Sitting of 23 July 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o International Patent Right.
2o Probates and Letters of Administration Act Amendment; Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act Amendment.
3o Civil Bills, &c. (Ireland) Act Amendment; Militia Pay.

CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION BILL.—CONSIDERATION.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order for Consideration read.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [22nd July]—
  "That the Clause, ('That it shall not be lawful for the collector of rates and taxes of any borough, county, or city, or his partner or agent, to act as agent, clerk, or canvasser for, or to be employed on behalf of, any candidate fur such borough, county, or city; and any such person who shall so offend shall, for his said offence, be liable to forfeit the sum of fifty pounds to any person who shall sue for the same, together with full costs of suit,') be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. BASSsaid, he wished for an opportunity of more deliberately considering this subject, and hoped that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would be satisfied with a mere continuance Bill during the present Session. He believed that the provisions of this Bill would either be found unworkable or would lead to corruption.
  MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he thought that nothing could be more objectionable than the practice of a tax collector, with his rate-book in his hand, walking into a voter's house to solicit his vote in aid of any particular candidate. He hoped the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Vansittart) would press his Motion.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the proposition was entirely new. It was that, for the first time, the collector of rates should not act as agent for a candidate. Hitherto the Legislature had left the candidates to select whom they pleased as their agents; and if once they began to say that certain persons should not be allowed to be agents he did not know where they should stop. They must go much further certainly than this clause went. He did not think that the clause had any bearing upon the points sought to be remedied by this Bill, but that it would raise question after question as to who is entitled to be an agent. He was quite prepared to consider this clause at a future time, in connection with the general subject of election law.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHobserved, that the clause would be a mere trap to the honest candidate. How could he know who was the partner of a rate collector?
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he did not think much advantage would be gained by the clause. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the
  2022
  Home Department that this was not the time for a general revision of the electoral law. But that argument applied to the Bill altogether. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with a mere continuance Bill, and would not attempt to carry out this patchwork piece of legislation.
  MR. WARRENsaid, he could not support the clause in its entirety. He would suggest the omission of the words "partner or agent." If that alteration were made he should then be inclined to support it.
  MR. GREERhoped the hon. Gentleman would persevere with the clause. Collectors of rates and taxes had a great influence in reference to the registration of voters; and in Belfast that influence had been exercised in a most extraordinary degree. In any district the collectors of taxes might abstain from calling upon voters for their taxes until after the time when they should be paid to enable them to vote, and thus persons really solvent, and willing to pay their rates when asked for them, found themselves disfranchised when the revising barrister came round.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, the clause either went too far or not far enough. It singled out one particular class of persons, but tax collectors were not the only persons who had an undue influence over electors. Let them take, for example, the steward of a nobleman who had a large estate, and who could knock 10 or 15 per cent off the rent if it would in any way suit his employer's purpose. The tax collector was a public servant, and any candidate might avail himself of his services. The tax collector could not remit taxes, and it was not to his interest to remit them, but the steward of an estate could remit any amount his employer might choose to allow. The clause aimed at one particular class of individuals, while they knew that there were hundreds of others who were equally open to objection. He objected to legislation of this piecemeal kind being introduced into the Bill, which he considered should be merely a continuance Bill. If it were necessary to legislate on the ground of intimidation, it should be done fairly and honestly.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, if they could not get a large measure of Reform they must be content to take it piecemeal. There was something more than intimidation in the action of a tax-gatherer. That functionary had a power which a landlord or a steward did not possess, and it was

  2023
  quite right, therefore, that he should be excluded from acting as an agent in contested elections.
  MR. BAINESsaid, that the best thing in the face of so many difficulties would be to snake the Bill a mere Continuance Bill of the Act of last Session. He felt favourable to the principle of the clause, which was directed to check illegitimate influence of a very well defined kind. He did not think it was a reason for doing nothing that they could not prevent the exertion of all kinds of illegitimate influence. The words "partner or agent" ought, however, to be omitted, and the clause ought to be amended so as to make it apply to the collector of poor rates of any parish situated in a borough. At present it only applied to a collector of the borough, city, or county rates.
  MR. BONHAM-CARTERsaid, he thought they ought to avoid partial legislation on the large subject of election law. He could not understand why they should single out municipal officers not recognized by the Act. It was opening the door to a course in which they might find it difficult to stop.
  MR. BYNGsaid, he considered that the clause contained a very sound principle, and he should vote for it, subject to the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines).
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he did not think the Home Secretary was justly open to the charge of attempting to wake the Bill more than a mere continuance measure. He had only sought to clear up some doubts which had arisen in the working of the existing Act. For himself, he did not like homœpathic doses of reform, and he should, therefore, oppose the clause.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he thought it unreasonable that a Bill of this kind should have been introduced at this late period of the Session, and that they were wasting time in discussing it. He should vote against the clause, because he desired that the Bill should be merely a continuance Bill. He wished they would take an example from Scotland, where there was no such absurd regulation that a man should pay his taxes before he was qualified to vote. He objected to the clause for another reason, that they ought not in such a case to pick out one class of society rather than another. If they excluded tax collectors, they should exclude solicitors and
  2024
  members of the legal profession from being agents, for he held that they were a much more dangerous class in this respect than tax collectors. He said that in his capacity of a member of the legal profession himself.
  MR. W. VANSITTARTsaid, he should be happy to adopt the Amendments suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr.Warren), and the right hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines).
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 66: Majority 13.
  MR. NICOLLrose to move the following clause:—
  "Every candidate at any election for any county, city, or borough, shall be required to make and sign the following statutory declaration, and present, or cause to be presented, a copy of such declaration to the election auditor on or before the day appointed for the audit of bills, charges, or claims:—'I [A. B.], a candidate at the election of a [] to Represent the [] in Parliament, do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare that I have not knowingly made, authorised, or sanctioned, and that I will not knowingly make, authorise, or sanction any payment, or make any gift of money or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, by way of private gratuity to any solicitor, agent, or canvasser, acting for me on account of the said election, otherwise than is described by the bills, charges, and claims rendered to the election auditors, save as excepted and allowed by the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1851.' And every candidate who shall neglect to make and send in to the election auditor a copy of the declaration as aforesaid on or before the day appointed by the election auditor, shall be liable to the penalty of £20, and to a further penalty of £10 for every subsequent week of wilful default or neglect in making or sending in such declaration, to be recovered by any person who will sue for the same, together with full cost of suit. Provided always, that in 'case any such candidate shall be absent from the United Kingdom at the time of such election, he shall send in to the election auditor a copy of the declaration as aforesaid within one month after his return to the United Kingdom, which shall be of the same force and effect as if the same had been sent in as herein provided."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that he individually, had no objection to a declaration being made by the candidate either at the polling booth or the table of the House to the effect contained in the clause. On the contrary, he thought it might become one of the most effective modes of obtaining the end they had in view; but this was one of those clauses which in the discussion which took place when the existing Act was introduced some years ago, had

  2025
  elicted more controversy than almost any other. It was necessary to confine the operation of the Bill to the cases contained in its provisions. Other cases might come under consideration in a permanent measure which could not be delayed beyond the next Session of Parliament. The House had signified its approval of the course he had taken of making this as nearly as possible a continuance Bill, merely being so far declaratory as to render the measure more intelligible. The course he had taken had nothing at all unusual in it. He hoped the House would dispose of the proposed Amendments. If any of the clauses provoked opposition, let the elimination of the clauses objected to be distinctly proposed. If the feeling of the House were declared against him he was ready to make this merely a continuance Bill, otherwise it would be a dereliction of duty in him to desist.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the clause was a good one.
  MR. GREERsaid, that such a clause was absolutely necessary.
  MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he did not think the clause would meet the evil complained of.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that he could not assent to the clause. Unless they could trust to the honour of Members of that House not to deal in corruption, no declaration that could be framed would prevent hon. Members evading the law. The clause only imposed upon a Member a declaration that he had not paid other money than that returned to the election auditor, but hundreds of thousands of pounds might have been paid on his behalf by others.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEremarked, that it would be impossible to get through the Bill as it stood. If it were not made a mere continuance Bill he would move the omission of all the new clauses.
  MR. WALPOLErepeated, that if a majority of the House were against him, he would make the Bill a continuance Bill the next day. That question might be tried on the first clause.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he should support the clause, although he admitted it would not meet all the evil. He did not believe the House wanted to put down bribery, because he had noticed that, whenever an effective measure was brought forward it was sure to be opposed on both sides.
  Motion made and Question put—"That
  2026
  the said clause be now put a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 83; Majority 31.
  The clause was therefore lost.
  MR. GREERthen moved the following clause:
  "And whereas it is expedient to provide for increasing the number of polling places, and for altering polling districts in Ireland, Be it therefore enacted, That it shall be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland, from time to time hereafter, on Petition from the Justices of any county or riding in Ireland, in quarter sessions assembled, or from one or more of the Representatives in Parliament for the said county or riding, or from at least one hundred of the registered electors for the said county or riding, representing that the number of polling places for such county or riding is insufficient, and praying that the place or places mentioned in the said Petition, may be a polling place or polling places for the county or riding within which such place or places is or are situate, and that a district or districts in said Petition mentioned and described by the barony or baronies, half barony or half baronies, or by the parish or parishes, and townlands contained therein respectively, may constitute a district or districts for polling at such polling place or polling places respectively, or praying that any polling district or polling districts may be altered, and that any barony or half barony, parish or parishes, or townlands, may be detached from any such polling district, and be annexed to any other polling district, as the case may be, to declare that any place or places mentioned in the said Petition, shall be a polling place or polling places for that county or riding, and that the district or districts in such Petition mentioned, or with such alterations thereof as may be deemed suitable and convenient, shall constitute a district or districts for polling at such polling place or polling places respectively; and that the other polling districts of the said county or riding shall be altered accordingly; and every such Declaration or Order for creating additional polling places, and the polling districts for the same, or for altering any polling district or districts, shall be certified under the hand of the Clerk of the said Privy Council, and when so certified shall be published in the Dublin Gazette, and shall be of the same force and effect as if the same had been made by the authority of Parliament: Provided always, That if the said Petition be from registered Electors or from a Representative or Representatives of the said county or riding, proof must be given of the publication of the said Petition in two newspapers, circulating within the said county or riding, at least ten days before such declaration or order shall be made.
  "And at the next Registration of Voters for the said county or riding, after such declaration or order shall have been made, separate alphabetical lists shall be made of the Electors entitled to vote in each polling place, according to the baronies Or to the parishes, or portions of parishes, constituting the said polling districts respectively,"
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  LORD NAASobjected that as this clause had nothing to do with corrupt practices, it did not come within the scope of this Bill. More than this, no practical inconveniences arose from the existing state of the law. At present the registered electors on consultation with the magistrates at quarter sessions could apply for additional polling places, and he had never known a case in which such joint application had been refused. There could not, in his opinion, be any fairer arrangement.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he rose to support the Amendment, and would frankly avow that he did so in order to protract the debate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had on a former occasion told the House that a combination of twenty Members would any time, by availing themselves of the forms of the House, upset the British constitution. He (Mr. White) did not accept the right hon. Gentleman as a very great constitutional authority, but taking his dictum for as much as it was worth—he would then announce his determination to oppose this Bill in every stage; and would fain hope, that some score of other Members at least, would co-operate with him, and, if possible, prevent this pernicious Bill, as now presented to the House, becoming the law of the land. Moreover, he would assert that the Government, in introducing the declaratory clause (the payment of voter's expenses) had wholly misread or perverted a great constitutional principle. By the clause in question they went on the palpably unconstitutional assumption that an elector, in voting, was not performing a public duty, but was conferring a private favour on a candidate. On the introduction of the Bill be had opposed it, and then declared his invincible repugnance to the clauses foisted therein, and, whilst he was not then inclined, and never had been, to give a factious opposition to the Government, still he (Mr. White) would persevere in his opposition to this Bill unless it was reduced to its proper proportions—namely, as a simple continuance Bill, as it ought to have been and none other, at this fagend of the Session. He would add no more, but reiterate what he had said on a former occasion, to wit, that the title of this Bill was a misnomer, and that, instead of being called a "Corrupt Practices Prevention Act," it was neither more nor
  2028
  less than a Corrupt Practices Protection Act.
  MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he concurred with the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas) that this clause was unnecessary, and would, if adopted, only tend to increase expenses.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he thought the arguments advanced by the noble Lord against the clause perfectly satisfactory, and indeed unanswerable. He hoped the hon. Member for Londonderry would withdraw it. Ample power was already possessed for the end aimed at. The Privy Council in Ireland had considered whether the power so constantly granted should not be exercised more sparingly.
  MR. COXsaid, he should support the clause. He looked upon the Bill as one to legalize bribery and increase the expenses of candidates. That being so, he thought that they should provide that the candidates' funds should be spared as fat as possible, and he should therefore move that the expense of providing polling places should be paid by the county or borough.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member could not move the Amendment at that stage. The Bill must be recommitted for the purpose.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that if the first clause of the Bill were retained, he would move the recommittal of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the said clause be now read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 112: Majority 86.
  MR. GRIFFITHthen moved the following clause:—
  "The admission and payment, on behalf of any candidate at an election, of any claim or demand in respect to such election, by the election auditor, in accordance with the provisions of the 17 & 18 Vict., c. 102, shall be sufficient protection to such candidate against any action or suit at law in respect to the legality of any such payment; and it shall be the duty of the election auditor to refuse to pay any claim or demand on behalf of such candidate which is not in accordance with the provisions of the above-mentioned Act of the 17 & 18 Vict., c. 102."
  The adoption of this clause would make the election auditor a real check upon corrupt expenditure, instead of, as he was, a trap and a sham.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that if they agreed to this clause, they would at each election

