one observation. The principle of the Committee was that every desirable improvement should be carried out; but it was not thought advisable to tax the rural for the advantage of the metropolitan population.
  MR. BANKS STANHOPEsaid, he should oppose the Amendment. It was most desirable to assist the poorer members of the community, provided that faith were kept with the public; but he did not see bow that could be done if this Amendment were agreed to. If they admitted the principle that public money was to be lent for a local object, under specific conditions as to its repayment, and that subsequently an Act might be introduced annulling the previous one, how could it be expected that public money would henceforth be lent for a local object?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he willingly admitted that the provisions of the
  1650
  original Act were most unwise; and if he could agree with the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) that there would be no breach of faith in doing away with the foot tool on the bridge, he would have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment. But having looked most carefully into the case he had been compelled most reluctantly to come to a different conclusion. The hon. Gentleman had also mixed up two questions. The park and the bridge rested upon two separate Acts of Parliament, and however much the lands at Battersea Park might rise in value there was no power authorising them to appropriate any amount they might receive from the sale of the land to the repayment of the charge for erecting the bridge. At the same time he quite admitted the absurdity of forming a park at a great expense for the benefit of the working classes, the only access to which was a bridge, and then to place a toll upon that bridge, which must to a greater extent or a less exclude those for whose enjoyment the park was intended; but as Parliament had in its wisdom so determined he was bound to oppose the Amendment.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he thought that in the present instance, as in the case of the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be advisable to infringe on the public faith.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must beg to deny that there would be any breach of faith in the matter whatever. They would recover the money they had expended if they would only throw open the bridge.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he thought the principle, as he understood it to be laid down by the noble Lord, most vicious. The park at Battersea having been laid out at enormous expense, the imposition of a toll would render it impossible to let the land, which might be profitably devoted to building purposes. A very bad bargain had been made by the Bill with respect to the park, and he could see no reason for adhering to it.
  Question put, "That the words 'time when the said' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 41: Majority 77.
  MR. BANKS STANHOPEsaid, he would move, as an Amendment, the omission of the words after "said," in line 19, down to "shall," in line 21, and the insertion of the words "capital sum of £80,000, with 4 per cent, interest per

  1651
  annum thereon, and all arrears of such interest up to the date of payment."
  Amendment proposed,—
  To leave out, in the same line, the words "sum of £98,777 10 s. 6d.,"in order to insert the words "capital sum of £80,000, with six per centum interest per annum thereon, and all arrears of such interest up to the date of payment."
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid he must oppose the Amendment.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he should support the Amendment as its object was to carry out the agreement which had been originally entered into, and to keep faith with the public.
  Question put, "That the words 'sum of' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 45: Majority 71.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS LORD JOHN MANNERS moved the omission, in line 20, of the words "ten shillings," and the insertion of the words, "together with such interest thereon, not exceeding the rate of £4 per cent. per annum as the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury may from time to time direct."
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that within the last ten minutes the Committee had voted that black was white, by rejecting first the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley), and next the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. B. Stanhope). He would ask the noble Lord on what ground he could justify breaking the pledge he had given for specific application of the money?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he must deny that the Amendment proposed to give up the interest on the £80,000 advanced. All it did was to give to the Treasury a general control for the benefit of the public. The hon. Gentleman had put a construction upon the clause which it would not bear.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MAJOR SIBTHORPsaid, he wished to move at the end of Clause 3 to insert the words—
  "Nor at any time previous to the said sum of £80,000 being paid off as aforesaid shall any toll be demanded or taken for or in respect of foot passengers passing over or on to the said bridge on Sundays."
  Such a concession would enable the working men of the metropolis to visit the park on the only day when most of them could enter it.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the only effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would be to postpone for a considerable period
  1652
  the free opening of the bridge. He would not, however, oppose the adoption of the Amendment if it were pressed.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYremarked, that in the interests of the working men of the neighbourhood, he should support the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he was so pleased that such a provision had been adopted, that he now thought the measure really worth something, and he should not, in consequence, feel it his duty to offer any further opposition to the Bill.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

CORNWALL SUBMARINE MINES BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. A. SMITHsaid, that although entertaining a high opinion of the judicial talents of Sir John Patteson, on whose arbitration the present Bill was founded, he still felt bound to oppose the measure, as the House was not in possession of all the documents necessary to forming a correct judgment on the matter. [Cries of "Move, move!"] As he would not be allowed to proceed, he would now move the adjournment of the debate.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was unusual for an hon. Gentleman to move the adjournment of a debate the only portion of which the House had heard being his own speech. He therefore hoped he would not persevere with his Motion.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would also remind the hon. Member of another consideration—that if the debate were adjourned, he could not again address the House.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, this matter was of more importance than hon. Members appeared to suppose, and he would therefore strongly urge delay, to enable hon. Members to read the provisions of the Bill.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that if the Motion were withdrawn, Government would give hon. Members every information they might desire upon the question.
  MR. COXhoped that his hon. Friend

  1653
  would press the Motion, as it was the clear understanding that no opposed business should be proceeded with after twelve o'clock, and it was then half-past.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 109: Majority 92.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, he would move that the House should resolve itself into Committee on Monday next. The hon. Member for Truro had a speech which he wished to deliver of about half an hour in length, and he himself wished to make some remarks on this, which was a very important Bill. It related to an arbitration between the Crown and the Duke of Cornwall, but there was another party, the public, whose interests should be taken into consideration. It was impossible to have a debate that night.
  Amendment proposed,—
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the House would do well to consider the state of public business. When a great strain was put upon the energies of hon. Members, he said he would not ask them to enter upon opposed business after twelve o'clock. But as at present it was his wish not to ask the House to take any more morning sittings this Session except upon rare occasions, he trusted they would consent to remain at their posts for an hour longer in the evening, in order to assist the Government in carrying on the public business; and therefore he trusted the hon. Gentleman who made this Amendment would not press it. The case was simply that of carrying into effect the award of a learned Judge between the Duke of Cornwall and the Crown; and it was expressly stipulated that the rights of all proprietors would be saved. It was thought that it would be better to settle this by legislation than by a course of litigation.
  MR. A. SMITHsaid, he must complain that he and the public, whose rights depended upon those of the Crown, had not been fairly treated in consequence of this Bill being brought in so late in the Session. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give a Wednesday morning sitting to the measure.
  MR. KENDALLremarked that the Bill concerned nobody but the Crown and the Duke of Cornwall, and he could not understand the reasons for the opposition.
  MR. ROBARTESalso appealed to the hon. Member to allow the Bill to proceed.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, he could not withdraw his Motion.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he viewed with some alarm the discussion that was now being carried on in a very thin House. He thought that if the hon. Gentleman would allow this stage to pass, the Government would fix an opportunity for taking the discussion.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he was willing to agree to the suggestion, and if the present stage of the Bill were not opposed, an opportunity would be given, on bringing up the Report, of making the necessary statement.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he believed that was the only occasion in which any statement or discussion could be taken.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Truro had not been fairly dealt with. He thought the hon. Gentleman was entitled to have the question discussed. He should Support the Motion of the hon. Member for West Surrey.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 20: Majority 72.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. A. SMITHthen moved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member's power of making Motions at that particular stage of the Bill was exhausted.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, as the hon. Member had no more shafts to fire, he would now interpose in his behalf and move the adjournment of the debate till Monday.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

ARMY SERVICE BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he wished to express a hope that the Secretary for War would take into consideration the large bounty offered for recruits, which had a tendency first to tempt men into the service, and then to desert it; in order that they might enlist again into other regiments.
  Bill read 3o,and passed.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.—CONSIDERED.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to add a clause to the effect that the Bill should only be in force until August, 1859.
MR. COXsaid, he wished to ask whether the compulsory vaccination clause was removed from the Bill, otherwise, on behalf of his hon. Colleague (Mr. T. Duncombe) he must oppose the Amendment?
MR. WALPOLEexplained that he had arranged with the hon. Member referred to, that if the Bill were passed for a single year only he would not oppose the vaccination clause.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that compulsory vaccination was opposed to the principles of modern science.
The Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3o on Monday next.
House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Medical Practitioners; Stipendiary Magistrates; Copyhold Acts Amendment; Titles to Land (Scotland); Four Courts (Dublin) Extension; Copyright of Designs; Militia Ballots Suspension.

THE EX-KING OF OUDE.—QUESTION;
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEcalled attention to the Report which had appeared in that morning's papers of an answer stated to have been given by the President of the Board of Control on the previous evening to a question addressed to

1551
him with respect to the ex-King of Oude, and asked whether it was true that the ex-King was awaiting a trial, as was there represented? If this were not the case, it was desirable that the error should be corrected, or it might have a very bad effect both in India and elsewhere.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the question to which the noble Marquess referred had been put in the other House on the previous evening, and the answer given, he believed, had not been altogether inaccurately reported. It was not correct, however, to say that the ex-King of Oude was awaiting his trial. He was at the present moment a State prisoner in Calcutta, under strong suspicion of having promoted and fomented the late revolt; and he was now awaiting, not his trial, but the result of an investigation as to how far be had been involved in encouraging that revolt, he being a pensioner of the East India Company. On the result of that investigation would depend the future measures of the Government in respect to him.