  2029
  have 350 courts of law. He thought that was sufficient argument against the clause.
  Motion made, and Question "That the said clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
  MR. STAPLETONsaid, he then rose to move that the words "within such voter's county or borough, and seven miles from the boundary thereof," should be inserted in Clause 1, line 17, after the word "voter." His object was to limit the expenditure for bringing voters to the poll by merely allowing the word candidate to bring to the poll those who lived within a restricted district. He could not conceive any principle on which the House could sanction the bringing of voters from remote parts of the kingdom.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEexpressed his intention to support the Amendment. The conveyance of voters to the poll was carried to a ridiculous extent, and the expenses incurred fell heavily upon the candidate.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, he should support the clause, as he thought the system of bringing voters from great distances entirely wrong
  MR. ROEBUCKexpressed himself strongly against the present system, the result of which was that entire constituencies had to be brought to the poll in cabs. His intention was to move the rejection of the entire clause, but to provide against all contingencies, he would in the meantime support this Amendment, which would at any rate improve the clause. A more mischievous clause was never introduced into any Bill.
  MR. GARNETTsaid, he would support the Amendment, but some provision would be necessary to meet the case of the Universities.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he should vote for the Amendment. He thought in the case of the Universities the voting might be conducted by letter.
  MR. GREERsaid, the words "county" and "borough" were those used in the Amendment, which would not include the case of the Universities.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, that he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwick a very proper one, and should therefore give it his support. However, in his opinion, the only efficient way to prevent bribery at elections would be to introduce the system of vote by ballot.
  MR. CRAWFURDsaid, he thought they ought to restrict these expenses, which were often very extravagant.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 78: Majority 3.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he would move an Amendment, with the view of preventing the provision of conveyances for any other purpose than that of bringing voters to the poll.
  MR. WALPOLEassented to the Amendment, which was agreed to.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he rose to oppose the introduction of the clause into the Bill before the House. The Home Secretary said that this was simply a continuance Bill, with the exception of removing a doubt with respect to the payment of travelling expenses. But a doubt might be removed by settling the law. To render the payment of travelling expenses legal, was in truth to render it imperative; for every voter would think himself treated with contempt if he was not conveyed to the poll. It could not be said that a borough voter would be disfranchised if this clause was not agreed to, for he could walk to the poll; and in the case of counties it would favour the rich candidate at the expense of the poor one. He regretted that the proposition embodied in the clause had come from his own side of the House. He believed that its author had done more to render corruption effective than any other man who had ever attempted to legislate on the subject.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. BRADYopposed the clause, and commented strongly upon the unusual silence of the author of the clause in its present shape (Mr. Ayrton) throughout the debate. He could only ascribe that unusual circumstance to the consciousness that he had done wrong.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he would again suggest that this should be a mere continuance Bill. If the Home Secretary had originally assented to this, he might have saved himself great inconvenience, and he must have observed that there was a diminishing majority on each occasion. This Bill seemed to involve two things—that they believed that the voters of this country disregarded their right of voting, and the other, that none but a rich man should become a candidate.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that this Act of Parliament having always been a temporary Act, he thought that the time had come for a permanent measure. He in-

  2031
  tended to redeem his pledge to introduce such a measure in the next Session of Parliament. This measure had been discussed at three morning sittings, and on every occasion when this clause had been discussed it had been supported by considerable majorities. That was a sufficient justification for the course which he had taken in introducing a clause to settle the law on the subject. This clause was not introduced to purify elections. He believed that the Act would have that tendency, but the purpose of this clause was to settle the law. If the clause was struck out, gentlemen would just as before pay the expense of providing conveyances for bringing voters to the poll. And if there was no corrupting influence on the mind of the voter, a candidate, who provided conveyances for bringing him to the poll, was simply enabling him in a fair manner to exercise his constitutional privileges. If, this clause was not passed, neither the candidates nor the Committees up stairs would know what was the state of the law on this subject. Was that a state of things which should be allowed to continue? They might, it is true, forbid the payment of travelling expenses altogether, but he did not believe that public opinion would go along with them in such an enactment.
  GENERAL THOMPSONsaid, be wished to know, if hon. candidates paid for bringing voters to the poll, and the said voters voted against them, did the Bill provide proper means of recovering the cabhire. All flesh was not the same flesh; and so of bribery—there were different kinds. The provision for the conveyance of electors was gross bribery, neither more nor less.
  MR. WARRENsaid, he thought the clause should be allowed to stand.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that the object of the Bill was merely to legalize bribery and thus give the Conservatives the advantage of bribery as they had never done before at the general election, which was expected to take place next year. He complained of the introduction of new matter in what had been declared to be a mere continuance Bill. A society had been established called the Conservative Land Society, by which more votes had been manufactured than by the whole Liberal party. The members of that society might have votes in five or six counties, and under the Bill as it stood they might be carried about in any manner they most preferred.
  2032
  And it being ten minutes before four of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the debate till this day.

THE COMMISSIONER OF THE MANCHESTER COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

  PETITIONS.
  MR. TURNERsaid, he rose to present two petitions, one from certain legal practitioners of Manchester, the other from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, complaining of certain irregular practices on the part of Mr. Jemmett, the Commissioner of the Manchester Court of Bankruptcy, tending to prejudice the true administration of justice in that court. At the same time he wished to give notice of a Motion for printing the petition.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that in his opinion these petitions ought not to have been communicated to the House without some notice; that would have enabled justice to be done to the gentleman whose name was mentioned. He (the Attorney General) should not at present trespass on the House further than to observe that he had received a communication from Mr. Jemmett, who expressed his anxiety to come forward and meet the chares against him; and if the hon. Member (Mr. Turner) took another opportunity during the present Session of bringing the case under the consideration of the House Mr. Jemmett was anxious to come before the House, and court the fullest and most scrutinizing investigation.

REINFORCEMENTS FOR INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Control what reinforcements are going, or preparing to be sent out, to India?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he had no doubt the House would be glad to learn that between last January and the present time nearly 17,000 troops had been despatched from this country to India. With regard to the future it would probably be enough for him to state that Her Majesty's Government were well aware of the great importance of striking a decisive, and if possible, a final blow in the course of the approaching cold season, and that they were prepared to take measures, with that object.

THE OYSTER FISHERIES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he

  2033
  would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the inquiry he has instituted respecting the complaints made by the parties interested in the Deep Sea Oyster Fisheries of the operation of the Act 18 & 19 Vict., which imposed very injurious restrictions on their Trade, and which they consider were not contemplated by the Convention with the Government of France of August, 1839?
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the inquiry to which the hon. and gallant Admiral referred was instituted before he had the honour of holding the office which he now possessed. He might state that that inquiry was still going on, and he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend the Government had not lost sight of the question.
  On the Motion that the House at its rising should adjourn to Monday,

THE SLAVE TRADE.—RIGHT OF SEARCH.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the present position of the question of the right of visiting ships suspected of Slave Trading, and to ask what course the Government has taken upon that subject.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I must venture to ask the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Fortescue) whether he really considers the question that he is now going to introduce is one that may fairly be brought forward on the Motion for adjournment. I know that by a severe exercise of his privilege the hon. Member may do so; but really to discuss such a question under ordinary circumstances would require a whole evening. Now, this objection to the Motion of the bon. Gentleman is irrespective of that general consideration which the language of the notice gives rise to. The language of that notice is—
  "To call the attention of the House to the present position of the question of the right of visiting ships suspected of slave trading, and to ask what course the Government has taken upon that subject."
  Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that at this moment communications are going on between the Government of England and that of the United States, which certainly would not be assisted by any discussion in this House. But my appeal to the hon. Gentleman is based on the broad ground that the question is one of
  2034
  such magnitude and interest that it would be hardly fair to enter upon it on the Motion for adjournment? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's motive in his setting down his Motion as one to be moved on the adjournment was an impartial one; for I find that an hon. Friend of mine (Sir J. Elphinstone) has proposed, under the same machinery, to call the attention of the House to the Resolution of "the East India (transport of troops) Committee." This, too, is a question of such magnitude this it is impossible it can be fairly discussed without taking a very considerable period of time. Each of these subjects would afford materials for a night's debate; and both are questions which ought not to be introduced unless they are fairly discussed. I therefore put it to both hon. Gentlemen whether they do not think it will be rather an abuse of a privilege, the legitimate use of which I have always advocated, if they bring forward, on the Motion for the adjournment of the House, topics of this nature.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that in putting this Motion on the paper he was not aware that he was taking any unreasonable course. He thought it was quite reasonable before they broke up for the Session, that the Government should be asked to state their intentions on this important subject. The intentions of the Government had not been announced to the House in that clear and satisfactory manner which might have been expected, and he thought it very natural that some Member of the House should make inquiries on that subject. He had intended, in introducing the question, to make but a very short statement, showing the present position of the question as left to the present Government by their predecessors, a point in connection with the subject which he thought had not met with the attention it deserved. The Government appeared to have ignored the acts of their predecessors, and he wanted them to tell the House whether they departed from or adhered to the policy of the late Administration. The Minister of the United States stated at a recent meeting in this country, that our policy had been changed, and that some great concessions had been made on points for which every Government of this country hail hitherto contended, and against which the country he represented had as long struggled. He thought it a perfectly legitimate question to ask whether that statement was true? The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs explained on a

  2035
  previous evening that negotiations were in progress for bringing about a convention with the United States for regulating not the right of searching each other's ships, but for conferring the right of mutually verifying the use of the national flag. That was all very well; but the language used by the Government on the occurrence of those unfortunate events in the Cuban waters was such as appeared to him to concede everything for which this country and the predecessors of the present Government had always contended. What he wished to ask was, whether they intended to adhere to the policy of the Earl of Aberdeen, or to sanction the principle that by hoisting a foreign flag, no matter of what nation, it should be in the power of any vessel to stop all further proceedings on the part of our cruisers, and render such vessel sacred and inviolable, whatever might be her character? Because, if so, we had better withdraw our squadron from the waters of Africa and of Cuba. For his own part, he protested against thus imperilling the position of England as the first maritime Power of the world.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: Sir, I am sure the House will not expect me to enter into any lengthened statement in reply to the observations of the hon. Gentleman. I think that in reference to this question there has been a general feeling in the House and in the country that we could not be too cautious. Certainly the circumstances which have taken place within a short time in the Cuban waters are not such as, in my opinion, to make it desirable that we should on this occasion enter on any discussion. Sir, I stated on a former occasion we had the assurance of the United States Government that they would consider not only with care, but with a desire to do justice to the question, any proposition that we had to make to the United States. Our propositions have not been made. They are still under the consideration of the Government; and it is impossible, therefore, for me to give the House any further information on the subject. I think the hon. Gentleman can scarcely be serious when he asks the Government to state what our policy will be in the event of such communication as is not yet made being unfavourably received by the United States Government. I certainly have every hope that this matter will be brought to a satisfactory termination; and the language of the United States Government and of the United
  2036
  States Minister in this country is such as to perfectly confirm Her Majesty's Government in that anticipation.

AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the prevalence of aggravated assaults upon women and children, and to urge upon his consideration the necessity of making some alteration in the law relating to such offences. The recent Assaults' Act had done much good, but he could not think it had altogether worked well. By imprisoning the offender, it too often deprived the wife of her means of support and obliged her to go to the workhouse, so that the victim was punished as much as the brutal assailant. In 1856 and 1857 he submitted proposals for inflicting shorter terms of imprisonment and corporal punishment. On those occasions he was met by the objections that the new Act had not yet had a fair trial, and that corporal punishment was not the proper mode of dealing with this or with any other offence. His own belief was, that corporal punishment would very materially check these assaults; but he was not now advocating his own nostrum. All he wished to impress on the Home Secretary was, that the law in its present state did not operate so satisfactorily as could be wished. In 1854 and 1855 there were in this metropolis alone 878 of these crimes, or 439 per year; In 1856 the number was 377; and last year it was 421. From these figures, it appeared that assaults of this kind were on the increase, and that there was an average of more than one a day of those offences. He believed it to be a libel on the English character to say that the minimum could not be brought below that. He earnestly hoped that during the recess the Home Secretary would give his attention to this subject, and would, if he found that these unmanly assaults were not reduced, bring forward next Session a measure to check a crime the frequency and atrocity of which were a disgrace to the country.
LUNACY COMMISSION (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that he understood that the Commissioners to inquire into the subject of Lunacy in Ireland had made their Report, but that one of the Commissioners dissented from the others, and had given his reasons in a Report of his

  2037
  own. He wished to ask the Home Secretary if that Report would be laid on the table?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that with reference to the question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald), he really wished that when Commissions were issued the Commissioners would agree upon their Report. It was not fair to the majority who concurred in a Report that an individual Commissioner should afterwards send in a separate Report which his colleagues, perhaps, had no opportunity of seeing. He had received the Report of Dr. Corrigan, and the question it involved was so important, that he would undertake to lay it on the table of the House. With reference to the subject commented on by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he agreed with him that the subject to which he had alluded was one requiring the strictest attention of the Home Secretary. The statement made by the hon. Gentleman was quite correct. The aggravated assaults of which he had made mention were less numerous this year than they were in 1854 and 1855, but somewhat more numerous than they were in 1857; but it was desirable to analyse these offences before drawing any general conclusion. A great many of them were assaults not upon women, but upon children, and an immense number of them were assaults by women, and not by men. Another circumstance to be borne in mind was, that in many districts, even in the last year for which he had returns, there was a great diminution of these offences, while in others there was an increase. As far as he had been able to form an opinion from the information with which he had been furnished, he had reason to think that the present Act, which he believed was introduced by the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Palmerston), had worked well, and if it required any addition, he would be prepared, after inquiry, to state in what respect he thought it should be amended. In the meantime, however, his attention would be strictly turned to the subject, but he owned that he should not like, unless constrained to do so by the strongest reasons, to have recourse to corporal punishment.

REINFORCEMENTS FOR INDIA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
  2038
  chequer, he did not think it would be possible to go into the question which he (Sir J. Elphinstone) had given notice of his intention to bring before the House, for undoubtedly that question was a long one. The order of reference to the Committee on the transport of troops to the East Indies was divided into two portions. The first was, as to the conduct of the Government in sending out troops. The second, as to the most advantageous route by which troops could be sent. From the beginning he had considered the latter the more important question. He trusted that the matter would be fully discussed and finally decided next year; but in the meantime it was necessary for him to put himself and the other Members of the Committee right before the country, by stating that they were distinctly of opinion that it was the duty of the Government to, in the meantime, lose no means in their power to perfect the overland route to India as a means of transporting our troops. He was quite sure, from the information he had received, that they could be conveyed cheaper by that route than round the Cape; and on a fitting occasion he, and those who thought with him, would be ready to prove that the fact was so.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he should be glad if the hon. Baronet obtained another opportunity of bringing on this question, when the whole of the evidence was before the House. He was one of the Members of the Committee whose conduct had been animadverted on by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) for rejecting his Report. He was content then, as he was now, that the House should on a future occasion, when they had had an opportunity of reading the evidence, judge itself of the weight and importance of the circumstances connected with this question.

THE STATE OF INDIA.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he wished to take this opportunity of putting a question to the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control respecting the condition of affairs in India. It had been the custom of late years at the close of the Session, for the Minister for India to make a general statement to the House relative to the affairs of India. He was not, however, about to express any wish that the noble Lord should bring forward an Indian budget, as the noble Lord could make the same excuse as he (Mr. V. Smith) had made last

2039
year, namely, that the finances of India were in such a state of confusion that it was impossible to make any accurate statement with regard to them. But though nominally a budget, that statement was accustomed to contain a review of the affairs of India. The House was about to separate for five mouths; they were giving great powers to the Government with regard to India, and it was advisable that the noble Lord should make a general statement with regard to the exact position in which we were placed. The noble Lord had stated, in answer to the hon. Member for Dumfries, that 17,000 additional troops had been sent out to India. He (Mr. V. Smith) had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night, but had not received an answer, whether the troops were really to be regarded as an addition to the ordinary establishment of Queen's troops already stationed there, or were to be looked upon merely in the light of reliefs. Judging from the number of men who were being sent out, he should be inclined to believe that the Government had the former object in view; but then it would appear from the newspapers, which constituted the only source of information open to him, that, owing to disease, and other causes, the diminution in the number of our soldiers in India had been so great that it was necessary to send out very considerable reinforcements. It was, he thought, desirable under these circumstances, that the House should have some information as to the end which the Government proposed to themselves in sending out the troops to which he had referred. The noble Lord, in answer to a question put by him (Mr. V. Smith), when he asked if he would lay the papers relating to the Military Commission on the India army on the table, said he would take an opportunity of making a statement on the subject. He saw that the noble Lord had omitted the civil part of the Commission; the reason for that, and the objects of the military Commission, ought to be stated. Moreover, under existing circumstances, something ought to be told them with regard to the probable financial resources of India. A Bill had passed last year to enable the East India Company to borrow £8,000,000, which was to last them till next December. Perhaps, as the loan in India had been taken up better than was expected, it ought to be stated how much the East India Company had borrowed, and whether what they had would last them to December, or whe-
2040
ther it would be necessary to call Parliament together in the winter, in order to give them new powers. There was a third point on which he wished information, and that was, whether it was intended as soon as the Act providing for the future government of India had been passed into a law, to issue a general proclamation announcing the assumption of the authority of the Queen in India? Every one seemed to think that this would have a great effect, and would be likely to put an end to the mutinies, but such a step must be taken with caution. There was also another and a delicate point, and that was whether a Proclamation should be issued, having reference to the condition of the Natives of India, and giving an assurance that their religions and customs would be duly respected. He made these observations with no wish to embarrass the Government or the public service. He had the greatest confidence in the noble Lord, and believed that he would act with judgment and vigour, but it was well that Parliament should be acquainted with the present condition of India, what was to be done to put down the mutiny, and what course the Government proposed to pursue in the six ensuing months.
LORD STANLEY: I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courteous manner in which he has put the series of questions he has just addressed to me. At the same time, I must observe that of no one of these questions had he given me notice, except that which relates to his intention to ask me whether I intended to make any statement as to the financial affairs of India in the course of the present year. Upon that point I can answer him distinctly. Looking at the present state of affairs in India, the varying character of the circumstances occurring there, and to the fact that any statement which I might make now would not represent the actual state of Indian finance, I do not think that it would be of any public advantage to enter into a detailed statement with regard to Indian finance at the present moment. As to the military operations which are passing there, the right hon. Gentleman, as well as every other hon. Member, has the means of acquiring all the information he can desire upon that subject. With respect to the question whether any proclamation is to be made of Her Majesty's authority in India, I think it will be right, when the transfer of the government from the Com-

2041
pany to the Crown has taken place, that some formal announcement of that transfer should be made to the people of India. In what form it should be made, or what should be the nature of the announcement, is a matter which the Government will require some time to consider; and they will have that time, because I may remind the House that the Act does not come into force until thirty days after its passing into a law. I have said that I do not intend to make any general statement to the House with regard to India; but, if upon any specific point information is asked by hon. Members, I shall be glad to furnish it so far as it may be consistent with the requirements of the public service.
SIR DE LACY EVANSwas understood to express his regret that the Committee on the transport of troops to India had not had an opportunity of stating their opinions, and to say that he had therefore no alternative but to postpone the discussion of the question to next Session. In reference to the force of 17,000 men to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had alluded as being about to be sent out to India, that it was extremely desirable the House should know whether that force was composed of really efficient men or of mere raw recruits. He also concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that it was most expedient the House should be furnished with some information with respect to the objects and constitution of the Commission which had been appointed to inquire into the organization of the Indian army. He saw no good reason for excluding civilians from it. The last news from India showed how great were the exertions that we had still to make. The victory obtained by Sir H. Rose was not gained without a corresponding loss, and the hot weather must materially affect our forces. Oude was still unconquered, and the British could not say a foot of ground belonged to them in that province except what was occupied by our forces. He had a letter from a gentleman who was fully competent to speak upon the subject, in which it was stated:—
"You will understand that, although the great events of the war are at an end, the difficulties of it are by no means so. We are committed to a very long contest, of which I suspect we have as yet seen only the beginning. I trust I may be in error. The insurgents are very easily dispersed; but then, on the other hand, they gather together as easily. I am very desirous to see Government step forward and lend a hand to us by judicious
2042
proclamations of amnesty. There has been too much blood already, and by denying mercy altogether, as we now do, to the vast mutinous masses, we perpetuate the civil war, and by our own act retain a large army for the insurgent nobles of the various provinces. Until an effort is made to detach these two interests from one another the struggle will grow in intensity. As soon as we succeed in dissolving the alliance it will die out, but not till then. This might have been done some time ago; now it would not be so easy. At any rate, in considering the subject, we must always look at the Sepoy mutiny as one side of a great national insurrection, and I think, for freedom."
Now, if those opinions were sound, as he believed them to be, it was clearly the duty of the Government to adopt the shortest route for the despatch of troops to India. Troops could be sent from Plymouth to Bombay in thirty-five days, and to Calcutta in forty-five days, and he hoped during the recess the Government would give their earnest attention to that means of expediting the reinforcement of our army in India.

STAMPED LETTER PAPER.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he had intended to make some observations at length in calling attention to the advantage and convenience of the use of stamped letter paper and the necessity for its speedy issue by the Board of Inland Revenue; but he thought he should satisfy his object by asking the Secretary to the Treasury to explain how the matter stood. He did not wish for a compulsory use of stamped letter paper, but it was of importance in commercial transactions that instead of using a sheet of paper enclosed in an envelope, which might be lost, that letters should be written on stamped sheets of paper. An envelope was no proof that it contained a particular letter, and frauds were often committed by the substitution of envelopes; in proof of which he could refer to cases which had come before the Judges of Assize and the Bankruptcy Court in Ireland. He thought it would be a great advantage if stamped letter paper could be used.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that arrangements were made for putting stamps on sheets of paper by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who stamped all sheets of paper that were sent to them. The demand was not great, but they were always ready to stamp the paper sent to them.

PROMOTION IN THE ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL KNOXsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary for War when the Report of the Royal Commission on Promotion in the Army would be laid on the table?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that on the same day that he received the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of promotion in the army, he forwarded it to Her Majesty for her approval, and as soon as it was returned to him he would, with Her Majesty's permission, lay it on the table of the House.

THE WELLINGTON TESTIMONIAL.
  QUESTION.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would be willing to give him time on Monday next for the discussion upon the Wellington testimonial.

INDIA AND AMERICA.—OBSERVATIONS.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, before the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer answers the questions which have been put to him, I should wish, in the first place, to say a few words as to what fell from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) concerning the transport of troops to the East Indies. In my opinion, if you send anything more than small bodies of men to India, I think it is far better to send them by sea than on the overland route across Egypt. It is not a matter of sound policy that this country should make her military communication with India dependent upon a passage through a territory belonging to another Power. I think it is far better to keep the means of communication in your own hands so as to be able to send troops when you like, and as you like. It has been stated by the noble Lord that a Commission has been appointed to consider the best method of reorganizing the Native army of India. That course I do not presume to criticise. I do not condemn the reasons which have led the Government to appoint such Commission in England; but certainly the late Government thought that that inquiry could be best and most usefully conducted in India by military men who had recent experience of the value on the one hand, and on the other of the dangers of the peculiar component parts, of the local Native forces. It may be that the continuation of hostilities in India has
2044
led to the dispersion of military men whose judgment would be of importance in such an inquiry—men whom it would be difficult to assemble at present, or even at an early period; but this, at all events, must be clear to the House, that if the Commission consist of men in this country,—not even the future members of the new Indian Council—can be equally competent to give a sound opinion as to the best method of composing and reorganizing the Indian local army as those persons who have mixed in recent transactions in that country—who know the tendencies of the army, the difference of races, the influence of castes, and in what manner, with the greatest safety to the public interests, such an army can be composed. The noble Lord said that he did not intend to make any general statement this Session upon Indian affairs, but that he was willing to answer any questions on particular points. The noble Lord forgot to answer one or two points to which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Vernon Smith) directed his attention. My right hon. Friend asked him, especially with regard to the Indian loan, whether the amount which has been authorized by Parliament will be sufficient for the service of the Indian Government until the beginning of next year? I think when the noble Lord looks back to see what were the questions put to him by my right hon. Friend he will think that, without entering into any general statement of Indian affairs, he might be able to give an answer to some of those questions on Monday next. I must say the statements which have been made by the hon. Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in regard to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. C. Fortescue), were to me anything but satisfactory. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Louth was perfectly justified, in the present state of things, in not allowing the Session to close without asking some definite information from the Government upon the point to which he directed the attention of the House. I wish the House to remember a little the state of this matter. Unfortunately there have been differences between this Government and the Government of the United States in regard to transactions in the waters of Cuba. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told us two months ago that certain concessions had been made to the British Government. The public has since then been informed by the Minister of the Uni-

2045
ted States, who stated with great parade, and in a manner which his assembled fellow countrymen received with shouts of triumph, that great concessions had been made by this Government to the Government of the United States—that this Government had abandoned some rights, or pretended rights, for which preceding Governments of England had always contended. Of course I am quite ready to admit—and no man has more urgently asserted the doctrine than I have—that it is inexpedient to make inquiries pending negotiations; and therefore my hon. Friend the Member for Louth was right in saying that he did not propose to ask what was the nature of the convention which we propose to the United States. I thought with him, from what fell from the hon. Under Secretary on a former occasion, that some proposal had been made to the United States. It appears now that none has yet been made, though it is a matter of great public interest and some urgent importance, and I quite agree with my hon. Friend that he was quite right in not asking the Government to state in any degree what was the nature of the proposal that was made. But although this House properly abstains from making inquiries with regard to pending negotiations, I think it is right that it should be informed as to completed facts; and if I am to judge by the statement reported to have been made by the Minister of the United States, there is some completed transaction between the two Governments in regard to our maritime rights, real or pretended. Now, what I wish the right hon. Gentleman to state is simply this—Is it that we have given up a pretension which we never made—that we have disclaimed a right which the Americans thought we pretended to, but which former Governments of this country never asserted? Is that the nature of the transaction which has taken place, or is it that we have abandoned a right which former Governments have claimed and insisted upon? In the one case, I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state, if we have given up any pretension to the American Government, what that pretension is? On the other hand, if a right which we formerly claimed and insisted on has been abandoned, I wish to know what that right is which has been so conceded I think that is a perfectly fair question, it has no reference
2046
to anything at present in a state of negotiation, for the statement of the American Minister was that the matter was complete. As no doubt, according to their system of government, every person in the United States is by this time made aware of what the transaction is, I think this House and the people of this country naturally interested in our maritime prosperity have a right to be put on an equal footing with the people of the United States. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain what the pretension or the right we have abandoned is.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:—Sir, it is not for me to inform the House what may have been the pretensions advanced by the late Government. All I can any is, that when this misunderstanding—I cannot call it an interruption of friendly relations—took place in consequence of what had occurred in the waters of Cuba, several controverted points were brought into discussion between the two Governments. We consulted the law officers of the Crown, and upon their opinion of the legality or illegality of our conduct we acted. The communications which took place between the two Governments in consequence were of a friendly nature; but the result was that all claims were left in abeyance. Nothing has been decided upon beyond that settlement which may be described as in a state of abeyance, during which the Government of the United States, having made to us a friendly overture that we should offer to them a plan for their consideration which should accomplish the object that both Governments have in view—namely, to put down as much as they possibly can, the Slave Trade, without producing those misunderstandings which have occurred, WO accepted the offer, and we have under our consideration a plan which we think will be satisfactory to both countries. That plan will be shortly submitted to the Government of the United States, and we have sanguine expectations that it will meet the wishes and necessities of both parties, prevent in future the repetition of misunderstandings between the two countries, and at the same time obtain that which the Government of this country sincerely desire, and which we believe the Government of the United States also desire—namely, the discouragement of the Slave Trade. In reply to the right hon. Member fur Bute (Mr. Stuart Wortley), he did not think it likely that the discussion

2047
on the Wellington monument would take place on Monday, but thought it might come on on Tuesday or Wednesday.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, since the Motion for the adjournment of the House at its rising until Monday had been made he had found it necessary that the House should meet to-morrow (this day), for the purpose of advancing certain Bills a stage; and he begged, therefore, to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment until Monday.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CIVIL BILLS (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that, regarding the measure as an infringement upon a constitutional principle, the independence of the Judges, who, if it passed into a law, would be removeable in case of infirmity, by order of the Privy Council, he should meet the Motion with a direct negative, and ask the House to divide on the question.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 54: Majority 29.
  Bill read 3o, and passed.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration read.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSbrought up the two following clauses:—
  "No works upon the bed or shores of the said River Thames below high-water mark shall at any time be commenced or executed, under the provisions of this Act, without the same having been previously approved of by the Lord High Admiral, or the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral; such approval to be from time to time specified in writing under the hand of the Secretary to the Admiralty."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he objected to the first of these clauses, on the ground that as all the works would be done below high-water mark, it would follow that nothing would be done without the consent of the Admiralty. He would suggest an Amendment, giving them power to interfere only
  2048
  with those works which interfered with the navigation of the river.
  Amendment proposed, after the words "high-water mark," to insert the words "which shall interfere with the navigation of the river."
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member a very proper one.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS LORD JOHN MANNERS moved the following clause:—
  "That it may be lawful for the Secretary of State for the Home Department, at his discretion, on representation or complaint made to him of any nuisance committed in execution of any works, or in deodorizing any sewage, or in disposing of any sewage or refuse from sewers, or in any other manner under this Act, to cause inquiry to be made into the matter represented or complained of to him, and to direct such prosecution or prosecutions, or to take such other proceedings as he may think fit, in order to ensure the prevention or abatement of such nuisance as aforesaid."
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, be rose to propose a clause, the effect of which was that in case the metropolis should afterwards be divided into municipal districts, with one central Board representing them all, nothing in this Act should preclude these works from being handed over to such central municipal body. He made this proposition because he was not satisfied with the composition of the present Metropolitan Board, and he thought it was desirable, by some such clause as this, to protest against its being supposed that their powers were to be continued to them for ever.
  Clause,
  "That in the event of the whole Metropolis being at any time hereafter brought under the government of one or more municipal bodies, and any new Metropolitan Board of Works being hereafter created, composed in whole or in part of members deputed from the council or councils of such municipal body or bodies, nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the transfer of the powers granted by this Act to such new Board,"
  brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he could not agree to the clause. The object of the Bill was, by showing confidence in the Metropolitan Board, to fix upon them re-