CONVOCATION OF YORK.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD REDESDALE: In moving for the documents set forth in my notice, it is not my intention to enter at all into the general question as to the expediency of allowing free action to Convocation. I propose to confine myself strictly to the unfortunate difference which exists in this respect between the northern and southern Provinces, and the cause of that difference. It is, however, necessary for a clear understanding upon the subject, and in my own excuse for bringing it forward, that I should state shortly what has before occurred. Ten years ago the meetings of the Convocation of Canterbury were of the most formal and barren character. At York no attendance had been given for more than a century. In 1851 I called the attention of this House to the advantages which would arise from allowing more extended action to these bodies, by moving for papers, which led to a long debate, in the course of which the present Archbishop of Canterbury expressed himself unfavourable to any change in the existing practice. When the Convocation met in the following year, after the usual forms had been gone through, it was proposed in the Upper House to address the Crown for licence to proceed to other matters. The opinion of Sir John Dodson was given that no business could be under-
  1552
  taken without express permission, which was disputed by some of the Bishops, and the Archbishop stopped the further discussion by prorogation. The opinions of Dr. Phillimore, the present Lord Chancellor, and Sir William Page Wood were then taken by those interested in obtaining further freedom; and they all concurred in holding that the limitations in the Act of Henry VIII. only referred to making new Canons. The Archbishop gave way under the sanction of their authority, and in the succeeding and every subsequent year the Convocation of Canterbury has treated of matters of high importance to the Church, and those prejudices against their deliberations which were at first strong and widely felt, have gradually decreased; and it may now be confidently asserted that churchmen generally are well satisfied of the advantages which must arise from the clergy being thus allowed to meet in lawful assembly. At York, as I before stated, Convocation had not met for a very long period, even to address the Crown. In 1847, Archbishop Harcourt wished to allow his clergy at least the same liberty as was enjoyed in the southern Province, and had agreed that the Convocation should meet on the 12th of November, and adopt an Address to the Crown, which had been approved by his Grace and the other Bishops. He, however, died on the 5th November, before the meeting, and the President elected by the Dean and Chapter, during the vacancy of the see, was unwilling to sanction any departure from the former precedents, and prorogued the Convocation to the 12th of May without agreeing to the Address. The present Archbishop was appointed shortly after that prorogation. On the 12th of May there was no attendance given, and from that time the practice of former years was resumed. In 1852 several Proctors attended with petitions, and finding the doors closed, inquired of the Archbishop, by letter, when they might perform their duty, and his Grace desired that the petitions might be sent to himself. In that year I brought this matter before the House, and contended that the clergy were entitled to similar privileges in both Provinces, being summoned under similar writs. The Most Reverend Prelate then stated that he had only acted in accordance with precedent, but promised that my suggestions should receive his best consideration. Since that time the doors have been open—the members have assemmbled—petitions have been

  1553
  received, but the Archbishop's Commissioners have been instructed not to allow any discussion, and to take written papers only, which are not even allowed to be read, and the Convocation is immediately prorogued. In regard to the term of prorogation his Grace (who professes such extreme reverence for precedent) has introduced a new practice. The custom had always been in both Provinces to prorogue to an early day—and for some time the Archbishop did so—but when he found that the clergy attended, he prorogued beyond the probable term of the Session of Parliament, in order that the Queen's Writ for prorogation might arrive before the time appointed for the assembling. This was first done when Convocation met on 15th December, 1854, when it was prorogued to 31st August, 1855, a period of more than eight months. The Queen, I believe, cannot prorogue Parliament for more than eighty days, and as the Sessions of the two bodies correspond, such prorogations must be of doubtful legality. At all events, his Grace can quote no precedent for them. I now proceed to draw your Lordships' attention to the inconvenience which has arisen from this inaction in the Northern Province, and the disagreeable position in which its clergy are placed by it. In 1855 the Convocation of Canterbury agreed to an Address to the Crown, asking for licence to consider modifications in the constitution of the Lower House, and desired the Archbishop of Canterbury to communicate the same to the Archbishop of York, as they desired the concurrence of the Convocation of that Province. This was never submitted to the Convocation of York, and I believe no notice has been taken of it to this day. In 1856 I presented a petition from members of the Convocation of York, signed by five Archdeacons, four Cathedral Proctors, and by one or both the Proctors of every Archdeaconry in the Province—constituting, I believe, the largest representation of that Convocation which has concurred in any Act since the Reformation. The petition stated, that the Convocation of York was of equal antiquity with that of Canterbury; that the latter had lately met and deliberated, but that all opportunity of participating in such deliberations had been denied to the former; that a Bill relating to the discipline of the clergy was before Parliament, and the petitioners prayed that before that Bill was proceeded with, the House should take steps to have it sub-
  1554
  mitted to the Convocations of both Provinces. The Archbishop was then unfortunately ill, and was unable to attend when the petition was presented, and no explanation of his views and intentions on the subject was then given to the House or to the public. His Grace, however, pursued his former course, and turned a deaf ear to the expressed wishes of the members of his Convocation. In 1857, in the Convocation of Canterbury, a Committee was appointed to consider the best mode of sustaining and extending the missionary efforts of the Church at home and abroad; and the President was requested to communicate this to the Archbishop of York, in order that the co-operation of his Province might be secured. No communication was made to the Convocation of York on the subject, and yet this was a question touching it more nearly than that of Canterbury, inasmuch as the greater number of the large manufacturing towns, to the spiritual destitution of which the inquiries of the Committee were to be particularly directed, are to be found in the northern Province. In his charge to his clergy in this year the Archbishop of York referred to the subject, and expressly stated as the reason for his course that the Convocation of York had become a mere form which he had no authority to alter, and that he could not sanction discussions of at least doubtful legality, which were permitted in Canterbury; that he resolved to adhere to what he believed to be the plain law of the matter, and his duty to the Crown. On this charge the opinions of the present Attorney General and Mr. Stephens were taken, and were clearly in favour of the lawfulness of the Archbishop's allowing the same liberty as is used in Canterbury, and that disuse in no way affected the power or privileges of the Convocation of York. This was communicated to the Archbishop, and a correspondence ensued with his Grace and his legal advisers. I must now express my deep regret that his Grace has not thought fit to attend here to-day, and I must state what has passed between myself and him, in order that I may not be charged with any want of courtesy towards him in bringing this matter forward in his absence. In March last he voluntarily told me, knowing the interest I took in the subject, that he hoped that the dispute about Convocation was likely to come to a settlement, which gave me sincere pleasure.

  1555
  Of course I abstained from bringing the question before the House under such circumstances, and I shortly after was informed of the correspondence before mentioned. In the beginning of June a letter from the Archbishop's legal advisers was shown to me, in which they stated that, having fully considered the documents placed in their hands, they "do not deny that the Northern Convocation may have power, with the consent of the Archbishop, to proceed to action." I immediately wrote to his Grace, noticing the change which the opinion thus given by his own legal advisers made in the position of affairs, as it was now clear that his own sanction alone was required to enable the York Convocation to receive and attend to the communications made to them by Canterbury, which up to that time, under the impression that he was bound by long practice not to, allow them to proceed to business, had hardly met with a courteous reception, and asking whether that sanction would be given on the next occasion. I added that, if he gave me that assurance, I should accept it as a most satisfactory settlement: if not, that I must make the present Motion. In his reply, the Archbishop informed me that for more than a year, "The Committee of Convocation" were about to move for a mandamus against him, which he did not object to, and was looking to this result when he spoke to me in March, and was waiting for it. He added that his circuit of confirmations would not end till July 10, and possibly not so soon. In reply on the 7th of June, I remarked that when the Committee of Convocation first proposed to proceed by mandamus, it was understood that he considered himself bound by precedent to prevent the Convocation of York from proceeding to any business. I added, "Your own advisers now tell you that you can give the desired permission, if you like, and you have allowed that fact to be communicated to the Committee. This materially alters the position of both parties. The moving for a mandamus might be considered, before this announcement, only as a means of obtaining a legal opinion on a point on which you differed in regard to your own powers from those applying for it. Now that you have acknowledged that you have the power, it will appear to be a movement to compel you to do that which it must be presumed you dislike; a state of things which it is surely desirable to avoid. I can scarcely believe that now you are assured that you
  1556
  can legally permit the Convocation of your province to receive and deliberate upon the communications made to them by the Convocation of Canterbury, you can propose to resist the wishes of both bodies; and I should be sorry that your acquiescence in their wishes should lose the grace of appearing to be your own spontaneous act, consequent on the opinion you have lately received, by any notice of Motion in Parliament on my part." In reply, he informed me that a circular had lately been issued by the Committee, proposing another mode of bringing matters to an issue. I immediately endeavoured to find out what this was, and was told that an Address to the Queen was thought of. I wrote to the Archbishop on the 22nd of June, telling him that I concluded this to be the movement he alluded to, and that, as the answer to any such petition must be delayed till Convocation met next year, the waiting for it would lead to the abandonment of all notice in Parliament this Session, to which I could not consent, unless he had resolved to sanction the meeting of Convocation. I mentioned this day (16th July) as the one I proposed to give notice of my Motion for, if it would suit his convenience. I added, "I most anxiously hope, however, that you will render any such proceeding unnecessary, by announcing that it is your intention to permit Convocation to proceed to business. The recently announced opinion of your solicitor enables you to do this without being in danger of taking an illegal step, and I cannot imagine that you can intend, without good reason, to conduct your province in a different manner in this respect to that of Canterbury. If you still resolve to do so, you will be no doubt glad to state in the House your views upon the subject, and it is certainly important that the public and the Church should know them, and that there should be some opportunity given for an expression of opinion upon them. If any other day, within a reasonable time, would suit you better, pray say so, and I will endeavour to arrange accordingly." His Grace replied, that he begged to be understood as not pledging himself to any alteration of his proceedings, and that with respect to the Motion, I might decide on the time judged most fit. I wrote on the 27th of June that I had fixed the 16th of July, as proposed in my former letter, as he had not said that it would be inconvenient to him. I have not heard from him since, and I am sure that your Lordships will