  2049
  sponsibility. But the clause went far to destroy all confidence in them by contemplating their untimely death. He hoped, therefore, his right hon. and learned Friend would not press the clause.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he also hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not press the clause, for which there was no necessity, as if any such change as he contemplated were made, there would be nothing then to prevent the transfer. But he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman had made the proposition, as it showed what was going on in his mind, and that when the Bill for the reform of the Corporation came before them, the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to hold that the tolls and metage dues, and other funds belonging to the Corporation, and which were given to the Corporation at a time when the City was the metropolis, should no longer be confined to one small locality, but should be applied in executing works that benefited the whole metropolis.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he was glad that the Government did not assent to the clause, which he hoped would not be pressed. He hoped Parliament would at least reserve the power of knowing what sort of Board was likely to be appointed.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he would not give the Committee the trouble of dividing, his object being to elicit the opinion of the House that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent such a transfer as he contemplated taking place.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PULLERsaid, be wished to propose an addition to the first clause, providing that the sewage should not be discharged into the river at such an outlet as would allow it to be brought back within the metropolitan limit by the action of the tide. His object was not to fetter the Metropolitan Board as to the means by which they were to accomplish their object, but to explain clearly to them what was the object which the House of Commons expected them to undertake. In the Report of the Committee of the House upon the subject it was stated that no plan ought to be regarded for the sewage of the metropolis which did not provide for one of two things—either that it should be taken down the river so far from the metropolis that it could not be brought back by the action a the tide; or else that it should be deodorized, mid only the purified liquid part of it discharged into the river, By
  2050
  the clause as it stood at present there was nothing to prevent the Board passing the sewage, undeodorized, immediately below the boundary of the Metropolis. Besides, it was the more important to prevent the sewage being brought back by tidal action, because it had been found that the removal of such a quantity of water out of the river for household purposes caused the tide to flow much higher up the river than it formerly used to do, and this was also the probable cause why the nuisance of the smell was always greater at high than at low water, contrary to what might be expected.
  Amendment proposed,—
  In page 1, line 17, to add at the end of Clause 1 the words, "or from being brought within the boundaries of the Metropolis by the action of the tide."
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would not agree to the Amendment, but would give the Board credit for some little common sense. It was not to be supposed that any body of gentlemen would lay out £3,000,000 of money to remove the sewage out of London, and then allow it to be brought back again. Such a clause would only stultify the Board of Works.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, it would not only stultify the Board of Works, but the House of Commons as well, for the House would see that this was only a roundabout way of coming back to the point they had agreed to abandon that of fixing the points of outfall. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment; if he did he must divide against it.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he could not see that this was a question of trusting to the common sense of the Board at all; if they were to do that they might as well give up making Acts of Parliament altogether. Under the Bill as it at present stood there was nothing to prevent the discharge of the sewage at Blackwall or opposite Woolwich at any stage of the tide, and might from thence be carried back into the centre of the town. He could not see the objection to the Amendment. It fixed no points of outfall; it only declared that it should not be discharged at such a point where it would be brought back again within the metropolitan limits by the action of the tide; and surely it was necessary at least to make that point clear in the Bill.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he believed that the

  2051
  Metropolitan Board of Works were as sensible as this House was that it would not be right to bring back the sewage within the metropolitan boundaries; and he hoped, therefore, that the whole work would be left in the hands of men who, he believed, were sincerely anxious, and quite competent, to discharge their duties.
  MR. D. GRIFFITHsaid, the proposed clause raised again the question which they disposed of two days ago, when they determined not to interfere with the plans of the board.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the objection to the Amendment would be good if the Bill was intended to leave the Board of Works to discharge the sewage where they pleased. But that was not the Bill, which declared that the outfall should not be within the limits of the metropolis, unless the sewage was deodorized. [Several hon. MEMBERS: That clause is withdrawn]. Withdrawn is it? Then I must say this Amendment is all the more necessary. He understood the whole meaning and scope of the Bill to be that the metropolis should not be annoyed with the sewage floating about within its limits. Now, to secure that they ought, without prescribing any plan, to say that the outfall ought not to be at any point where the sewage would be brought back to the metropolis.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was unfortunate the noble Lord had been absent from their discussions yesterday morning, as he would have known that the second clause was omitted, as well as the reasons why it was omitted. It was originally inserted with a view to conciliate the opponents of the measure, but the Government were from the first aware that it was opposed to the principle of the Bill, which was that the Board of Works should be left absolutely unfettered as to the measures on which they might decide. After a good deal of discussion yesterday the Committee unanimously agreed to omit the clause, and it appeared to him that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller) was only going back to the ground that all wished it was expedient to abandon, because it would to a certain degree fix upon Parliament the responsibility of the works that might be undertaken, and would lay the foundation for the Board of Works turning round upon them hereafter, if the works should prove a failure, and say, You restricted us in our plans, and therefore you must be visited wit a portion of
  2052
  the blame. He wished the whole of the operations to rest with the Board of Works, and he trusted that the House would not by a side wind seek to diminish that responsibility, or to bring the Government into any relations with the Board of Works except those strictly of a financial character.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he thought the proposal was a very good one, but he did not consider it necessary, because he was quite sure the Board of Works would do all that was requisite to be done.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
  MR. ALDERMAN CUBITThe would suggest an Amendment in Clause 13, agreed to yesterday, which would have the effect of imposing the rate in relation to this measure upon the assessments adopted in regard to the ordinary sewer rate.
  Amendment proposed,—
  At the end of Clause 13 to add the words, "but in the City of London the said rate shall be made upon the assessment adopted in making the Sewer Rate in the said City."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made.
  Bill to be read 3o To-morrow.

DRAFTS ON BANKERS LAW AMENDMENT BILL.—CONSIDERATION.
Order for Consideration read.
MR. HANKEYsaid, he would take that occasion to state that he had been absent when the Bill had been under consideration upon the previous evening, simply because he was under the impression that, owing to the assurance which had been given some time since by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that no opposed business should be taken after twelve o'clock, the measure would not be proceeded with after that hour. For his own part, he regarded the Bill as anything but satisfactory. It had originally consisted of two clauses, one of which provided that the crossing upon a cheque should be held to be a material part of the cheque, if the crossing were put on at the time of issue; the second clause giving to any person receiving a cheque the right of putting on the crossing, provided it was done by the lawful holder thereof. Now, he had opposed the Bill in that shape, because he believed it to be really impossible that any banker could carry on business if he were obliged to

2053
examine every cheque, and to ascertain in the first place whether it had been crossed at all at the time of issue, or at any subsequent time, by the lawful holder. He looked upon the measure as imposing difficulties in the way of the due discharge of business which were not at all justifiable. The bankers of London—forty-three out of forty-five of whom had signed a petition against this Bill—had no wish to throw any obstacle in the way of crossing cheques, but merely to simplify the operation. Therefore, as an Amendment, moved by the hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill), had relieved the bankers from much of the dilemma in which they were placed, he would offer no opposition to the passing of the Bill, though it was still far from being satisfactory.
MR. MALINSsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the House to a suggestion which had been made by a gentleman named Chorley, a solicitor, who proposed that at the end of the cheque next the counterfoil there should be printed the words "uncrossed cheque," and that it should be enacted that no cheque without these words should be paid, except through a banker. Any person, whether drawer or holder, desiring it to be treated as a crossed cheque, would simply have to tear off those words. That suggestion had been most favourably received by many bankers, and appeared likely to meet all the difficulties attaching to this subject.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he regretted the misapprehension which had arisen should have led to the absence of any hon. Members on the occasion of the second reading, but he had suggested that any Amendment which might be proposed in the Bill should be made on the third reading. He would take the opportunity of saying a few words on the object of the Bill. It was well known by every man who had a banker that for nearly a quarter of a century a custom had prevailed in London of crossing cheques, with a view to prevent any loss from the cheque being lost or stolen. It was thought that the crossing of the cheque afforded a protection, but it turned out some few years ago that this pratice was unavailable, for a cheque which had been crossed with the name of a banker, and the name of another banker substituted being presented at Coutts and Co's, the question arose and was tried at law, and it was decided that the crossing of the cheque was not a binding part of the instrument, and that it was lawful for a
2054
banker, whether the cheque was crossed or not, to pay it across the counter. Of course the whole benefit of the system was then lost. Under these circumstances a Bill was brought in by Mr. Apsley Pellatt to legalize the system, and to provide that no crossed cheque should be paid except through the banker to whom it was crossed. But some little time after that Bill had been passed a cheque, the crossing of which had been obliterated by chemical means, was presented and paid. An action was brought, and the question arose whether the banker was liable, and it was found that the Bill was not entirely effectual. Under these circumstances he had brought forward this Bill at the request of a great many mercantile men of the City of London, and when the hon. Member (Mr. Hankey) said that forty-three bankers had petitioned against the Bill, he was bound to say that he (the Attorney General) had presented a petition signed by 1,300 persons in favour of it. This Bill made the crossing a cheque a material part of the cheque itself, and made it forgery to obliterate the crossing, and hereafter it would be compulsory when a cheque was crossed with the name of a banker to pay the cheque to the banker with whose name it was crossed and to no other person. The only point was as to whether they could provide for the case of paying a cheque the crossing of which had been forged or obliterated. That was a case which did not happen once in fifty years, and therefore did not seem to require legislation; but the House had thought fit to admit a clause, on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Guildford, (Mr. Bovill) providing that if the obliteration was such that the banker could not reasonably be expected to detect it he should not be liable. The object of the hon. Member therefore had been obtained.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he regretted that the Amendment had been agreed to. He would have preferred that it should have been made imperative upon bankers to print their cheques upon paper on which no obliteration could be effected without being detected. There was such paper.
MR. INGRAMsuggested, that obliteration would be impossible if cheques were printed upon paper bearing a water-mark.
MR. PULLERremarked, that cheques were often drawn upon pieces of plain paper, backs of letters, &c.
Bill to be read 3o To-morrow.

PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that it was hardly to be expected that in an Act like the Probate Act, which introduced an entirely new process, there should not be some defects. The object of the present measure was to amend those defects, and the alterations were principally of a mere technical character. Thus, there was a provision that the Judge of the Admiralty might sit in relief of the Judge of the Probate Court, and vice versa, but the Judge might sit in chambers; and clerks who had served their time to proctors might become attorneys, and the like. He proposed to go into Committee on the Bill the next clay; but if there were any clauses which excited difference of opinion, he would postpone them till the next Session.
  MR. MALINSsaid, as it was now determined to proceed with the measure, he hoped that the Bill would be considered in Committee on Monday,
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, he had an objection to the 24th Clause, as he thought it would have an injurious effect upon country practitioners. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman intend to insist on that clause?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he intended to propose the clause, but he would leave it wholly to the Committee.
  MR. WARRENsaid, he would bog to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of two Amendments of which be had given notice—namely, to throw open the non-contentious business to the Bar, and the Court of Admiralty to the legal profession generally. It was his intention to persevere with those Amendments.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that in reference to the question alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Warren), he would remind the House that it was in consequence of the other House having struck out a clause from the Bill of last Session that the non-contentious business was not thrown open to the Bar generally.
  Bill read 2o and committed for To-morrow.

INCUMBERED ESTATES (WEST INDIES) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration read.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, he had given notice
  2056
  of a clause to extend to the West Indies the principle contained in the Irish Act, according to which facilities were given to obtain a declaration of indefensible title; but as he understood the introduction of such a clause might cause some difficulty in passing the Bill, which he considered a very useful measure, during the present Session, he should not press the clause, but he trusted the Attorney General would consider the question during the recess.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he concurred in the spirit of his hon. Friend's Amendments, but at that late period the introduction of these Amendments might be fatal to the passing of the Bill during the present Session. The country was very much indebted to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland for the Landed Estates Bill, which he had introduced, and which had been passed for Ireland during the present Session. He (the Attorney General) hoped to be able, at an early period next Session, to submit a large and comprehensive measure to extend the principle of that Bill not only to the entire of the West India colonies, but to this country and other parts of the British dominions.
  Bill to be read 2o To-morrow.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in moving the second reading said that he only wished to insist on those clauses which remedied certain intolerable evils in the working of the law, as for instance the necessity of bringing up witnesses from the most distant parts of the kingdom, for the simple purpose of swearing an affidavit before the Court. It was not his intention to insist on the clause which had caused so much, but unnecessary, alarm, namely, that which extended the powers of the Court to persons domiciled abroad or in the colonies.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would suggest that they should go into Committee pro formâ, and reprint the Bill as amended.
  Bill read 2o and committed for To-morrow.

CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  CONSIDERATION.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order for Consideration read.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned

  2057
  Debate on Question [this day], "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEsaid, the question the House had to consider was, merely whether the Bill should be simply a continuance Bill? The right hon. Gentleman opposite said he was willing to take that view of it; and he (Mr. Duncombe) hoped that the House would likewise do so. This was an open question, and the first clause, instead of being a Government clause, was the child of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets, and he hoped the House would not dirty their hands with it. If they struck it out, they would get rid of other bad clauses, as for instance the fourth, which he considered abridged the constitutional rights of the electors. He thought the best course would be to make this a mere—what it pretended to be—a mere continuance Bill, leaving the Attorney General, who had bestowed so much attention upon the subject, to prepare a more comprehensive measure during the recess, and he would, therefore, support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield.
  MR. LYGONsaid, he did not consider the first clause perfect, but thought it was a considerable improvement of the law. He denied that there was any ground for the invidious language which had been lavished on the clause He did not think it undesirable to expect a candidate or his friends to make some sacrifice, He was quite prepared to admit that the average Cost of conveying voters in counties was a considerable sum; namely, £1,600; but he did not think that by adopting this clause they would be establishing a new form of bribery. He was far from desiring to exclude poor men from that House, but unless candidates for seats in Parliament possessed the confidence of their supporters to such an extent that they were ready to provide funds for the payment of the travelling expenses of voters, he thought such Members could not possess that feeling of independence which had hitherto been the boast of the Commons of England.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, that although there were inconveniences on both sides, he thought it the best policy to put a stop entirely to the practice of paying the travelling expenses of voters. The clause was clearly a step in the wrong direction. It was said that by disallowing these ex-
  2058
  penses you would be practically disfranchising a large number of voters. Now, if conveyance to the poll was a part of the franchise conferred on every voter, he admitted the force of that argument; but the fact being that conveyance to the poll was not a part of the voter's vested right, he could not admit that this could in the proper sense of the term he called disfranchisement. The number of voters might, indeed, be diminished; but the same result was no doubt produced by prohibiting bribery, and would be produced by prohibiting paid canvassers, and yet no one could consider either of these measures as measures of disfranchisement. With respect to boroughs no hardship whatever would be inflicted by compelling voters to walk to the poll, and though perhaps some inconvenience might arise in counties, he thought on the whole it would be best to prohibit the payment of these travelling expenses. He was also induced to think that voters would value the franchise more if its exercise were attended with some trifling difficulty.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he thought that this was not a case on which the House should be theorizing. Let them come to practice, and they would find that out of the general body of voters, there was a large number who could not afford to pay for a conveyance to go some six, eight, or ten miles to vote. On what principle should such electors be disenfranchised? What, he might ask, were they to do in the case of a man who was sick? Would the house impose on such a person the chance of endangering his life or disenfranchisement? He contended, first of all, that it was right that they should provide a conveyance; and secondly, if it were not right, that human nature was so constituted people would still do it. Did the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle mean to say that any Gentleman would lose his election rather than provide a conveyance for his voters? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, in case of a tie with his opponent, lose his election rather than send a carriage for a voter? The thing was nonsense; and any one who believed it would have a greater amount of credulity than he had ever been possessed of. Without intending, then, to advocate anything like corruption, let them make that the law which they knew would be the practice. The House already knew that it was not illegal to provide carriages for voters, and therefore it

  2059
  was unnecessary to discuss that question now. Did not every hon. Member at the last general election consult anxiously with their committees whether they should or should not provide means for a poor voter who could not provide means himself, or an opportunity to record his vote? The law was, however, at present a snare and a difficulty. He was for removing difficulties and uncertainties. Let them either pass an Act distinctly declaring the payment of expenses to be illegal, or agree to the clause now proposed. He heartily rejoiced that the House was about explicitly to declare that a conveyance might be provided.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he fully agreed that in principle it would be well to abolish expenses of every kind, but that would be most unfair to the voters until greater facilities were afforded to them for recording their votes. He saw no reason why they should not be allowed to send their votes through the post, without coming up to the poll. The franchise to a man who could not afford to go up to the poll to record it was practically no franchise at all.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he thought all the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), as regarded the expenses of poor voters, would be equally applicable to the whole system of bribery. Indeed he (Mr. Gilpin) thought the Bill might more appropriately be called a Bribery Enactment Bill than be designated under its present title, if the clause under discussion were passed into a law. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department would make the measure simply a continuance Bill. For his own part, he should feel it to be his duty to oppose its passing at every stage if the clause were inserted. It was said it was unfair to expect that a poor man should go a particular distance to record his vote without having his expenses paid, but the manner in which any such inconvenience ought to be remedied was by multiplying the number of polling places. Be that as it might, however, believing, as he did, that the clause would open the door to an untold amount of bribery, and that its operation would not be limited simply to the payment of travelling expenses, he deemed it to be his duty to oppose it by every means in his power.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he was of opinion that the passing of the first clause, to which so much objection
  2060
  had been taken, instead of encouraging bribery, would render it much easier to put it down. Whatever they might say about its being right or wrong to pay the expenses of a voter who went to the poll, hon. Gentlemen would admit there was a great and material difference between the reimbursement of the voter's actual expenses, and, under cover of paying his expenses, giving him money for his vote. If they thought they could put an end altogether to the payment of expenses in any form they might be consistent in endeavouring to do so. In a county election last year, at which he was one of three candidates, there was a mutual agreement that the travelling expenses of voters from a distance should be paid, not by the candidate for whom he polled, but from a common fund contributed to by all the candidates. There was nothing corrupt in that arrangement, but there could be no doubt that it might be held to be an infringement of the law. The alternative, however, now presented to the House was either to pass the clause or simply enact a continuance Bill, and leave the law in its present unsettled state. In the latter case they might find that travelling expenses were paid where parties had no intention of bribing at all; and unless they were able to put down the system of paying travelling expenses altogether they ought to place the matter on such a footing that they could distinguish between what was corrupt and what was not, and he believed the clause referred to would enable them to make that distinction, Therefore, with no intention whatever to screen the briber, but wishing to put down bribery, he should support the clause.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, he would remind the House that although provision might be made for conveying the poor voter to the poll there was none for conveying him back to his home.
  MR. FOXsaid, he considered that the real object of the Bill was to assist, if not to extend, the power of the purse at elections. To that he would always give his hearty opposition. The less money considerations entered into elections the better it would be for all the parties concerned. The poor voter should be provided for either by additional polling places, or by relieving him from any travelling expenses, but these expenses should not be paid by the candidate. He had gone through five elections, at three of which there was a fierce contest, and they had not cost him

  2061
  5s. From first to last the electors had acted on the principle that if a Member bought them, he would be liable to sell them. They returned him (Mr. Fox) on independent grounds, and they expected he would not compromise their independence by receiving favours from any party, or act otherwise than according to his conscience. And he had such faith in human nature that he thought such would be the conduct of constituencies throughout the country if they were only left to themselves. If the Ballot were adopted, and elections made really appeals to opinion, and not to fear or hope, much would be done towards the purification of that House, and the exaltation of its character.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, there is much to be said on both sides of this question; but, on the whole, I am inclined to think that the clause as it stands is one that ought to be adopted. It is, no doubt, desirable to do away, as far as we can, with all unnecessary expenses at elections. I think it was quite right to prohibit bands and colours, and those other things which do not contribute in any way to the exercise of the franchise, and only afford a screen for bribery; but I do not myself see how furnishing conveyances for voters can be called a mode of bribery. If you are to give a voter money to pay his expenses, then you may give him double or three times the amount he has spent in travelling, and you will open a door for almost unlimited bribery; but if you are restricted to providing a conveyance for him, I do not see how that can amount in any case to bribery, because you only give a ticket for conveyance to the voter who has promised you his vote beforehand. No candidate would bring up to the poll an elector about whose vote he was uncertain, because in doing so he would expose himself to considerable danger; but if he brings up a voter who has promised his vote, I do not see that he will thereby exercise an improper influence on his mind. It is said the difficulty may be overcome by providing additional polling places. No doubt the multiplication of polling places would give additional facilities to voters, but that would not accomplish the purpose in counties. We cannot in counties have polling places in every village, or within walking distance of every voter. Multiply them as much as you will, you can only put them in towns; and then there will be a great number of voters who will be shut
  2062
  out from voting, unless the candidate for whom they have previously promised to vote is enabled to bring them up to the poll. If you prohibit conveyances, you will disfranchise a large majority of voters for Universities. I had the honour of sitting for a great many years for the University of Cambridge; I experienced three contests, and if the candidates on those occasions had not been allowed to provide conveyances for the voters, the contest would have been decided simply by the resident members, who form a very inconsiderable part of the voters. In that case a great number of the voters for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge would be disfranchised. I think there can be no greater evil than leaving a point of this sort undecided. As far as I understand the matter, no one can tell distinctly whether a candidate who provides conveyances is or is not liable to the penalty attaching to bribery. That is a great evil, and I would much rather that the Committee came to a wrong decision upon the question than that it come to none at all. I think the candidates ought to be allowed to provide conveyances; but however that may be, I entreat the Committee to declare what the state of the law is. If an election were to take place before August of next year, see what a state of peril the electors would be placed in from the present uncertainty. I shall give my support to the clause.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he was sorry to differ from his noble Friend on any point, but he must say his noble Friend's success at elections had been so great that he could not be said to have had the experience of contested elections which had fallen to the lot of many other Members of that House. [Viscount PALMERSTON: Well, I don't know; I have stood six of them.] He thought he had always seen that his noble Friend had been returned by acclamation wherever he had presented himself as a candidate. When, therefore, his noble Friend asked how it could be bribery to pay for the conveyance of a voter to the poll, he (Mr. Osborne) could acquit him of having had much knowledge of the practices at a contested election; but the truth was, that the system of conveying voters to the poll had a direct tendency to bribe a whole host of livery-stable keepers, stage-coach proprietors, and the like, at every contested election, and the electors generally, whatever their political opinions might be. He did not hesitate to say that if the House legalized travelling expenses,

  2063
  the outlay of candidates at elections would be increased three-fold. The result would be to present a bad example to the electoral body throughout the country, for it would be doubted whether the House was sincere in its desire to obtain purity of election. It was plain that they still wanted to maintain the influence of the purse, and that, though they had removed the property qualification, still they were determined to take care that no poor man should contest a seat. The hon. Gentleman who had just been returned to that House (Sir Stafford Northcote) talked of a joint-stock purse having been provided by the candidates, of whom the hen. Gentleman was one, to defray the expense of conveying the voters to the poll at a contested election for Devonshire a few years ago. He believed the expense at that election was such that it nearly ruined the hon. Gentleman, so much so that he had been obliged to fall back on a borough where there was no need of the services of stagecoach proprietors and livery stable-keepers at elections. It was merely hypocrisy in that House to say that they wished to put down bribery. His (Mr. Osborne's) opinion was, that the prevalent desire in that House was to admit none but men of large property within its walls, and this Bill would be one of the instruments by which that would be attained. He held that the whole tendency of the measure would be to demoralise the constituencies, and therefore he should vote with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield.
  MR. GREERsaid, he thought if they were to sanction the expenses of conveying voters to the poll, the clause under consideration was the most convenient form in which they could do it; but he could not conceal from himself that its tendency would be more or less in the direction of bribery. He wished, also, to call the attention of the House to the fact, that this clause, if it passed, would very seriously enhance the cost of elections. At present, in the uncertain state of the law, and while the legality of conveyances was doubtful, their cost at an election was admitted to be tenfold what it was on ordinary occasions. But if this clause passed, they might be sure that everybody would be conveyed to the poll, and they might reckon that the cost would be at least double what it was now.
  MR. BRADYsaid, persons were compelled to attend the assizes at the county towns of England and Ireland, and why
  2064
  should not ratepayers do so, not once or twice a year, but once in four or five years? He would call this Bill the Tower Hamlets Patent Safety Corruption Bill. He would give the measure all the opposition in his power.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he believed that every hon. Member who had been unseated for bribery or intimidation during the present Parliament sat on the opposite side of the House.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to make an observation in reply to certain personal remarks which had been made on him by the hon. and learned Members for Southwark and Sheffield, and especially by the former (Mr. John Locke), who suggested that the clause suited him. Now, at his election he began by proposing that no conveyances should be provided at all, but that was declined by the other candidates, and he was obliged to employ them; but that item of his expenses was smaller than those of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, though his constituency was much larger than that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He could not claim the merit of having invented the clause. It only occurred to his mind as a means of giving a practical exposition of the law as it had been recently defined. In the returns of the election auditors he found that almost every candidate had an item for carriage hire. This showed that whatever the law might be the practice of conveying voters to the poll was all but universal. Then he found that the law did not declare the conveyance of voters to the poll illegal; it only condemned the payment of conveyance expenses with corrupt intent, and his clause was in harmony with that declaration of the law. The law was, however, in an unsatisfactory state, and this House could not leave it as it stood. They were bound to declare either that the conveyance of voters was legal or illegal. He had thought that if no conveyance were provided, the effect would be to throw the elections more than ever into the hands of the rich. There was nothing to prevent the rich from taking voters to the poll in their own carriages, and at elections all the rich friends of a candidate might place their carriages at his disposal. He wished to provide for the poor voter, and he thought that this was a provision in the interest of the poor voter. Was he, who was in favour of extending the franchise, to say that the people were so base and miserable as to be bribed by the offer of conveyance to

  2065
  the poll. A poor man forfeited his wages if he did not get to the poll and back within a short time. Affording facilities to the poor voter to go to the poll enabled him to exercise the franchise. The House was bound to settle the law, which was now unsettled.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished the hon. Gentleman had only carried his argument one step further. If the poor man was to be carried to the poll, lest he should lose his wages, why not authorise the candidate to pay him for the wages he lost. But the hon. and learned Gentleman said that was a mere declaration of the existing law. If so, what need was there for a declaration of the law at all? The declaration would introduce not clearness, but confusion. Besides, it was not a declaration of the law, but an alteration. According to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the law at that the voters' conveyance expenses might be paid. This clause said no; the expenses shall not be paid, but the conveyances may be furnished. He wished that this question had been made an open one. If the Government had not adopted this measure he ventured to say that there would be a large majority against this clause. It appeared to him most marvellous that the Government should press a clause like this. There must be some reason which did not meet the eye. He trusted, if they went to a division, they would be able to expunge one of the most objectionable pieces of legislation ever attempted.
  MR. HOLLANDdeclared, from practical experience, that the greatest advantage had been gained by the measure which increased the number of polling places, and he considered that the adoption of the present clause would still further benefit the country.
  Question put,
  The House divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 66: Majority 28.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 3.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN moved an Amendment to the effect that persons who are candidates at an election shall be exempt from penalties or expenses if he did not go to the poll.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he must object to the Amendment as a material alteration of the clause. The object of the clause was that every person who offered himself as a candidate, and incurred expenses—or at least should put his opponent to expenses—should be liable for his expenses. He
  2066
  hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment negatived, and the clause agreed to.
  MR. WARRENsaid, he would propose to add at the end of Clause 3 a proviso that nothing contained in the Act should be construed to impose any liability on any person nominated without his consent.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had explained on previous occasions his intention that the Act should be both a declaratory and a continuance Act. It had been objected that this clause effected neither one nor the other of those objects, and, feeling the force of this objection, he thought, as the clause had not been introduced by himself, that it had better form part of the permanent measure which would be introduced next Session. He proposed, therefore, to omit this section from the Bill.
  Clause struck out.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he would then move that the Bill be recommitted. The House had determined to keep in the first clause, and to allow the travelling expenses of voters, the whole of which would therefore fall upon the candidate. In taking this course, he understood the intention of the Government to be, that the poorer voters should be saved from expense, and from being disfranchised. Now, he took this to be a public object, and in that case he thought the public ought to pay for it. He did not hold that the position of a Member of Parliament was a personal object to attain. He had to perform responsible and onerous duties, and ought not to be called upon to pay any expense. He should move that the Bill be recommitted, in order that he might have the opportunity of adding at the end of the clause that any candidate having paid expenses to bring voters to the poll should be reimbursed from the county rates.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—
  "That the Bill be read the third time upon Monday next, at Twelve of the clock."
  Amendment proposed,—
  To leave out from the word "Bill" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "be re-committed," instead thereof.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 46: Majority 46.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid he would appeal to the Government not to put the third reading for a morning sitting.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the question had been debated and decided three or four times, and, considering the period of the Session, and that an important question would be raised on Monday evening, he hoped there would be no objection to proceeding at twelve o'clock on Monday.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought there was no ground to object to the early sitting.
  Bill to be read 3o on Monday next at Twelve o'clock.
  House adjourned at Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Clerk of Petty Sessions (Ireland).
2a Reformatory Schools (Ireland); Railway Cheap Trains, &c.; Herring Fisheries (Scotland).
3a Government of India; Titles to Land (Scotland); Sale and Transfer of Land (Ireland).
ROYAL ASSENT.—Funded Debt; Hainault Forest (Allotment of Commons); Durham County Palatine Jurisdiction; New General Post Office (Edinburgh); Navigation Advances (Ireland); Prescription (Ireland); Municipal Franchise; Universities and College Estates; Militia Ballots Suspension; Churches, &c. (Ireland); Confirmation of Executors, &c.; Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing; Nisi Prius Court, &c. (Ireland); Stanhope and Wolsingham Rectories; Law of False Pretences Amendment; Jews; Oaths; Marriages (Moscow, Tahiti, and Ningpo); Joint Stock Companies Act Amendment; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Continuance; Charitable Trusts Acts Continuance; Copyhold and Inclosure Commissions, &c.; Indemnity; Army Service.

ATLANTIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY'S BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY moved two Amendments in Clause 4. The first was to give the Company greater powers of raising money on mortgages and bonds; and the second was to place the British Government on the same footing with the
  1968
  United States Government in regard to the time guaranteed to the Company. In 1856 the United States Government passed an Act in Congress, guaranteeing to the Company the term of fifty years. In the present Bill the term proposed was twenty-five years; he wished to amend the Bill by extending the terms to fifty years, so as to equalize the term granted by both Governments.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he did not think that the British Government ought to be influenced in this matter by the Act of the United States Government. It should be recollected that the process of laying down the cable commenced in this country, and it was to end in Newfoundland. In reference to another point, he begged leave to call attention to the second clause, in which the usual provision in all similar Bills was omitted—namely, that in cases of emergency the Crown might take possession of the telegraph. He thought such a provision should be inserted. It was his duty in all Private Bills to watch carefully over the interests of the Crown as well as those of the public. Having stated his objections he would leave the matter now in the hands of the House.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought it very questionable policy to allow the monopoly which this Bill gave, and to extend the term from twenty-five to fifty years. He was of opinion that the noble Earl at the head of the Government should have given the House notice of his Amendments.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it was no part of his business to defend the agreement which had been entered into with the American Government, for it had been made under the sanction of the late Government; but the question was how far they were bound in fairness to this Company to sanction the agreement between them and the United States. In 1856 an Act of Congress was passed by which the American Government guaranteed the payment of 70,000 dollars a year for fifty years, and it was not until six months after that the Bill was introduced into Parliament which contained the clause giving the Crown the power of claiming the property at the end of twenty-five years. If the Amendment were not assented to it would be of most serious consequence to the Company. However, he had no objection to the postponement of the third reading until Monday for the purpose of re-examining the matter.
  After a few words from Lord STANLEY Of ALDERLEY and Lord REDESDALE,
  First Amendment agreed to; on second Amendment further Amendment adjourned to Monday next.

MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT GAGE, on rising to move the second reading of this Bill, said, that he found himself unexpectedly placed in a position which he had not thought of occupying; but a variety of unfortunate circumstances having prevented other noble Peers from proposing the second reading, he, as a supporter of the Bill, had thought it to be his bounden duty to undertake the conduct of it rather than that it should fall through for want of a proposer. He had had no hand in the preparation of the Bill, and there were, he thought, omissions in it which it would have been well to remedy; but certainly everything had been done to render it as little distasteful as possible to its opponents. As their Lordships were aware it was a measure intended to redress a great grievance, which was complained of by a considerable number of persons, and although, from the nature of the case, that number could not be great in proportion to the population of the country, yet the sufferers did indeed constitute a very numerous class. He believed that their Lordships would gladly redress the grievance even of an individual, provided there were no reason why they should not do so; much more then would they listen to the complaints of the numbers who had petitioned upon this subject; and if their grievances remained un-redressed it could only be because their Lordships considered that there were good and sufficient reasons for refusing to relieve them. The first objection which was usually adduced against the proposition of this measure, to legalize marriage with the sister of a deceased wife was, that there existed a religious and spiritual prohibition; but when it was asked where that prohibition was to be found no one was able to refer that objection to any higher authority than a canon of the Church, and, with all the sincere respect which he professed and felt for the Church, he could not believe that a mere canon, unsupported by Scripture or reason, was a sufficient excuse for refusing relief to a great number of persons
  1970
  against a proved evil. This canon was supposed to be grounded upon the 18th chapter of Leviticus. The only verse in that chapter in which any mention was made of a wife's sister was the 18th; there the prohibition clearly was, not against a man's marrying the sisters of his deceased wife, but against his marrying the sister in rivalry of the living wife. Indeed it seemed to him to amount to a permission to marry the sister after the wife's death. Another argument against such a marriage was founded upon an inference which was drawn from that very obscure and unfortunate phrase of which every one had heard so much; and the 6th verse of the 18th chapter was now selected as implying a prohibition, that prohibition being dependent wholly and solely upon the one peculiar phrase to which he referred; and which it was very doubtful whether it applied to marriage at all. He denied first, that the phrase in question bore the interpretation which was sought to be placed upon it; and, secondly, that the prohibition contained therein—whatever it might be—extended to the deceased wife's sister. In all the other cases the degree of relationship was minutely specified, and it extended only to blood relations: whereas in this case it was all left open to doubt. The great mass of their Lordships probably were under the impression—as he had once been—that this was a translation of some Hebrew phrase corresponding with the Eastern phrase of unveiling the bride, loosening the zone, or some phrase of that kind. But it was nothing of the sort, for he assured their Lordships that it was neither more nor less than an awkard expression in old English, the word "nakedness" there having no other meaning than that in which it was used by Joseph, who asked his brethren if they had come into Egypt "to spy the nakedness of the land." There was no personal sense whatever—the phrase had no existence as we used it. If he were asked for his authority for this reading he should refer to the Septuagint and the Vulgate translations. He might be told that the Septuagint was considered to be very faulty, and that it could not be relied on; but those who said that would not venture to include the first six books of the Old Testament in that condemnation, for there could be no doubt that it had been made by the most learned and capable men of the day at the time when Hebrew and Greek were living languages, and when a large proportion of persons

  1971
  were in the familiar habit of using both. The passage was there rendered, "You shall not reveal, uncover, or expose, the foibles, &c." He was altogether at a loss to discover how this phrase could be tortured into an application to marriage. Still further, he had inquired into the practice of the Jews themselves, who might be supposed to know their own law, and he found a strong argument against any prohibition being intended by those passages on the fact that the Jews themselves never regarded them in that light, and that they rather facilitated than opposed these marriages. Again, if their Lordships really thought that there was anything in Scripture prohibitory of these marriages, and if they regarded them as utterly subversive of the morality of social life, it was difficult to conceive how they could have sanctioned such a compromise of the matter as they had done in 1835. He could only say that there was no evidence whatever of such direful consequences as some persons appeared to dread having followed the relaxation in those countries in which it had taken place—and those countries included, he believed, all Protestant Europe and America, the Catholics being able everywhere to buy dispensations. They were frequently told that this was a woman's question, and that all the women were against the Bill. That all or anything like all of them were so he denied; but as for the mass of unthinking women who in the world, that knew anything about them, would ever have expected anything else? It would be just the same if at this moment the question had been whether they should relax some ancient prohibition against the husband making a second marriage at all; for the idea of being superseded where one had loved was not very pleasant, and it required sonic philosophy to combat it. It was objected also that the deceased's wife's sister, if she had children of her own, would be much more likely than any other woman to make a bad stepmother. The odds, he thought, were the other way—the wife's sister would be more likely than any other second wife to resist the temptation, if even she felt it, to treat the children of a former marriage unkindly. No doubt there were many weak women and many bad women in the world, but they were not more numerous among wives' sisters than any other class; and the special opportunities which a widower had had of associating with his wife's sister
  1972
  must have made him better acquainted with her character than with that of women in general. Such fanciful objections as these ought not to be allowed to stand in the way of this Bill passing into law. The canon of the Church on which this prohibition rested was made in an age in which every species of absurd asceticism was practised and praised, and when marriage itself was treated by the compilers of the Liturgy as a mere compromise with uneradicable incontinence. This Bill was sent up from the other House, backed by an increasing majority. The question was rapidly gaining ground in the country as the argument in favour of a change became known, and their Lordships would not long be able to resist the popular voice. A recent legal decision had extended the pressure of the prohibition beyond the bounds of this country, and it had thus placed in a stronger light than ever the injustice and hardship of the present law. The noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the noble Viscount had treated this question on two grounds, the religious ground and the social ground. As regarded the religious view of the subject, it was impossible to deny that the texts most referred to were open to various interpretations. But when difficulties arose, they should be guided by a consideration of the consequences which would naturally flow from a lax interpretation, and refer to other parts of the Scriptures for guidance; and in this view he thought no doubt whatever existed. The real question in this case was, "What is marriage—what is the relationship thereby established?" They were distinctly told in Scripture that the man and wife became "one flesh," and that being the case, the relations of the one necessarily became the relations of the other. Unless that simple principle were admitted and acted upon, society inevitably got involved in difficulties from which there was no escape, and would be driven to consequences from which every one would shrink with horror. It was argued that the prohibition referred only to blood relations; but the very same phrase was used in the clause which forbade the brother to marry his brother's wife. Whatever a man was forbidden to do in respect to his brother's wife he would also be forbidden to do in respect to his wife's sister; but there was no blood relationship in either case—merely

  1973
  affinity. The noble Viscount had asked, who could expect anything but objections to the Bill from women? In that view he entirely concurred. This was purely a man's Bill. The man did not come forward and propose that the woman should have the right to marry her husband's brother, but he came forward with his own lustful purposes and said, "Let me marry my wife's sister,"—the two standing in precisely the same position as regarded affinity. If this Bill passed, why should they not go further? Why should not a man be allowed to marry his step-daughter? There was no blood relationship in that case. Or why should not a step-son marry his step-mother—his father's widow? From such things as these the minds of all men naturally shrunk; and yet they might be justified on the same principle on which this Bill was justified if you once got rid of the deductions arising from the fact of man and wife being one flesh. What was a man to call his wife's sister if this Bill passed? Was he still to call her sister, or was he to call her cousin? If she were his sister during his wife's life, she was also his sister after her death—the relationship created by the marriage bond could not be got rid of. The canon which prohibited these marriages was almost as old as the Church itself, and was by no means, as it had been represented to be, an innovation of the time of the Reformation. As to the Bill of 1835, that Bill did not alter the law on the subject any further than this, that whereas before the marriage was voidable if anybody chose to object to it it was then made void from the beginning. As regarded the social grounds which formed arguments in respect to this measure, it appeared to him that the greatest possible injury would be done in families if the near and close relationship which existed between persons connected by marriage were interfered with, as it necessarily would be by this Bill. It was said that there had always been a great number of persons who had evaded the restriction, and that this was a reason for altering the law. If they were merely to consider how many persons gratified their sensual appetites without the sanction of the law, there were a number of other things to which this argument would apply. He feared that if they went amongst the narrow confined dwellings in which the lower orders were forced to herd, they would find in many quarters connections existing which no one would think of sanctioning by law.
  1974
  No one was ignorant of what the law had been for the last twenty-three years; yet now their Lordships were asked to sanction marriages which were positively prohibited by law, and to declare the issue legitimate. In all the attempts which had been made to alter the law difficulties had arisen from the nature of the connection between a man and his wife's sister. In the first Bill which was introduced for that purpose after the passing of the Bill of 1835, there was a clause providing that the marriage should not be allowed if there had been any adulterous connection between the parties during the lifetime of the deceased. Thus a deceased wife's sister was placed on a different footing from other women. In the present Bill, the second clause provided that a past marriage should not be valid if either of the parties to it had contracted a subsequent marriage with another person; so that if a man had by his own wicked act repudiated a marriage into which he had led his deceased wife's sister, she was not to be restored to her position by this Bill; the children of the woman who had supplanted her were to be legitimate, and her children were to be illegitimate. That was a clause which would give rise to great difficulty. The Bill confined the right to any dignity, title, or honour, to those to whom it was vested before the passing of the Act. A very curious question might arise out of that clause taken in connection with the 5th. By the latter, Ireland and Scotland were excluded from the operation of the Bill, not only as regarded dignities, titles, and honours, but also as regarded property; and as there were many Members of that House who held titles in the three kingdoms, the result might be that one set of children would be legitimate as regarded one set of titles, and another set of children as regarded another set of titles. The measure appeared to him to be both imperfect in itself and highly objectionable in principle; he believed that social evils of the gravest character would arise from the passing of it; he believed it to be contrary to the law of God; and, entertaining these views, he felt bound to move that it be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now"), and insert "this day Three Months."
  LORD LYNDHURST: My Lords, I do not rise to address your Lordships upon the general subject under discussion, but, as my noble Friend has alluded to the Bill which passes under my name I am desirous

  1975
  of giving a history, in a very few words, of that measure. I believe it is now upwards of twenty years since that Bill was introduced. Several of your Lordships who are now Members of the House were not Members of it at that period, and, after so long an interval, probably what passed is not very fresh in your Lordships' recollection. My attention was called by a circumstance, to which I shall presently refer, to the state of the law with respect to voidable marriages. Marriages which were voidable might be annulled at any time during the joint lives of the two parties. The consequence of this was that the children of those marriages, as to their status, stood in an uncertain condition for a great number of years—possibly for ten, twenty, thirty, or even fifty years. A person might be brought up as heir to his parents, as a legitimate child expecting to succeed in the ordinary way to family estates under a settlement, and all at once, after he had married, after he had become the father of children, proceedings might be instituted for the purpose of annulling the marriage of his parents; he would be bastardized, and the whole property would pass in a different direction. I considered that a very inconvenient and cruel state of the law, and my object in bringing in the Bill was to correct it. The Bill which I brought in had nothing to do with annulling marriages. It was merely to protect the legitimacy of children. My proposition was this,—that if the marriages were not annulled within a certain period, as far as related to the children, their legitimacy should not be questioned; and when I brought in the Bill I proposed that, unless they marriages were annulled within a period of two years, the legitimacy of the children should never be questioned—I said nothing whatever as to annulling the marriages, or as to what should take place with respect to the parents. My proposition and my Bill were confined solely to the children. I happen to have a copy of the Bill as originally laid upon your Lordships' table, and I will read what is the nature of the Bill and its provisions. The title of the Bill runs thus:—
  "An Act to limit the time for commencing suits in the Ecclesiastical Courts, so far as they may affect the children of parents married within prohibited degrees."
  The Bill related only to the children—not to the parents. It is endorsed, "Presented by Lord Lyndhurst, and ordered to
  1976
  be printed the 1st of June, 1835." There was but one enacting clause, which was in these terms:—
  "Whereas the children of parents married within prohibited degrees are by law legitimate unless such marriages be declared void by sentence of the Ecclesiastical Courts during the lifetime of the parents, and it being unreasonable and unjust that the state and condition of the children born under such circumstances should remain unsettled for so long a period, be it therefore enacted that the children of parents, married as aforesaid, shall be and continue legitimate unless a suit be duly instituted for annulling the marriage of their parents within two years."
  Such was the provision of that Bill. The circumstance to which I alluded which led me to introduce this Bill was the marriage of a noble Lord of high rank in this House. My attention was drawn to the position of the children, to the succession of the eldest son to a seat in this House, and the result was, as happens in many other cases, that a particular instance of hardship led to a general alleviation in the state of the law. The Bill was read a first time without opposition; it was generally approved by your Lordships; but between the first and second readings of the Bill a right rev. Prelate, for whose memory I entertain the greatest possible respect, who possessed great authority, great influence, and great weight in your Lordships' House from his position, his talents, and his masterly eloquence, consulted me and a noble and learned Friend of mine who was interested in the question, and said, "I disapprove of the Bill. I agree with you entirely as to the mischief of voidable marriages. Parties knowing they are breaking the law break it with their eyes open, imagining they can do so with impunity. I think that voidable marriages ought to be declared void, that the parties may see at once the consequence of their act, and if they commit the offence with their eyes open they must take the consequence." The consequence was, that in Committee the whole character of the Bill was entirely changed. I have got the Bill as it passed through Committee. The history of the measure is quite curious. I listened with great respect to the arguments of the right rev. Prelate. I knew his influence in this House. By whom the Amendments were moved I do not recollect; but the Bill was entirely changed, and took this shape. First, with respect to the title, the new title of the Bill was, "An Act to render certain marriages valid, and to alter the law with respect to certain voidable