  1557
  admit that it is not from want of proper notice or courtesy on my part that he is not in attendance on the present occasion. I hope that in the statement which I submit I have not made use of any expression of which he could complain. I have endeavoured to bring the question before your Lordships in the fairest manner, and to abstain from saying anything which might excite unpleasant feelings. I am unwilling, in the absence of the most rev. Prelate, to say more than is necessary to make the subject intelligible to your Lordships, or to detain the House this evening, when all are naturally impatient to proceed to the consideration of the Government of India Bill. All, however, must admit the importance of the question before them, and that the clergy of the northern Provinces have just cause to complain that they are, by the arbitrary act of their Archbishop, prevented from enjoying the same privileges as their brethren in the south. Unity in action is always to be desired, and the advantages which may reasonably be expected from the deliberations of the clergy lawfully assembled in Convocation must be seriously marred by those of a large portion of the kingdom being excluded from all participation in them. All other religious bodies in this country meet and discuss matters connected with their interests, and I trust that the Archbishop of York will not continue to place his clergy in a position which must be disagreeable to themselves and injurious to the Church at large.
  Moved,—
  That there be laid before this House,
  Copies of so much of the Acts of Convocation in the Province of Canterbury, at the Sessions of the 29th June, 1855, and 6th February, 1857, as relates to any communication to be made to the Convocation of York or the President of the same; together with the replies to such communications, or tither of them: Also,
  Copy of the Queen's Writ to the Archbishop of York, directing the assembling of the Convocation of that Province on the 10th December last.
  THE BISHOP OF RIPONsaid, he was commissioned by the Archbishop of York to express his regret at not being able to be present to-day, being called away from town by important diocesan business. He (the Bishop of Ripon) thought the terms of the noble Lord's Motion were somewhat calculated to mislead, as they seemed to imply a communication between the Convocations of the two Provinces which in fact had not taken place. The first date
  1558
  referred to in the Motion was June, 1855. In that month an Address was carried in the Upper House of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, praying the Crown for licence to consider certain proprosed modifications in the constitution of the Lower House; and in that Address was a paragraph, praying that a similar licence might be granted to the Convocation of the Province of York, and that the Convocation of Canterbury might have leave to communicate with the Province of York on the subject. That paragraph was, however, struck out in the Lower House, on the ground that it seemed to interfere unduly with the prerogatives of the Convocation of York; but a Resolution was passed at the same time, praying the President of the Convocation of Canterbury, if the amended Address should be agreed to, to communicate it to his Grace the President of the Convocation of the northern Province. That Resolution was carried in the Lower House, and the Address was taken to the Upper House; but there was no record to show that the Upper House accepted the Resolution, or made any communication in consequence to the Lower House or to the Convocation of York. As to June, 1855, therefore, it was absolutely incorrect to say that any communication took place between the Convocation of Canterbury and the Convocation of York. In the meeting of the Convocation of Canterbury, in February, 1857, a Committee of the Upper House was appointed to inquire into the best mode of extending the missionary efforts of the Church at home and abroad, and the Lower House was directed to appoint a Committee to co-operate. It was then that the Bishop of St. David's moved that his Grace the President be requested to communicate with his Grace the Archbishop of York upon the subject, so that time members of Convocation in the northern Province might be brought into deliberation with those Committees. Objections were expressed by the Bishops of Gloucester, London, and Oxford; and the Bishop of St. David's withdrew that Motion, and moved that his Grace the President should inform his Grace the Archbishop of York of the appointment of these Committees, and request him to take such measures as might seem fit to him to secure the assistance in their deliberations of the Bishops of the northern Province. That was agreed to, but it was not a communication from the Convocation of Can-

  1559
  terbury to the Convocation of York; it, was simply a communication from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Archbishop of York in his private capacity, and therefore he was at a loss to know what acts of Convocation could be produced in compliance with the Motion of the noble Lord. With regard to the production of the writ there could be no objection whatever. At the same time he did not see with what design it was moved for, except to raise the whole question how far the Archbishop of York was justified in the course which lie had pursued. It was well known that from the time the power of granting subsidies was taken away the Convocation of York had never met for the transaction of general business, and only very rarely for the transaction of specific business, specifically mentioned in the Royal licence. They met in 1562 to adopt the Thirty-nine Articles, and again in 1571. They met in 1604 for the adoption of the Canons, in 1640 for their settlement, and in 1661, when the Liturgy was revised; but those cases afforded no precedent for the revival of the action of Convocation in the northern Province, such as was now proposed. He believed he was correct in stating that, while the Archbishop of York was perfectly open to receive any suggestions with regard to this important subject, he did not feel obliged, under present circumstances, either by law or by precedent, to take steps for the revival of the action of Convocation. He believed that there were few advantages to be secured by allowing the Convocation of York to meet for the despatch of business which might not be equally secured by the action of the Convocation of Canterbury; and, speaking for himself, and for a large number who were interested in this question, he would simply say that while they would watch with great interest and anxiety the deliberations of the Houses of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, and while they would cordially hail any practical result from their deliberations, they saw nothing in existing circumstances to render necessary the revival of the action of Convocation in the Province of York.
  LORD REDESDALE: Whatever technical objection may be taken to the wording of the Motion, on account of the proceedings alluded to not being Acts of Convocation, it is clear from what has fallen from the rev. Prelate that the Convocation of Canterbury, on both the
  1560
  occasions referred to, did desire the co-operation of the Convocation of York, and that if it did not directly address that body, it only arose from a feeling of delicacy towards the Archbishop. It is clear also that this co-operation is prevented by the act of the Archbishop, who admits that he can legally permit it, if he pleases, and the question is whether it is expedient or seemly that such difference should exist in the conduct of the Archbishops of the two Provinces, in regard to Convocation.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, the discussions in Convocation were reported in a somewhat irregular manner, and in consequence a wrong impression prevailed as to what had passed. No Resolution had been adopted by the Convocation of Canterbury expressive of a desire on their part to enter into communication with the Convocation of York. Such a Resolution had been proposed in 1857, but it had been withdrawn, as the Bishops generally of the Province of Canterbury had felt that it would be highly indecorous that they should appear, even by implication, to pass the slightest blame on the Archbishop of York.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDexplained that the Resolution had been withdrawn because the Prelates present considered its adoption would cast a direct personal slur on the Archbishop of York; but it was considered the same result might be arrived at by other means. There was the strongest feeling in favour of the two Convocations consulting together, as they had done in all the great crises of the English Church. The greatest advantages had been derived from the action of the Convocation of Canterbury, and great credit was due to the Archbishop of the Province, who had not allowed his own opinions to prevent him from sanctioning what was so generally desired. There might, perhaps, be reasons which would make what was desirable for the southern province, dangerous in the north; it was not for him to say. The Archbishop might distrust those who would form it.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE, as a member of the Convocation, could corroborate every word that had fallen from his right rev. Brother the Bishop of Ripon. The Archbishop felt no distrust in his suffragans; but he felt it to be most undesirable to call up another body which might come into collision with the Convocation of Canterbury, and the Archbishop of York had, he thought, acted wisely in following the practice of the northern province for the

  1561
  last 200 years, and in leaving the Convocation of Canterbury to take its own course. He believed that if Convocation were sanctioned generally, all that had taken place would be more child's play compared with that which would follow. The canvassing at elections would then be the rule, and party spirit, of which there was already too much in the Church, would be increased. For himself he must demur to the assertion that the country generally would be pleased to see the revival of Convocation. The great body of the working clergy had no confidence whatever in Convocation. The majority of its members were dignitaries of the Church who were not elected by the body of the clergy, and as to curates they had no voice whatever in the election.
  THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTERcould not assent to the proposition that the clergy had no confidence in Convocation. He did not see why the Church of England should be the only religious body in the country that had not the power of meeting and discussing its own affairs. It was the opinion of that distinguished Prelate the Archbishop of Dublin, expressed in that House, that if Convocation had been permitted to meet for discussion many of those questions that now agitated and disturbed the Church might have been avoided.
  LORD REDESDALE: As the right rev. Prelate assures me that there are no Acts of Convocation of the nature I have moved for, and that there could be no return to my Motion, I shall not press it. It would be useless to ask for that which I am told does not exist.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
  Agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  LORD BROUGHTONsaid, he should rejoice at the abolition of the East India Company, if a better scheme for the government of India were substituted for it; but he did not think that this Bill would effect such a substitution. He thought that the substitution of the present system of governing India by a Secretary of State, or single Minister, to be called by any
  1562
  other name, to whom should be intrusted the administration of the whole government of India, would have been a far better scheme than that proposed by this Bill. He had arrived at that opinion after much deliberation and conversation with men of the highest authority on Indian affairs. This Council was part of the very essence and principle of the Bill. Since the introduction of the Bill a great change had taken place in the minds of Members of both Houses of Parliament as to the expediency of allowing a Council to interfere in the administration of Indian affairs. He collected from the speech last night of the leader of that House under the Palmerston Administration that his views as to the expediency of appointing any such Council had considerably changed since the introduction of Lord Palmerston's Bill. The present form of home government for India was no doubt liable to objections for which every man must be aware, on the ground of delay and differences of opinion between the authorities of Cannon Row, and Leadenhall Street. The shots they fired at each other, however, were sped from a distance, and were cooled by time. But when this new Council was formed, what would be the degree of antagonism—and antagonism there must be if the Council was to be of any good—when they met under the same roof and at the same board, and had to fire across the table? Unless some means could be devised for making this Council, he would not say a little more peaceable, but at all events a little more practical, their Lordships should not pass this clause. He was sure of that. He was opposed to any Council at all; but if he were for a Council it would not be for this Council, which was constructed in a manner that was calculated to ensure the greatest quantity of strife and difference of opinion. Some of the Members were to be East Indian servants—some were to be chosen by the Crown, and some not. He did not see how the objection of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) was to be got rid of when it pleased God to remove any of the Members, and the Council had to be refreshed. The Secretary of State would probably be a person who entertained some general principles of government—such principles as were likely to be entertained by a person reared among the institutions of this country. But when he proposed some scheme to the Council for the government of India, the member of the Council

  1563
  acquainted with Bengal would say, "This won't do at all for Bengal; I know more about Bengal than you." The, Members who were acquainted with Madras and Bombay would say the same; and there would be the Secretary of State alone in the midst of these gentlemen, every one of whom would be better acquainted with India than himself. Then the Bombay gentleman would help the Bengal gentleman one day, and the Bengal gentleman would help the Bombay man the next; and the consequence would be that the responsible Secretary would be liable to be thwarted at every turn. Nor was this the only annoyance or difficulty that would beset him. Those who were acquainted with the system of Indian government must be aware that the great vice of Indian servants was that of making what were called minutes—minutes sometimes on subjects of no more importance than the water bottle before him—which it took hours to read and days to write. Suppose a Member of the Council to be in a minority, he would record his objections in a minute. He would not be satisfied, and would proceed thus. He would seek out some Member of Parliament and say, "I am in a minority in the Council on such a question; most good men are; the case is a good one; I can help you, if you like to make a speech. I wrote a minute of my objections; Mr. So-and-so says it is one of the cleverest he ever read." The Member was ambitious—most Members used to be; he did not know if they were now—and he replied, "Will you let me have it." The Member of Council says, "No, I cannot; but it is a clever document, take my word for it; ask in your place for a copy." The Government of the day would be obliged to say, "We cannot refuse this minute. Under a Parliamentary Government the opinions of the minority should be known at least, if not acted upon." The document was produced; it was read; its was clever; it was submitted to Sir James Graham, or some of those clever fellows in the House, and he was asked what was to be done, for the case was a hard one. He said, "Make a Motion, and we will see what we can do." A meeting of some twenty Members took place in some House or other—it might be the Crown and Anchor; the posts were assigned to each—"you are to bring forward this point, you this, and so on. Do not abuse the Governor General, for he is my friend; but abuse the Secretary of State; he is an un-
  1564
  fair man, and he is not of our party: abuse him." He could assure their Lordships he was not exaggerating what was a very possible case. He agreed with the noble Lord opposite that this might not occur in the first Council. The first members would probably meet with general approbation, and things would go on smoothly for a time; but that would not continue—it could not continue. Did any one ever find fifteen men in a room, even at a party of pleasure, who agreed altogether? If out of the fifteen there was one disagreeable man he would spoil the whole party. That happened in matters of amusement. But what might be the consequence if, when matters of government, when the best interests of the country were depending on the result, what was vulgarly but well called an "ill conditioned fellow" got amongst the party? The consequence would probably be this. One member of the Council would say, "You cannot agree with me, I cannot agree with you; no one can agree with that fellow; let us hand over the decision to the Secretary of State." That must be the only mode of settlement, or nothing would be done. These inconveniences were so entirely felt by the framers of this Bill that they had most judiciously deprived the Council of a great part of its powers, for they gave the Secretary of State power to act without the Council in some cases, and by the twenty-fifth clause they empowered him to act even against the Council. That was wise and proper if there was to be a Council at all. The effects of a bad plan and a bad project might be got rid of by having no project or plan at all. The great objection made to the existing system was what was called the double Government. Now, there was no double Government in the present system, unless a man riding on horseback, with an old woman behind him, might be called a double Government.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Which is the old woman?
  LORD BROUGHTON: Not the noble Earl, certainly. This so-called double Government was no double Government. But the double Government was brought back by this Bill, One of the great inconveniences of the present system was said to be this, that Parliament could not interfere as much in the Government of India as it could, if there was a single responsible Minister. Now, he thought that one of the great advantages of the present system was, that it prevented the perpetual

  1565
  introduction of Indian questions into Parliament. That was his decided opinion. They could not govern India on these terms, especially with the increased facilities of communication which now existed between this country and India. He would therefore keep the Government of India out of Parliament as far as possible. But this measure would really diminish the responsibility of the Indian Minister, because he would be fettered by the existence and by the control of his Council. If the Secretary of State was outvoted in the Council on some question or plan of Indian Government, he would, in stating the plan in the House of Commons, indicate to his friends that though he was moving the plan, it was not his—that he was overruled in the Council. The Council might object to the Secretary of State taking matters out of their cognizance. That had been said to him when at the Board of Control very frequently; and what was his answer? "I don't think so; you are quite wrong." There was civility on both sides, and there was an end of it. But that would not be the case now with these gentlemen, who had their friends in Parliament, in the City, and everywhere. If this Bill passed, it would create that form of government which had been condemned by all authorities on Government—an imperium in imperio. Though the members of the Council themselves might not sit in Parliament, there was nothing to prevent their sons, or sons-in-law, or fathers-in-law from doing so. For the fifteen who could not sit, there might be thirty nearly connected with them who could sit in Parliament, and who could do the work better than themselves. The more they considered this scheme, the less likely did it appear to hold together. He did not say that he was sure it would fail. He did not want it to fail. It was a dangerous thing to prophesy about what was to happen to-morrow or at home. It was a safer course to predict what was to happen in 100 years, or in Armenia, or some distant part of the world. All he said was, that if the measure did succeed, it would succeed against the experience of all the men he had ever heard talk on the subject, against the experience of the country, and against their Lordships' experience with reference to other matters. It was said, "Would you trust one man with the government of 180,000,000 of people?" Why, they trusted the noble Earl(the Earl of Derby)
  1566
  with the government of a great many more than 180,000,000; one man was responsible for the government of the whole empire. [The Earl of DERBY: With his Cabinet.] He selected his Cabinet on that principle; so would the Secretary of State for India. If there was anything which the Prime Minister could not settle offhand, the Cabinet would be assembled. He (Lord Broughton) would rather trust one intelligent, honest man with the management of affairs with which he had been previously properly acquainted, than he would trust half-a-dozen men. The Secretary of State would have no difficulty in getting a staff about him. He might easily get a sufficient number of men to advise and assist, not to thwart him, but to give opinions; in this way, if a proper choice were made of the Secretary, the Government of India would be conducted as well as human prudence could devise. The notion of the necessity of a Council had arisen from the functions of the old Court of Directors. Did their Lordships think that the despatches were written by the Court of Directors or any of them? When he was at the Board of Control they always recognised certain hands, and knew, or thought they knew, who wrote each of the despatches, as well as if they had stood behind the gentleman's chair while he was doing it. It was one of the great merits of the Court of Directors which ought to be recorded and never forgotten, that they chose good servants and wise servants. Did their Lordships ever know a foolish person choose wise servants? Never. The servants of the Court were as good men as were ever found for the performance of their functions, and those men were available now. Mr. John Mill was alive—so were many others; he mentioned Mr. Mill, without any intention of disparaging others, because he was a well-known and distinguished man. There were others at the Board of Control whose assistance would be most valuable. Upon great questions of peace or war, the Secretary of State would of course summon his Cabinet, and take their opinions and advice. He would ask Low matters were conducted at the Board of Admiralty? He had been told that the experiment had been tried of conducting all the business by a Board instead of by the First Lord; but when they met they fell asleep. Sometimes one man did not agree with the First Lord, and threatened to talk him out. There was such a thing, he believed, as the Treasury Board;