  1977
  marriages." The preamble was retained. Then, it went on thus:—
  "And it is fitting that all marriages which may hereafter be celebrated between persons within such prohibited degrees shall be de facto void and not voidable."
  And with respect to past marriages, it was declared that, unless proceedings were instituted for the purpose of annulling such marriages before the passing of the Bill, no proceedings should afterwards be instituted. It does not in point of fact declare those marriages valid, but, as to suits to annul them, instead of during the lives of the parties the period is curtailed within which they must be instituted. That is the history of the Bill. Your Lordships are aware of its original form. I have told your Lordships of the consultation which led to the change—consultation with the right rev. Prelate of great talents, extraordinary influence, great eloquence—and whether the Amendments were moved by the right rev. Prelate or by myself I do not recollect, and I have no means of ascertaining. I said in rising that it was not my intention to enter into the general discussion, and I mean to abstain from doing so. My Lords, I am acquainted with a circumstance that has some bearing on this question, and I will state it. I am intimately acquainted with the state of society in a district in New England. I refer to the state of Massachusetts, of which Boston is the capital. I have several very near connections there, and I will undertake to say that in no civilized part of the world is there to be found a more moral and intelligent people, especially in regard to the intercourse of the sexes, than are the people of that State; and yet, my Lords, in that State the marriages which my noble Friend condemns are consistent with the law. They are not only legal, but they are of constant occurrence. I do not mean to say that a law which has no ill effects in one State of society may not produce a contrary result in another state of society in which different habits and manners prevail; but I state as a witness the facts to which I have referred, and leave it to noble Lords who may take part in this debate to draw an inference from that which I have stated. I hope your Lordships will think I have not done amiss in directing your attention to the circumstances attending the passing of this Bill, which, considering the material part taken in it by the right rev. Prelate, who was, in fact, the author of the Bill, ought to have great weight with
  1978
  your Lordships in the discussion of this measure.
  EARL NELSONsaid, he could not allow the arguments of the noble Viscount (Viscount Gage) to pass without observation. He thought it was impossible for any one, who had studied the 18th chapter of the Book of Leviticus, not to see that the whole of our prohibited degrees were defined by the rules there laid down and the analogies to be derived from them. Besides, it was clear that the rules there laid down pertained to the moral and not to the Levitical law, because it was said that these were the views of the Egyptians and Canaanites, who had made the land to stink in the sight of God. If their Lordships looked into the matter, they would see that, if they were not prepared to read Scripture by reference to analogy, they would err in its construction and fall into great absurdities. For instance, there was no law against a father marrying his own daughter, although there was a law against a son marrying his mother. Again, if they did not read Scripture by analogy, the Tenth Commandment, which said a man should not covet his neighbour's wife, would not prevent a woman coveting her neighbour's husband. The question in this case depended, in a great measure, upon whether our Bible was a correct translation of the original in Hebrew; and they knew Hebrew scholars differed very much as to the true construction of the original. With regard to the Roman Catholics, it suited many of that body in this country to throw over the opinions of the early Church, and to say that these marriages were not contrary to God's law. Protestant Germany had gone much further than the Roman Catholics, and having once departed from the only true standing ground, had made many other relaxations. But what their Lordships had to consider was, how far the Old Testament was to be interpreted by the New, without any reference to what the Jews might say. As to the social ground, he agreed with the promoters of the Bill, that so far there could not be a better person to look after a deceased wife's children than her sister. But at what time would she be most required and be most useful? Why, during the first few months after the death of her sister—the very period when her assistance would be forbidden by the new law. As to the moral ground, it only came to this—that there were many persons living a life of wickedness, and it was desirable that the law

  1979
  should be altered that they might be purged of that wickedness. He did not believe this Bill was what it was represented to be—a poor man's question, but one more applicable to the middle classes; and this was borne out by statements which he had received from persons of great experience. It was a Bill in fact, to legitimatize children that were now illegitimate; and the lower classes having very little property, cared very little about the matter. He would not be a party to increase the severity of the laws of the Church, but he would ask whether it was not worth while to consider this fact—that if they neglected the only standard of truth which they had, they would be left to the individual opinions of those persons who would be anxious to satisfy them that their own views of marriage were best, and were based upon Scripture; and the Mormons and other sects might say that upon social, moral, and religious grounds they ought to have the benefit of every relaxation, and that every style of living which they pleased to adopt was founded upon Scripture. It was a serious question to consider whether sufficient grounds had been shown for altering the present law. An agitation had been got up by a clique—a few people who had spent much money to carry out this object. Of the religious bodies, the Baptists were the only persuasion who petitioned in any numbers in favour of the Bill; the Presbyterians of Scotland and of Ireland, and the Roman Catholics of the latter country, were so opposed to it, that they were exempted from its operation. He hoped their Lordships would reject the measure.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he could not give a silent vote on this occasion, for he believed that the effect of passing this Bill would be to destroy the peace of families, by sowing distrust where confidence and affection now prevailed. At the present moment the sister of a deceased wife frequently lived in the house of her widowed brother-in-law and took the charge of the children till he might again marry. This she could now do with every regard to her reputation; but if the class of marriages dealt with in this Bill were legalized that would be no longer possible. He ought to mention to their Lordships that he had had the honour of presenting two petitions against the Bill, signed chiefly by females, who knew that if the present Act were repealed it would cause great misery and heartburning in England. Surely the female sex was more especially interested in such a matter.
  1980
  He was not prepared to say that marriages of this description were directly prohibited in Scripture; he took it up in a social point of view, and he repeated his belief that if such marriages were legalized the peace of many a happy home in England would be destroyed. He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would reject the Bill. He hoped they would hear something from the right rev. Bench on this very important subject. It ill behoved the Bishops of England to record a silent vote upon such a question, one which so deeply affected our social interests. He could not believe that the right rev. Prelate who presided over the diocese of Oxford, and who had so ably opposed this measure in a former year, would not raise his powerful voice against it on the present occasion. That right rev. Prelate, he well remembered, had called upon their Lordships to reject this measure in the name of God; he had called upon them to do so in the name of the unity of our Church; he had called upon them to do so in the name and for the sake of those ten thousand happy homes of England, the barriers to whose peace and domestic comfort would be annihilated by the passing of a measure like this. Would he now record a silent vote? Surely not. He called upon their Lordships to reject a measure which could not fail, if passed into a law, to prove detrimental to our best and dearest interests in social life.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I had only intended to give a silent vote upon a subject on which I have frequently declared my opinion, but after the appeal of the noble Viscount who has just sat down (Viscount Dungannon) I feel it necessary to trouble your Lordships with a very few words. I must adhere to the opinion which I have formerly expressed in this House that the marriage which it is the purpose of this Bill to legalize is forbidden in Scripture. The noble Viscount who opened the debate (Viscount Gage) made no allusion to the passage which is clear upon that point. The brother is there prohibited from approaching his brother's widow. She is his sister in law. It must surely follow that the sister cannot marry her sister's widower. He is her brother in law. In the long list of prohibitions, which, it should be remembered, is the only rule of divine authority on the subject of marriage, one sex is almost uniformly specified, while the other is included. My Lords, it appears to me that this prohibition bears evidence in itself of

  1981
  the source from which it emanates. For, in connections of this kind, there would be an end to all confidence if parties were led to suppose that there could ever be any union between them closer and more tender than that of affinity. Thrown together as they necessarily are in social life, it is essential to all domestic comfort that they should regard each other as sisters and brothers. And, no doubt, it is from a feeling of this kind that we uniformly find the women of England most averse to the passing of this Bill. Their sentiments have been underrated by the noble Viscount; but they are sensitive upon matters which so greatly affect the interests of their own sex, and if their suffrages could be generally taken I believe that they would be found unanimous in the opinion that the comfort of the married life, as well as the consolation of the widower whose married life had been unhappily interrupted, mainly depends upon the maintenance of the existing law. This has been strongly represented to me in a letter which I have received from a Dissenting minister of much respectability, and long known to me, who begins by expressing his regret that this "should be made by some a Dissenting question." He believes "that there are many Dissenters who think with himself that the restriction is one of social importance." And he adduces his own case:—"In very early life I was left," he says, "a widower with three young children, the youngest not a fortnight old. My deceased wife had single sisters who were amiable and kind, and who came to my relief in turn as they could. Now, had not the law placed them in the position of sisters—and I regarded them as my own sisters—how could I have asked them or they have consented to live in my house? The protection of the law afforded me their invaluable consolation and care of my babes without suspicion. I therefore plead for the widower and his children in wishing the law to stand." My Lords, I trust that this protection of the law will be continued to the people of this land, and on the double ground of what I believe to be the purport of Scripture and what I believe to be desirable for the social welfare of the community I must adhere to the vote which I have formerly given, and I trust the proposition will receive no better support than on former occasions in your Lordships' House.
  LORD CRANWORTHwished to state very briefly, and at the same time very temperately, the grounds on which he had
  1982
  arrived at the conclusion that this measure, if adopted, would be mischievous in its effects. On the religious branch of the subject he had not sufficient confidence in his own judgment to express any opinion; he would, therefore, regard the question as if it were one on which Scripture was wholly silent, and which must be determined by considerations of social convenience alone. Looking to the class of society to which their Lordships belonged, surely there was nothing in married life which ought to be more carefully cultivated than the freest intercourse between the wife's relations and her husband's domestic circle. The husband was necessarily often withdrawn from home, and it was of the utmost importance to the social and domestic happiness of the wife that her sisters should be her most familiar companions. But if the suspicion were allowed to cross her mind that she was encouraging those who in the event of her death might supply her place in her husband's affections, it would be impossible for her, disguise it as she might, to receive them with the same cordiality and freedom as heretofore. It had been said that no one would make so good a stepmother to the children as the sister of the deceased wife. He might doubt that, but if this Bill passed how was the sister to take charge of the children without creating suspicion and giving occasion to remark? Whether he looked to the interests of society before or after the wife's death, he thought this measure would tend to impair those interests. But it was said that what might be a desirable state of the law for the higher ranks of society might be very unsuited to the comfort of the lower. If that were really so, it would be their Lordships' duty to strike as fair a balance as they could, and then decide impartially according to the preponderance of good or evil incident to either side of the question; and in making such an estimate they ought to be specially on their guard that they did not legislate for that class of society to which they themselves belonged. To his judgment, however, it was very difficult to discover any sufficient ground for believing that the interests and feelings of the lower classes on this subject differed in any material degree from those above them in the social scale. The fact that Scotland and Ireland were excepted from this Bill disproved the existence, even among the humbler classes, of any general, not to say universal, sentiment in its favour. It was notorious also that in the rural dis-

  1983
  tricts of England such a measure was not desired; and though, indeed, it was alleged that it was demanded by persons in the populous towns and manufacturing districts it would be found that in those localities, where the poor had contracted relationships to which it was now proposed to give legislative sanction, bigamy itself was almost of daily occurrence, and it would be hard to show that the arguments used for legalizing marriage with a deceased wife's sister would not equally apply to the legalization of bigamy. He had no doubt that his noble and learned Friend had truly described the state of morals in Massachussets; but whatever might be the state of society on the other side of the Atlantic, where a law like that now under discussion was in operation, there was little doubt that in passing this measure their Lordships would do violence to the feelings of the great mass of the English community. For these reasons he must oppose the second reading of the Bill.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that some of the speakers who had taken part in the debate had based their argument on social grounds, and others on religious grounds. The noble and learned Lord who spoke last had rested his opposition solely on the social part of the question. He (Lord Wodehouse) confessed he had no confidence in his own interpretation of the obscure passages in Scripture upon which the opponents to the Bill originally based their principal opposition; but he might be allowed to remark that the passage in the text of Leviticus was not the ground upon which they now chiefly relied—he meant the passage prohibiting a man from taking his wife's sister in her lifetime to vex her. The most rev. Prelate opposite (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had, however, taken another ground. He said that there was a prohibition of two brothers marrying the same woman, and that, therefore, by analogy, it might be inferred that two sisters ought not to marry the same man. The plausibility of that argument he was not disposed to deny; but it could be met thus—if it were true that the marriage of a woman with the brother of her deceased husband was prohibited by the Levitical law in such a manner as to render it incestuous, how was it that in certain cases a man was strictly enjoined by that law to marry the widow of his deceased brother? It was monstrous to suppose that the Divine Lawgiver could give a positive order to do that in special cases which in general
  1984
  cases would make a marriage incestuous. With regard to the social ground on which this Bill was on the one side opposed and on the other supported, he admitted that every man had a right to his own opinion. Some persons might think these marriages undesirable; but he agreed with the noble Lord (Viscount Gage) that, looking to all the facts, it was better the law should be relaxed. What were the facts connected with the question in this and in other countries? These marriages, as their Lordships had already heard, were frequent in Boston, and yet they were not attended with any of those horrible consequences to which a noble Lord had referred. In most of the countries of Europe they were permitted, either directly or indirectly—as in Catholic countries through dispensation—and they were contracted by the Protestant communities of Germany. Now, a great deal of stress had been laid on the argument that to relax the law here would lead in many cases to domestic unhappiness; he could only say that if the Utopian felicity which had been described really existed, it would be a strong argument in favour of not interfering. It did not, however, exist; and it was impossible to deny that the law, as it now stood, affected injuriously very many persons who had already contracted marriages of the kind, or who, as amongst the lower classes, did what was worse, by living without marriage with their deceased wife's sister. Upon all the grounds he had stated, he would therefore support the proposed alteration in the state of the law.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: My Lords, having already been most indulgently listened to by your Lordships on a former occasion, when I ventured at considerable length to argue what I considered was the true view of this question, I had no thought of troubling your Lordships with any remarks of mine to-night, further than such as I might make in endeavouring to answer any new objections that might be urged by any noble Lord, to what I believe to be the true view of this subject. One or two remarks of the noble Lord who has just sat down seem to me to come under that category, and I think I should be doing wrong if I did not answer them. But I will not enter again into the whole width of this subject, having already done so. Adhering entirely to the opinions I then ventured to express, and to the arguments I then ventured to use, I will not weary your Lordships by going into the

  1985
  whole matter again; but there are one or two points which, if left unanswered, out of doors at least, if not in this House, great injury would, in my opinion, be done to the cause of truth on this subject. The noble Lord who has just sat down has drawn an argument in favour of this Bill from a particular injunction under certain given circumstances to a brother to marry the widow of his deceased brother. Now, in the first place that argument is really worth nothing—but if it be worth anything, it seems to me to prove too much—too much for this reason. No one urges that it could be consistent with the purity of Christian life, that a man should marry the widow of his own brother. That is not advanced by any one—that is not asked for—it is admitted that the common moral sense of Christendom would regard such a marriage as intolerable. That argument, therefore, proves too much. To give a clear answer to the noble Lord would take us upon delicate ground upon which I had rather not enter; but I think it is necessary to answer the noble Lord's argument. The noble Lord said, that marriage with a deceased wife's sister could not be incestuous, else you would make the Great Author of mankind Himself, under certain circumstances, prescribe incest. Incest itself, my Lords, you must remember, is not a sin against nature, but is a sin against a positive enactment. By the Divine appointment itself, the origin of the human race was the fruit of a marriage which we should now regard with horror as the worst form of incest—the marriage of brother and sister. Therefore you must see that incest is not a thing like a sin against nature, which is written broad as evil by the hand of God upon the nature of the thing itself; but that it is a prohibition of His wisdom and of His love to the race of man, in order to draw through this prohibition blessings upon the race at large, which except for this prohibition would not be drawn. Well, then, if that is the real view which we ought to form of incest, this at once follows from it—that it is in the power of the Supreme Lawgiver for any sufficient advantage, at any particular time, to enact that which is contrary to His ordinary loving enactment for the race, in order to produce at that particular time some particular result which he sees to be for the good of the race. The noble Lord made a slight but important error in speaking of this being an enactment of the Book of Leviticus. It is an enactment of the
  1986
  Book of Deuteronomy, and at the closing part of that book, to make a special provision for the special transmission of the property and name of a race which was essential for the Divine purposes—for the very object for which the Jewish race was separated from all others—the keeping clear the pedigree from which the Messiah was to be born. And, so far from this special enactment admitting the principle that a man might ordinarily marry the widow of his deceased brother—so far from its being the national law which was laid down by that special enactment—it provided that the brother who, in this way, contracted what was called a prescribed inviolate marriage should represent, as it were, his deceased brother, and should upon his marriage with the widow succeed, not to his own inheritance, but to the inheritance of his deceased brother. It was a special enactment to raise up seed to the dead brother. Therefore this special enactment was a supercession by the Supreme Lawgiver, for certain manifest purposes, of the general law which He was pleased to lay down for the general welfare of His creatures. The noble Lord further stated that it seemed to be a very general opinion among the opponents of this Bill that the religious argument was very uncertain. I am bound to say, so far as I am concerned—and I believe I may say the same on behalf of my right rev. Friends on this bench—that there is no uncertainty whatever. We do heartily and ex animo take the declaration of our Church that such marriages as these are contrary to God's law, incestuous, and therefore void from the beginning; and we ground this not only upon that chapter of the Book of Leviticus which has been so often referred to, but we ground it also upon the New Testament legislation on this subject. My noble Friend said, that the opponents of this measure mainly relied upon the 18th verse of the 18th chapter of Leviticus; but so far as I remember the debates in this House, that verse has always been used by the advocates for a change in the law, as being a text which shook the rest of the Scriptural argument. The main Scriptural argument, so far as the Old Testament was concerned, was always made by the opponents of the Bill to rest exclusively upon the early part of that chapter—from the 6th to the 17th verses. The noble Viscount who moved the second reading attempted to answer that argument by stating that it was very doubtful whether