  1567
  he should like to know how often that Board met. They might do so occasionally; but he was told that it was not a real, consultative, deliberative Board. If the Treasury did not require a Board, why should the Secretary for India require one? Surely, if anybody needed others to share his responsibility, the master of the British dominions for the time being, the First Lord of the Treasury, must do so. It was certain that the Secretary of State for India never would derive from such a Council as the Bill proposed any light or knowledge that he could not get from others, without the embarrassment of a deliberative Council. He entreated the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) to reconsider this question, if there was any chance of doing so. It was perpetuating the worst part of the old East India Company. The proposed Council would be like the Phœnix, that
  "Soared and shined, another, and the same."
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the noble Lord had made an amusing speech, but he had drawn largely upon his fertile imagination, and had misrepresented the provisions of the Bill. His object was to pass the Bill, and if he followed the noble Lord in discussing all the points he had raised and all the clauses he had adverted to, and if other noble Lords did the same, the Bill could scarcely be passed during the present Session.
  LORD BROUGHTON: The clauses I referred to all relate to the Council.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: But they were now discussing the Bill clause by clause, and it was contrary to all order, upon a clause which constituted the Council, to discuss everything relating to that Council. This was entirely beside the question, which was whether a Council should be established for the advice and assistance of the Secretary of State, and to that question, contrary to the example of the noble Lord, he should confine his observation. The noble Lord had said that because the Treasury Board and the Board of Admiralty did not meet as Boards, there was no reason why the Secretary of State for India should have a Council to assist him. But the Council proposed was upon a totally different footing from any of the Boards referred to. The Secretary of State would allot the business among the different members in such a manner as he thought most convenient for the public service. It was part of the duty of the head of a department to allot the business in such a
  1568
  manner as was most convenient, and a discretionary power was given to the Secretary of State in the Bill to divide the Council into Committees for the despatch of business. Special power was given to the Secretary of State to divide the Council into Committees for the despatch of business, and to obtain the assistance and advice of the most competent persons. The questions of how the Council was to be constituted, what should be its duties, and so on, would be discussed on the different clauses; but the question raised by the noble Lord was—should the Secretary of State have a Council at all. It was true this was a main principle of the Bill; and if upon one question more than another there had been a universal agreement in both Houses, it was this—that it was expedient that the Minister for India should be assisted by such a Council to a certain degree. The Bill of the late Government proposed a Council of eight members, to serve for ten years. By the Bill introduced when Lord Ellenborough was at the Board of Control, the Council was to consist of eighteen members; they would of course have divided their duties. But that the Secretary of State of India should have the means of resorting, not unofficially but officially, to persons of great experience and knowledge on all subjects connected with India was a principle that had been adopted and laid down by almost all men of any eminence who had been called upon to discuss the question. He wholly denied that this Council was a recurrence, or any thing like a recurrence, to the double government which had existed under the former system. The evil of that double government was this—that there were two separate and entirely distinct authorities, each of which expressed an independent opinion—that these authorities were frequently brought into conflict or collision—and that it required voluminous correspondence and a great deal of time to settle their differences and obtain their entire concurrence and consent. Here there was no such double government—no such conflict of authorities; the council was not an authority adverse to or competing with the Secretary of State; its duties were precise and limited; they were limited, except in particular cases, to giving advice and opinion to the Secretary of State; and that advice and opinion he was at liberty to adopt or reject as he thought fit. There was nothing to fetter or diminish in the slightest degree the responsibility which he

  1569
  owed to Parliament. He agreed with the noble Lord that it was desirable in practice that the affairs of India should, as far as possible, be withdrawn from the weekly and daily discussion in Parliament; and the most probable way of doing that was to surround the Secretary of State with a body of persons of eminence and distinction, of knowledge and experience, to whom with regard to every question he had it in his power to apply, not for authority, but for advice and opinion; and that advice and opinion would be given with a perfect knowledge of the subject. The principle of Council or no Council was all that was involved in this clause; upon that principle rested the main provisions of the Bill; and he trusted that their Lordships would not reject a clause which had been almost unanimously agreed to by the other House, and a principle which had the sanction of every authority.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETfelt some surprise at the language of the noble Earl, for he thought his noble Friend (Lord Broughton) was quite right in discussing the question of the Council upon the first clause relating to that body. The noble Earl appeared to think that the speech of his noble Friend was one that ought to have been made upon the second reading; but their Lordships had quite enough before them yesterday in discussing whether the dominions of the East India Company should be transferred to the Crown. The noble Earl said that all parties were agreed upon the subject of a Council; but having more leisure than the noble Earl he had carefully read the discussions which had taken place in the other House of Parliament, and found the greatest diversity of opinion upon all the questions relating to the Council—of whom, for example, it should consist, whether its members were to be elected for life, what their powers were to be, and how they were to be appointed. It would be most unwise in their Lordships to say whether there should be a Council or not without knowing what sort of Council it was to be, and what the Bill proposed. He believed that as the Bill was first prepared the Council were to meet on the requisition of five members; but that power had been taken from them. Then they were to see the despatches that went to India; but there was no provision that they should see those that came from India. Indeed the greatest jealousy was shown of the Council throughout the entire Bill. The noble Earl told the House
  1570
  last night that secrecy would be observed by the Secretary of State in regard to the operations of war and dealings with Native States. But how was the Secretary of State to go on in case of war without the Council? He would have to come to the Council for money; and was he likely to obtain that unless they were told all about the objects for which the money was wanted? Those fifteen gentlemen would naturally be desirous to see all the papers—they would hold meetings to consider the subject, and before the money was given they would insist on knowing all about the business on hand. He knew something of the Admiralty, of the Treasury, of the Board of Control, and other public departments, but he must say he had never seen or heard of the business of any of theta being conducted after this fashion. What would the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs think if he had a Council the members of which would have to be informed of every important transaction in which he was engaged, and that too before he would be able to carry out his policy—take, for example, the recent outrage in Arabia? How would he like to have a number of gentlemen going into his office, turning up his papers, and insisting on being made acquainted with the business he had on hand? Why he would be apt to turn them out of doors. The members of this Council were to be excluded from Parliament, but nevertheless the consent of Parliament was to be obtained to all important measures that were resolved upon with regard to India; and the Secretary of State was to be left to grapple alone with these cases in which the wrongs, real or supposed, of Native Princes were sometimes taken up with so much professional zeal in the House of Commons. With regard to the supposed influence of the Council he would put this case. Suppose, when Sir Colin Campbell came home—as he hoped he would, and receive the honours which awaited him—suppose when he took his seat in that House he were to make a statement regarding the organization of the Indian army and the best means of securing its health and efficiency—what would be the effect of that statement as compared with the opinions which might be held by the fifteen old men who constituted the India Board? Would their opinions have the slightest weight alongside of those held by such a man as Sir Colin Campbell? He believed this Council had answered its

  1571
  purpose—it had got the Bill through the House of Commons, and he thought that now the best thing for the Bill would be to get rid of the Council altogether. The only effect of setting up a number of Old Indians as a Council would be to interfere with and annoy the Secretary. Most of them would have been long out of India; they would have lost the thread of policy, and in no respect would their counsels have any great weight. The House of Commons passed this Bill under the idea that they would make the Secretary of State responsible; but they nevertheless established a Council which, whenever money was wanted, would have him entirely under control—for he would be unable to move in opposition to the views of a majority of the Council. Perhaps the Council might say they wished to lay by so much money for purposes of irrigation; but the Secretary of State might think it was more desirable to expend it on barracks, in order to improve the health of the army. In such a case, whenever a question as to the health of the troops was raised in the House of Commons the Secretary of State would be compelled to say be was no longer responsible for the health of the troops, because his hands were tied. How could they say there must be divided management and not divided responsibility? This was a problem which they must solve, and unless they could solve it the best thing they could do was to strike the present clause out of the Bill. If the Council were given up the Bill would be worked much more efficiently, the Secretary of State would be able to originate measures and to carry them out with more energy than would be possible if it were retained. He would move that the clause be omitted from the Bill
  THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEsaid, that he had, on a former occasion, stated at length the objections he entertained to the constitution of a Council. He could not see any advantages in a Council that were not equally attainable in a Secretariat with a staff proportionate to the work to be done. But he had another objection to the constitution of the Council, to which, as the noble Duke had rightly said, their Lordships were bound to look. He objected to its constitution on the ground that its members for the most part would consist of those very "Old Indians" who had always declared that system to be perfection which had recently exploded in rebellion. He asked
  1572
  whether this class of men were best suited to carry out a new system of government for India? He did not altogether share in the panegyrics which had been bestowed on the Board of Directors; but they were wise in their generation:—they did not select "Old Indians" for their servants. In 1817, when the Earl of Buckinghamshire was President of the Board of Control, he found the East India Directors could not write their own despatches. He immediately requested that a class of men should be appointed to do the business for them, and those persons were introduced under the name of Examiners, and, quoad the duties of the East India Company, these were the persons who virtually carried on the government of India. There were great names connected with the Company in that capacity who had never set foot in India; and, amongst others, John Mill (the historian), Mr. John Stuart Mill, and Mr. M'Cullagh. Now, what, he would ask, was an "Old Indian?" He was a person who possessed great knowledge of a small locality, who knew nothing of India itself, and was in utter ignorance of English statesmanship. What was wanted in this Bill was more of the European element. The Indian element, which had hitherto prevailed, had got them into the scrape, and the European element was required to get them out of it. The Indian Councils were composed of men who had been many years in India, but the great majority of those gentlemen were never out of Calcutta in their lives; and what was the consequence? Residing in only one part of India, they supposed that all the inhabitants of the country were like those docile creatures by whom they were surrounded, and then they resorted to extreme measures, and attempted to strip the proprietors of the North-West Provinces of their lands, and were surprised to find they had roused them into rebellion. He should only add that he intended to vote with the noble Duke.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he felt as great a respect for the distinguished gentlemen who had been in the service of the East India Company as any other noble Lords could do; still he did not think that even the combination of the highest endowments in persons whose experience had been exclusively acquired in the civil service could be all that is necessary for the future government of India. They must have a direction of a different kind to bring that government into complete harmony

  1573
  with English institutions; yet, by the system proposed they would exclude from the House of Commons fifteen of the best men who could advise that House on Indian subjects. Without some Parliamentary restraint upon the Secretary of State, they would leave him a complete and positive despot; but, by the exclusion from the House of Commons of every member of the new Council, that uncontrolled despotism had been recommended as the best system to adopt. He could not, however, agree to it. There had been objections raised to the members of the Council which were not sound, for it should be remembered that that Council would not be merely a Board of Treasury, a Board of Trade, a Privy Council Office, a War Department, a Foreign and Home Secretaryship, and a Board of Admiralty, but it would be charged with the functions of all, and with Legislative duties in addition. No doubt the Council would have occasion to meet in one body to dispose of the most important business brought before them, but it was by a division of labour in Committees that they could alone be enabled to get through the whole business efficiently; the same system was proposed to be adopted, or rather continued, by this Bill. It should be remembered that they were not dealing with the business of a Department, but with the Governments of many great States, and all analogies drawn from Downing Street and Whitehall failed when they attempted to apply them to our great Indian empire. The only President of the Board of Control in our time, and who had acquired practical experience in India, was the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough). Almost all the other Presidents of that Board possessed no practical knowledge of the dominions they governed—and were their Lordships wise in depriving Parliament of the assistance of those who had had experience in India, because on account of that experience they had been selected as Councillors for India? When they spoke so disparagingly of "Old Indians," he would ask what they would not give for the assistance of such a man as Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone, or others whom he could name? But, for some reasons which he could not fathom, such men, if added to the Councils, were banished from Parliament. At the commencement of the Session their Lordships returned an answer to the Speech from the Throne, pledging themselves to give their utmost deliberation to the affairs of India. How
  1574
  imperfectly had that pledge been redeemed? They now found themselves in the middle of July, with the knowledge that their days were numbered, in the midst of a discussion where great differences of opinion existed—opinions as contrasted as those which had been foreshadowed as likely to exist among the Council. This, too, without witnesses, documentary evidence, or effective guidance. If Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone were now in Parliament, and could enter into the direction of affairs, or if Sir Thomas Munro survived, and were amongst us, what would they not give for their advice? There were many whose great names were sufficient to defend the Indian service and the class to which they belonged from vituperation and the sneers of those who disposed of the argument by their use of the designation of "Old Indians." While they sought the assistance and advice of eminent men who had served in India, they should not make complaints against a clause which admitted into the Council eminent public men who had served in India. But why should they rashly exclude from Parliament the services of those men? When it was stated that there was a growing feeling in favour of a Minister without a Council, he invited those who ventured on such an assertion to test that statement by taking a vote upon it either in this House or the other House of Parliament. He was for a Council effective and consultative, exercising a moral control, though he did not deny that the Secretary for India should be supreme, and empowered to act alone when circumstances demanded and justified such exercise a his authority.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he could not agree with the noble Earl that the general feeling was now in favour of a Council. He believed that there was formerly such a feeling, for it was a natural one, and one which he had himself shared. Everybody must at the first blush agree that the Minister charged with the affairs of an empire so vast and so varied as India ought to have the assistance of persons who possessed the greatest knowledge of the country; but the more they went into the question, the more they would be convinced that the construction of an independent Council for such a purpose was impossible. He had arrived at that conscientious conclusion; and if he wanted any confirmation of that view of the case, it would be supplied by the Bill which had been sent to their Lordships by the House of Commons.

  1575
  That Bill was neither more nor less than a compromise—a compromise between the principle of having a responsible Minister and the principle of establishing a controlling Council. They would find in it one set of clauses which seemed to give the Council great power, and they would find another set which took its power away altogether. There seemed to be in the Bill a desire to create a balance of power; and a balance of power they had got—the power of the Government was, in point of fact, completely nullified by the Bill. Nobody could be more averse to despotism than he was himself; but in the Bill they were dealing with an executive Government, and an executive Government must in some respects partake of the nature of a despotism, or it must be inefficient; but a check was provided against despotism on the part of the Executive in this country by the constitutional action of Parliament; but nobody had proposed that the action of the Executive should be nullified by the action of Parliament. He knew that there was a disposition on the part of Parliament to encroach upon the Executive; but he know of no more dangerous principle than that it should so encroach. An Indian Minister would of course be responsible to public opinion; but the Council they proposed would be responsible neither to the Minister nor to the public opinion—that was, supposing the theory of the Bill was carried out. But the other House, while it had created a Council over which no one had control, had taken very efficient means to prevent the danger of an independent Council. It had taken care that there should neither be an efficient Council nor an efficient Minister. By the 27th clause it was proposed that all matters at present discussed by the Secret Committee should be left entirely to the Minister. There was a vague idea prevalent that to entrust the highest interests of India to any one man would be dangerous to the public service; but the Bill carefully provided that those very interests should be entirely removed from the cognisance of the Council. But it might be said that the Bill gave the Council a control over the finances of India. Yes, and a more inconsistent power was never conferred, because the Council would have to deal with questions of finance, connected with circumstances of which they would have no cognizance. Again, the country, deluded by the speeches they had beard, thought that when such men as Elphinstone, Frere, Outram, and Lawrence
  1576
  came home, they would immediately have seats in the Council. But just imagine such men sitting in Council, performing duties which might be entrusted to clerks, and never being consulted about those more important matters in which they had been, for twenty or thirty years before, engaged—questions of war and peace, of treaties and negotiations? Such men would never enter the Council at all. They would rather endeavour to enter Parliament, and in that capacity they might render essential service to their country. He did not complain that the matters he had referred to were withdrawn from the Council; for he thought that they would be much better left to a responsible Minister; but in pursuing the shadow of an independent Council, he was afraid they had impaired the efficiency of the Minister.
  LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, that if the Amendment of the noble Lord were carried the Council would be set aside altogether. He was not prepared to vote for going that length as the Council appeared to him to be an essential part of the Bill; at the same time he would be ready to join with those noble Lords who might feel disposed to suggest Amendments with regard to its constitution. The great object of the Bill was to insure direct and complete action for the Government of India, and he was not prepared to say that that could be accomplished so well without the agency of a Council. It struck him that a Council so constituted as to admit those who had the greatest experience with respect to the affairs of India would be the best. He was bound at the same time to admit that, in his opinion, the Council as proposed was far too numerous. He was of opinion that a Council of five or seven at the utmost would be far better than a Council of fifteen, as proposed in the Bill. He would not on the present occasion intrude further on their Lordships' attention, except to repeat that, while he would not take part in a vote to exclude the Council altogether, he was quite prepared to join with those who desired to make a change in its constitution.
  LORD ASHBURTONsaid, he thought the great use of a Council would be to examine into the details of the administration of the Government of India rather than to give advice on matters relating to peace and war; and after all, the real question their Lordships had to consider was the best way
  to preserve the liberties of the people of In-

  1577
  dia. The Indian empire was governed by an absolute power, and the only check upon that power existed in England. The grievances of the Natives were never heard until they rose in mutiny. At present every act of our officers in the East came home and was carefully examined; and he hoped the same accurate supervision would be perpetuated under the Bill; otherwise we could never hope to ensure the people from injustice. It must not be supposed that the demoralisation of our Bengal army had now become apparent for the first time. In 1833 statements were made which showed the necessity there was for immediate reform. When the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) went out to India, he took one of the best possible measures that he could possibly have adopted. He established a police, and withdrew the army from the demoralising duty of guarding traitors and gaols, to which, from what had since occurred, he was afraid they again returned. In 1853 the necessity of some measures to avert a threatened disaster, was again acknowledged; and why were they not taken? Because all the officers to whom the Government was entrusted held their appointments by so fleeting a tenure, that none of them had time to devise and introduce a better system. He trusted that the Bill would remedy that evil, and would also render a continuous and consistent Indian policy possible. Hitherto the East India Company had known that their only chance of resisting the power of the Crown had laid in the choice of able persons to serve them, and hence there had been a desire to secure the most eminent persons for the office of Director; but what reason was there to expect that the Council would be superior to the officers of any other department of the Government? When vacancies had to be filled up the ordinary motives would prevail, and there would be an indisposition to set aside an old and faithful servant in favour of a stranger.
  LORD BELPERsaid, it appeared to him rather extraordinary that it should be proposed by the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset), to intrust the momentous interests of our Indian empire, without any control whatever, to a single Minister, who would perhaps be totally inexperienced in Indian affairs. He knew it was said that the Minister would be responsible to Parliament, but it was always urged that Parliament ought not to interfere in Indian affairs, except on occasions of extreme im-
  1578
  portance. It was argued that it was impossible to reconcile responsibility to Parliament with a Council thus composed. He did not see that difficulty; for, although the Minister must ultimately be responsible to Parliament, he would act under the knowledge that in differing from persons well informed and well acquainted with India, who had the power to record their opinions, He must be prepared to defend his own decision by the weightiest arguments. He should like to see the enactment with regard to the powers now exercised by the Secret Committee expunged, so as to have all matters brought before the Council, because he was afraid that if the Secretary of State had the power, when he pleased, to act upon his own responsibility without consulting his Council, a great part of the advantage expected from the Council would be lost.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that whatever opinion might be entertained as to the expediency of having a Council, constituted as proposed, it had been generally agreed that some Council was necessary. For himself, from the beginning he had had doubts as to the expediency of a Council, and these doubts had been strengthened by reflection. Their great object, however, was to pass a bill simplifying the government of India, and for that reason he thought that it would be better that the present Motion should not be pressed to a division.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, as he understood the noble Earl, the object of this Council was to give advice. That was an object which would have been obtained by the Bill of the late Government, but he thought this Bill failed very much in that respect. The Council would degenerate very much into a small Parliament. Why so large a number should have been selected he did not know, unless it were to absorb some twelve Directors, at any rate that would be the result. With the view of reducing the number he would move the insertion of the words "not more than" before fifteen.
  Moved after the first "of" to insert "not more than."
  THE EARL OF DERBYwould assure the noble Marquess the number fifteen had been chosen without the slightest desire to provide places for individual expectants, but rather because they thought that number necessary for the discharge of the duties devolving upon them. Indeed his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough)

  1579
  thought that eighteen would be necessary to discharge these functions. If these words were inserted it would not only affect this clause but make many of the others, to a certain extent, inapplicable. When the noble Marquess compared this Bill with that of the late Government, he seemed to have forgotten that in the constitution of the Council, the mode of proceeding, functions, power over the Secretary, the course with regard to secret despatches, the meetings of the Board, and the much-objected-to restriction on the finance—in all these respects this Bill was so nearly taken from the other with which it was compared that when they came to these clauses he was afraid the Government Bill would be charged with being a servile imitation. In fact, the noble Lord opposite and the late President of the Council had been expending their witticisms on their own Bill.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETthen moved "to disagree to the said clause."
  Question put, "Whether the said clause shall stand part of the Bill.'
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, this clause gave the present Directors power to elect seven persons from among themselves and from among the number of those who were now or who had been Directors. The gentlemen who were now in the direction, and who were to have this power of electing seven from among themselves, and those formerly in the direction eligible to be elected, were of the average age of sixty, and the united ages of the fifteen would be 900. The persons who had been made to retire from the direction had been declared to be persons inferior to those who remained, and he could not see the propriety of asking the latter to elect men whom they thought inferior to themselves. The persons thus made eligible were now five or six years older than when they were in office, and he had never heard that an old man improved by being laid on the shelf for five or six years.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he thought it might safely be left to the Court of Directors to elect those whom they might think the most capable men among those who were at present serving, or who had before served in their body. He did not think the point raised by his noble Friend
  1580
  was one of much importance, and he saw no occasion for altering the clause.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, his noble Friend had last night made some jocose remarks upon the arrangement in this clause, by which alternate appointments were to be made by the Crown and the Council, and he seemed to think that as the clause stood the balance between the elected Members and the nominated Members would be disturbed. If his noble Friend thought the arrangement was defective he would not object to the introduction of a clause by which, as vacancies occurred, they should be filled up alternately by elected and nominated members, in such a way as to preserve the proper proportions of the two.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, it was unncessary to introduce a new clause, as the correction could be made in the existing clause; and he suggested the introduction of words for that purpose.
  Amendment made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYproposed that after the words, "ten years at the least," there should be added, "and (excepting in the case of late and present Directors and Secretaries of the East India Company) shall not have last left India more than ten years next preceding the date of their Appointment."
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the object of the noble Earl was to get the most recent experience in the Council, but as the alteration was not necessary and might restrict freedom of choice he must oppose the addition of the words.
  Motion, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn,
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 11, (Council are to hold office during good behaviour).
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he believed that by this clause the Members of the Council were to be appointed for life. He much preferred the provision in the Bill of the late Government, and in the first Bill of the present, which made the tenure for a term of years only. It was impossible to predicate of any man that he would be fit for duty during the whole period of his life. Indeed they could not say with certainty that any man would for the next five years be fit for duty, much less for life. He recollected

  1581
  that the late Sir Robert Peel never promised office to any man, because although he might be fit at the moment, yet he might be altogether unfit when a vacancy occurred. There was no doubt a sort of safety valve in the shape of pensions to the members of the Council after ten years' service; but, whatever might be the collective wisdom of the Council, he was confident that their individual wisdom would be such that they would greatly prefer remaining in office at £1,200 a year, with all the patronage, to taking a pension of £500 a year with no patronage at all. He thought it would be much better that the members should be appointed for five years only, as the Government and the Council would then have an opportunity of reconsidering the propriety of any individual appointment. The consequences of appointing men to public offices for life had been most injurious to the public service. He happened to know that there was a case not long ago in which a gentleman in the East India directorship was so utterly inefficient that he could not perform any business whatever except distribute his patronage, which was done by his wife. That lasted for three years. Another gentleman was so utterly inefficient that when he was put out of the directorship five years ago it was impossible to make him understand that he was out; and he persisted in going continually to Leaden-hall Street to take his seat as a Director. Now, he (the Earl of Ellenborough) wished to avoid such scandals. Five years, he thought, was quite long enough. That period would enable the Government and the Council to eliminate three Members every year. The noble Earl concluded by moving that the appointments should be only for five years.
  Moved, to leave out "during good behaviour" and to insert "for five years."
  THE EARL OF DERBYthought his noble Friend must have been unfortunate in his old acquaintances in Leadenhall Street and elsewhere. There might be exceptional cases, but practical experience, he believed, showed that men in judicial and other public situations did not, when a moderate retiring pension was offered to them, hold on, when they had become unfit for the performance of their duties. The late Government proposed that the appointments should be for ten years; but the House of Commons, with the view of securing the independence of the Council, determined that the appointments should be for life.
  1582
  He certainly could not agree with the proposition of the late Government that the appointments should be for ten years, and much less could he agree with the proposition of his noble Friend.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought that the difference of five, eight, or ten years was of no great importance, so long as there was some restriction. It was impossible to say that any fifteen men, however well they might be known, were the best men to serve on a Council like this for life. If they were not re-eligible it would be impossible to avoid their giving stale advice.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12, which provides that no Member of the Council, appointed or elected, should be capable of sitting or voting in Parliament,
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYproposed as an Amendment to substitute for the words "no member," the words "not more than three members at the same time." As the clause was framed he believed that its effect would be to exclude from the Council some of the very best men who could be placed upon it. For example, it would deprive the Council of the services of such men as Lord Canning, Lord Dalhousie, Lord Ellenborough, and Sir Colin Campbell, if he should return to this country and be made a peer. His object was to provide that men of this description should not be precluded from sitting on the Council.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEhoped the Government would adopt the Amendment, otherwise the best men would be excluded from the Council. It was a great object of ambition with those who had served in India to terminate their career in Parliament, and they would prefer a seat there to any temptation held out by the Council. He could see no reason for a limit of three as proposed by the Amendment. They should admit all or exclude all. It would be very dificult to carry out in practice the principle of a limitation. It was not likely that any great number of the Council would be in Parliament. The average number of Directors in Parliament had never exceeded five.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsuggested that the words "or elected" should be struck out. If that was done, the elected members only could sit in Parliament, and the difficulty as to the danger of Ministerial corruption would be avoided.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHhoped

  1583
  his noble Friend would adhere to the Bill as it stood. A conflict in the House of Commons between the Minister and his Subordinates would be most unseemly and most injurious, and he urgently entreated their Lordships not to adopt any suggestions for the alteration of the clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE moved, at the end of clause to insert the following words ("or shall hold or carry on any Office, Business, Trade, or Profession from which any gain or profit may arise").
  EARL GRANVILLEadmitted that the members ought to be excluded from Parliament; as to the suggestion of his noble Friend (the Earl of Albemarle) he thought they were entitled to ask what were the real intentions of the Act on this point, and whether a rule was to be laid down that the members should devote their whole time to the duties of their office. If the pressure of business was such as to require fifteen members, it would be rather an anomaly to allow them to engage in any other business.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it was certainly not intended that those gentlemen should be dilettante members of the Council. The business of the Council must be their primary duty, and whatever time was required from them by the business they would be called upon to give up to it. Further than that he could not go. With regard to the Councillors being Members of Parliament, there must of course be great inconvenience in having them sitting on the opposite side of the House and taking different views on Indian and other matters from the Secretary of State: moreover, to give the Secretary of State the power of holding out to a Member of Parliament the prospect of getting a permanent situation of £1,200 a year, on condition of supporting the Government, might lead to great Parliamentary corruption.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONwished to know whether any member who at the time of his appointment or election might be engaged in trading or banking would be obliged to give it up, as persons appointed to under Secretaryships or similar offices are now compelled to do?
  THE EARL OF DERBYreplied, they could not continue any business requiring a degree of personal attention which would interfere with the duties of their office; but he could not admit that a man should be disqualified because he was an eminent merchant, or a great banker, or a sleeping partner in a great brewery.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, the same rule ought then to be applied to the offices he had mentioned.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHstrongly urged that the Councillors should not be allowed to engage in trade. Not a month would pass but they would have large contracts to take up for shipping, or to open or close a loan for India, or to decide upon a railway; and it would be much better that they should be above suspicion by their being free from trade altogether. All possible grounds of suspicion of motives of self-interest, on the part of the Councillors, should be avoided.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, there was no analogy between the members of Council and Under Secretaries of State. As to the noble Earl's (the Earl of Ellenborough's) objection, if he was so averse to members being engaged in trade, what became of his own pet scheme of firms having representatives from the great trading powers in England?
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had always thought that, if they were to have a Council entirely devoted to their duties, they ought to retain no interest which could possibly be affected by their official acts.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEbelieved it was a fact that £4,000,000 of supplies were now annually contracted for in London which could be more advantageously obtained in Calcutta; but the object was to keep up the City influence.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that the government of India was essentially a government of records, as had been remarked by a noble Lord opposite, who had been himself President of the Board of Control. Everything was reported home, and the documents passed through the various departments. He could assure their Lordships that, if every member of the Council were to attend every day for four or five hours, there would be ample for them to do. The great difficulty was to have all the details and records before them which were necessary, in order to arrive at a sound conclusion.
  EARL GRANVILLEproposed the insertion of words which would oblige every member of Council, on his appointment, to give up any trade or profession in which he might be engaged.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEwas of opinion that even the sacrifice of four or five hours a day on the part of the members of the new Council would not be in-

  1585
  compatible with the discharge of commercial pursuits, and that it would be of great advantage to have the experience and general information of gentlemen largely engaged in commerce.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was strongly of opinion that such a restriction as was proposed ought not to be made. Persons in trade might very probably be the best members of Council. At all events they ought not to disqualify persons who might be otherwise qualified for the duties of the office.
  LORD CRANWORTHthought that no man ought to be in such a position that his interest should clash with his duty; and on that ground he was of opinion that no person engaged in any trade or profession should continue in the Council.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETthought that they ought to make the Council as free from the suggestion of suspicion as possible, and he was, therefore, favourable to the proposed restriction.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYalso thought that men engaged in commercial transactions ought not to have seats in the Council.
  On Question, whether the said words shall be there added?
  House divided:—Contents 35; Not-Contents 50: Majority 15.

  CONTENTS.

  Marlborough, D.

  Audley, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Belper, L.

  Somerset, D.

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

  Ailesbury, M.

  Camden, M.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Cranworth, L.

  Delamere, L.

  Albemarle, E. [Teller.]

  De Tabley, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Clarendon, E.

  Hamilton, L. (Belhaven and Stenton.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Granville, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Powis, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Sydney, V.

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

  London, Bp.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Wodehouse, L.

  Wycombe, L. (E. Shelburne.)

  Ashburton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bathurst, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Manchester, D.

  Carnarvon, E.

  De La Warr, E.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Derby, E.

  Salisbury, M.

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

  Amherst, E.

  1586

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Chichester, Bp.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Bateman, L.

  Pomfret, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Romney, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Denman, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Shrewsbury and Talbot, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Farnham, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Wilton, E.

  Grantley, L.

  Melros, L. (E. Haddington.)

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Raglan, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Dungannon, V.

  Redesdale, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore) [Teller.]

  Sondes, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14, providing that any Member of Council may, by writing under his hand, which should be recorded on the Minutes of the Council, resign his office, and that it should be lawful for the Queen to grant to any person having held the office of Member of Council for ten years a retiring pension during life of £500, agreed to.
  Clause 15, referring to the Appointment of Secretaries and Officers of the Council of India.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that those who were appointed should be gentlemen possessing a knowledge of engineering and works in that country.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 16 to 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22.
  THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY moved the omission of the words empowering a certain number of the members of the Council to require a meeting of the body within the space of three days. He did not think that provision could be necessary, as the Council must, by another clause in the Bill, meet at least once a week.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he thought that cases might arise in which it would be desirable that the Council should have that power. It would, besides, add to the dignity and importance of their office.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it appeared to him that such a power would only enable the Councillors to take up a hostile attitude towards the Secretary of State.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 23 to 26 were agreed to.
  Clause 27.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he would not repeat the observations he made last night upon the regulations as to seeing the despatches which had hitherto passed through the hands of the Secret Committee. Formerly these despatches might be inspected by the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman and one member of the Court of Directors. He would suggest that the Secretary of State should be obliged to communicate his despatch to the Under Secretary and one other member of the Council.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that if there were any inadvertence, it was the inadvertence of noble Lords opposite, for this clause was copied from Clause 22 of the Bill of the late Government. If his noble Friend thought any advantage would arise from the provision he suggested, he had no objection to bring up an amended clause on the Report, to carry out the suggestion he proposed.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not see the necessity for such a check on the Secretary of State, who would have to communicate with the Cabinet upon all matters of special importance. That, in his opinion, would be quite sufficient.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he thought there would be a singular inconsistency in forming a Council to advise the Secretary of State, and then enabling him to dispense with their advice on all questions of paramount importance. He hoped his noble Friend at the head of the Government would introduce the provision he had stated.
  Clause agreed to. Clause 28 agreed to.
  Clause 29.
  EARL GRANVILLEsuggested that the Governor General and the Governors of the several Presidencies should have the power of appointing the members of their own Councils respectively.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that he had no very strong opinion upon the subject, and that he would reconsider it before the bringing up of the Report.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 30.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE moved the omission of words in it which make the consent of a majority of the Council necessary to any regulations made by the Secretary of State as to the distribution of patronage in India and the restoration of suspended officers.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 31 agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Admission of Candidates to the Civil Service of India).
  THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY moved an Amendment, transferring the power of making regulations for the admission of persons into the Indian civil service to Her Majesty in Council.
  EARL GRANVILLEopposed the Amendment. So far experience had shown that the system of open competitive examination had worked well. It surely could not have been the intention of the noble Earl to smooth the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons by inserting this clause. [The Earl of DERBY: No!] Then he was inclined to think the President of the Board of Control had followed the example of the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellen-borough) in abstaining from communicating with the Prime Minister upon the business of his department.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the alteration was not proposed with regard to the sanction or non-sanction of the competitive principle, but because it was found that the clause was an infringement on the Royal prerogative.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he must correct the noble Earl (Earl Granville) who had made the observation, not for the first time, that he was in the habit of abstaining from consulting the Prime Minister. He never laid down the principle that he would not communicate with the Prime Minister. When he did not communicate with Sir Robert Peel he invariably communicated with the Duke of Wellington. The Duke of Wellington was thoroughly acquainted with India, and Sir Robert Peel knew nothing about it. He once asked Sir Robert Peel a question about India, and the answer he received prevented him from ever repeating the experiment.
  EARL GRANVILLEhad understood the noble Earl to state that he never communicated with Sir Robert Peel, and he inferred that the noble Earl thought it better to exercise his independent judgment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 33,
  "All appointments to cadetships, naval and military, and all admissions to service not herein expressly provided for, shall be vested in Her Majesty; and the names of persons to be from time to time recommended for such cadetships

  1589
  and service shall be submitted to Her Majesty by the Secretary of State."
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDthen proposed an addition to the clause vesting the right of nominating to chaplaincies in India in future alternately in the Crown and in the Bishop of the diocese in which the chaplaincies were situated. He hoped he should have the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government on the subject. From the commencement of legislation in connection with the East India Company they were bound to maintain and provide certain chaplains and ministers for their principal factories. Hitherto these appointments had been made by the Board of Directors at home, but under this clause they would transfer the appointment of all these chaplains to the Secretary of India. He, however, would propose that this should be done alternately by the Secretary of State and by the Bishop of the diocese. This would assimilate the ecclesiastical system in India to that of the system at home; and there was precedent for it in an Act passed by the late Sir R. Peel. It was desirable the resident Bishop should exercise this power, seeing that there were many missionaries whose fitness and whose merits could not come duly under the cognizance of the Secretary of State; and by the method he proposed one-half the patronage would be in the hands of the Government and the other half in the Bishop.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHwas happy to bear his testimony to the merits of an efficient and most respectable body of men; but he had as much confidence in the nominations of the Secretary of State as in those of the Court of Directors. It would be a most injudicious act at the present moment to permit the Bishops in India to take gentlemen from the missionary body and connect them by chaplaincies with the Government.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsupported the Amendment. It had been said that it was in the power of the Bishops already to distribute patronage; but the only patronage he knew of was that of the Bishop of Calcutta to nominate his own archdeacon. He was far from wishing to import into this discussion the tone of the platform, but the feelings of the religious community ought not to be ignored, and it was generally thought that we ought to show a more manly and straightforward policy in regard to the Christian religion.
  THE EARL OF DERBYthought it would
  1590
  be exceedingly disadvantageous to have chaplains situated at such a distance dependent, not on the Government, but on their Bishops, thus giving rise to a conflict of authorities. The chaplains were stipendiaries of the Government, and it was of great importance that the present relations between them should be maintained.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, the noble Earl had not met his arguments in any way. The question did not relate to the dependence of the chaplains either on the Bishops or the Government. His proposal simply was, that the Bishops should have an alternate share with the Secretary of state in the appointment of the chaplains.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  House resumed; and to be again into Committee on Monday next.
  House adjourned at half past Twelve o'clock A.m., to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.