  1987
  there was any allusion in all those verses to marriage or the mixture of the sexes at all. He thought that it referred to vexing or disturbing the temper of the wife, and he grounded that view upon the interpretation of one word in the Vulgate and the Septuagint. Now, I appeal to your Lordships whether the best way of ascertaining the meaning of this passage in the Vulgate is not to ask the interpretation which those commentators of the Church who drew up the Vulgate placed upon it? There is not one of them who puts upon it the sense that the noble Viscount does. Universally the interpretation put upon it by them was, that this was a prohibition of marriage, and of intercourse between those who were closely connected by the ties of blood and affinity. The Septuagint version also uses a word which has always been taken in the Eastern Church to mean the mixture of those who either by blood or marriage were connected in close relationship. But we may go from the Septuagint and the Vulgate up to a higher authority—the Hebrew text; and there is not the slightest shadow of a doubt as to the word there used, the English translation being the most direct and literal and positive that could by possibility be given of it—"Thou shalt not draw near to the nakedness of those of kin; God bath said it." This being so, the argument remains as it was urged by the noble Earl (Earl Nelson), that whether related by blood or by parallel degrees of affinity these marriages were distinctly forbidden to the Jews by the Old Testament. But it seems to me, that we argue the matter on far too narrow a basis when we thus wrangle over particular texts in which the law was laid down for the people of God of old. Can any reasonable man doubt that the whole course of God's legislation on this subject has been to introduce new measures of strictness instead of new relaxations in dealing with the married life? Just so far as He has intended to raise a people in the scale of civilization and morality, just so far as He has increased to them His religious gifts and assistance, just so far as He strengthened the law in those things which have reference to the intercourse between the sexes. Every one can see a reasonable ground for this—it is in order that there may be increased and multiplied such a state of society as He desires shall exist in His Christian Church—that men and women may meet together with a degree
  1988
  of freedom and safety, and mutual affection, which could only be secured by the strengthening of those laws which restrain direct sexual intercourse. Every one of us sees that it must be so; but in Egypt of old, where the detestable doctrine of the worshippers of Isis prevailed, that brother and sister might, without any degradation or stain, contract these marriages, could any family, when the brother and sister reached the age of puberty, allow that free and social intercourse which is allowed in every family in every Christian land, because that most beneficial restraint of the law of God has substituted a higher family affection for that lower animal affection which is to bind together man and wife? But, when our Lord lays down the principle that man and wife become one flesh, He solves all those difficult questions as to whether this or that particular thing is prohibited; and taking that in conjunction with the general declaration of the old law, that the God of purity would not have those who were near akin to join in marriage, we have in our blessed Lord's interpretation, and in the application of it, a law which at once and for ever settles this question for those who receive His revelation. This is that which the whole of Christendom, down to this time, has adopted. This is that which the Church in the East and the Church in the West have ever held. And do not let me be told that the Roman Catholic Church allows dispensations for these marriages. What, I ask, does she not allow dispensations for? The noble Viscount spoke rather slightingly of the canons of the Church, and stated that they were the composition of Pharisaical minds. My Lords, on behalf of that Reformed Church of England to which it is my happiness and glory to belong, I must declare that such were not the notions of marriage which were held by the Reformers of the English Church. It is one of our great blessings that we were brought back by them from a system of dispensations and of casuistry to what had been held in primitive times as the undoubted word of the Lord our God. They rested that prohibition on the declaration that that was God's word, as it had been always understood in the primitive time. And who was the particular Roman Pontiff that introduced the change? Was there that virtue, was there that wisdom, was there that authority in things sacred about him that—though he was a Pope—we should be disposed to accept his

  1989
  dictates? It was the infamous Borgia—the man who, himself under vows of celibacy and sanctity, was more than suspected to have been living in the most shameless incest—who granted that dispensation under the most colourable pretext, claiming for the first time for the Roman See a power which it had never claimed before, of dispensing in this matter with the law of God. I think, therefore, that the argument of dispensation goes for nothing. We have, then, I say, the voice of the Western Church; we have the voice of the Eastern Church; we have the unbroken witness of the early Church, that this is the true interpretation of the word of God and that the word of God prohibits these mixtures. Therefore I must declare to your Lordships that it is with no hesitating voice that I, and those who think with me, assert the religious and scriptural argument that these marriages are incestuous, and contrary to the law of God. Much has been said as to the social question. I will not trouble your Lordships at length. The noble Viscount has admitted that the great body of educated women are opposed to this change, endeavouring to account for their feeling on the ground of what he called the "constitutional jealousy" of the female mind. As I rejected the imputation which he cast upon the English Reformers, I must reject also this imputation against English women. I deny that they are constitutionally jealous; and, so far from its being true that women have a horror of their husbands contracting second marriages, I believe that that is a rare feeling among Christian women in England, and that they desire, if their husband be left a widower, that he should provide himself with a suitable helpmate, and his offspring with a fitting protector. I believe that just where there is the strongest affection there is the strongest objection to this measure on the part of women. I hold in my hand a letter from a lady whose name would immediately command the respect and attention of your Lordships if I were to mention it to you, in which she says:—
  "A friend of mine in Parliament said to me that he thought the objection to such marriages did not exist where family affection was comparatively weak; that my sisters and I might abhor the idea, but that was because we are very closely bound together in love. Perhaps so; but what an admission: What a testimony to the value of the objection—to the title to consideration of the objectors!"
  Yes, my Lords; so far from its being any constitutional jealousy in English women,
  1990
  I believe that the real reason is this:—God has given to the two sexes different intellectual powers and qualities—to us, the sterner and harder power of arriving at the truth chiefly by argument, by induction, and the like; while to her He has given that which, after all, is a higher attribute—the power of intuition, of perceiving what is true, what is pure, and what is noble, and without the tardy process of a long considered logic, of coming by that power with which He has endowed her heart at the truest and the best conclusion. Therefore, so far from thinking that the general feeling of the women of England can be set aside, I consider it to be a great argument against any measure affecting social and married life when the advocates of it admit that the great mass of the educated women of England are unanimously opposed to it. I come next to the argument that this alteration is desired by the poorer classes. I deny that altogether. I once took the trouble to get all the clergymen in the three counties which form my diocese to make me a report of the number of cases in which these marriages had taken place among the poorer classes. There were but three cases in the whole of those three counties. Where the evil existed it was in the middle classes, where the argument of the poverty of the widower could not for a moment apply. I grieve to say that I believe if you lower down the standard of your marriage law to the requirements of those who have offended against God's law you must go much below this Bill. Keep, therefore, I beseech you, the purity of your English home. Make it well understood that you never will, on moral grounds, relax this prohibition. It has been said that the present law is cruel to those who desire to contract these marriages; but are there no others to whom such an alteration of the law as is now asked for would be cruel? Would it not be cruel to the sisters who, in many cases, are enabled to live with their married sisters solely by reason of the impossibility of these alliances? Would it not be cruel to the widower, whose sister-in-law can now come to his house at the moment of his bereavement to take charge of his motherless children, whose whole domestic happiness for the future depends on the impossibility of any such alliance as this being possible? Are we to sweep away from this man that which God's ordinance has made the alleviation of his grief, in order to gratify the lawless desires of those who wish to take

  1991
  to themselves this particular forbidden Woman? On the mere ground of humanity, therefore, I ask your Lordships to reject this Bill. If there be the slightest shadow of a doubt as to whether God's blessing will rest on these unions, is it not the part of wisdom and humanity, as well as of faith, for us as legislators to refuse to sanction them? Before sitting down, my Lords, I feel it right to admit the good feeling of those who have framed this Bill in such a shape as not to violate the principles of the Church of England. As the Bill stands, this marriage is not in any sense one which members of the Church of England can have recourse to. If it had been possible for me as a legislator to give my assent to making the law of the land and the law of God differ on this matter of incest I would gladly have met the promoters of this Bill half way. But God's law is positive, and those who take God's law for a guide can have no hesitation in saying to the advocates of these marriages, "We refuse you a fatal privilege, which may bring down God's curse upon you."
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord behind me (Lord Wodehouse) may find a precedent in the speech of my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) for the line of argument he has taken, and which has been so severely commented upon by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford). As the right rev. Prelate has spoken strongly on this point, there is one thing I should like to know—whether, if it be true, as the right rev. Prelate says, that incest be a sin, not against nature, but against positive enactment, I should like him to explain how it was that the Canaanites were punished for doing that which was not a sin against nature, but condemned by the Book of Leviticus—a command which could not possibly be known to them? Or, if it be so clearly opposed to the law of God, I ask how your Lordships could consent, by a previous Act, to legalize all existing marriages of this description? I must take leave to doubt, too, that the right rev. Prelate speaks in this matter the united voice of the Episcopal Bench.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: What I said was, that I and my right rev. Brethren who agree with me on this question are unanimous in thinking that there was no doubt whatever on the Scriptural part of the argument.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I thought there
  1992
  must have been some mistake, because, having consulted the Bishop of my own diocese (the Bishop of Lichfield), he wrote to me a day or two ago, stating in the most distinct manner that he was quite convinced, as far as the Scriptural part of the argument went, that it all rested on one text, which, in his opinion, was more in favour of our view than the other. It has been said, and with great truth, that this House ought not to be guided in this matter by the feeling of the society in which we move, but that we ought to look to what was desired by the community at large. I do not think it necessary to enter into any minute details as to the feeling of the upper classes of society with respect to this change—there are many circumstances connected with the question which make it undesirable to do so—but I have no hesitation in admitting that the feeling of that particular class is against this Bill. With regard, however, to the middle and lower classes, I have no doubt whatever that public opinion is in favour of the change. I deny altogether, too, that the feeling of the women of this country is against the Bill. I have conversed myself with many who had a very strong feeling the other way. I believe that in the middle classes, even in religious society, there is no unwillingness shown to receive and mix with persons who have contracted these illegal marriages, and that of itself is a strong proof of the feeling of the middle classes on the matter. I received a letter the other day from a gentleman in Yorkshire, in which he mentions that the head of a girls' school in his neighbour—hood had married the widower of her sister, and that not a single scholar had been taken away from her school in consequence of that act. With regard to the poorer classes we know that in towns these marriages do take place among them. Mr. Denham, the rector of a parish in the Strand, stated that the cases were most numerous, that the marriages had an immense moral effect upon the poorer classes, and that he had never seen any disadvantage from connections of the sort. The question has been so often debated that I will not weary your Lordships by going over it again. It is sufficient to say that none of the difficulties which are anticipated from a change of the law obtained in the United States, where these marriages are permitted; that these marriages hold good in all the Protestant communities in Europe; and, as has been

  1993
  already said, that if the Roman Catholics are much stricter they possess a power of dispensation which relaxes the general principle. When the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) refers to the ancient Apostolical canon he forgets that there is also a canon which forbids the marriage of priests altogether. It is clearly inapplicable to the state of the law of which we now complain, and which has only held good since the year 1835. In conclusion, I will only express my sincere and ardent wish that your Lordships will on this occasion gratify the conscientious desire of immense classes of the community by giving a second reading to this measure.
  THE BISHOP OF RIPONclaimed to say a few words, because he happened to differ from many, though he was happy to say, not from all, of his right rev. Brethren. In the first place he thought there was no direct Scriptural prohibition of the marriage of a man with his diseased wife's sister. If there were any direct Scriptural prohibition it was almost unnecessary for him to observe that no consideration should ever induce him to advocate an enactment which would have the effect of making such marriages legal. The arguments attempted to be drawn from Scripture by the opponents of the measure were arguments by inferences; and, considering the conflict of opinion among eminent divines of this and other Christian communities on this subject, and that at best arguments by inference were of a doubtful character, he thought they might well leave the resolution of the doubt to the conscience of each individual. But, believing as he did, that Scripture, so far from prohibiting, sanctioned these marriages, it was a grievance of which the people might justly complain that the law of the land was out of harmony with the revealed law of God. These were the considerations which influenced him, so far as the Scriptural argument was concerned. As regarded the social part of the question, he believed that great evils were connected with the existing state of the law; and when it was said that this measure would lead to the social evils which had been described, he asked why those evils had not been produced in those countries where marriage with a deceased wife's sister was the law of the land? It was said that the feeling of this country was against these marriages; but he believed facts did not bear out that state-
  1994
  ment. The petitions presented to the other House against the Bill were 300, signed by 10,000 persons, and the petitions in its favour were 1,047, having 125,539 signatures, and no one denied that marriages of this description were very numerous throughout the country. It had been found impossible to enforce the law as it at present stood, and believing that Scripture sanctioned these marriages he should cordially support the second reading.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, the right rev. Prelate who had just sat down had almost overpowered him, and rendered it scarcely possible for him to address their Lordships. The right rev. Prelate said that Scripture expressly sanctioned these marriages. Up to the last few minutes he would not have believed it possible that a Bishop of the Church of England could have made such a declaration. Did their Lordships recollect that the Church which had the right rev. Prelate for one of its Bishops declared, in one of its most solemn canons, that a marriage of this kind was incestuous, that it was contrary to the law of God, that it should be dissolved from the first, that it should be utterly null and void? That was the law of the Church. The right rev. Prelate spurned the law of the Church. The right rev. Prelate said, "I care not for your Church of England, and what the Church of England declares to be forbidden by the law of God I declare to be sanctioned by the law of God." That was what they had heard to-night. He was amazed. If any clergyman in any place which was not privileged dared to say what the right rev. Prelate had said he would, if he were in the diocese of a faithful Bishop, be brought to account for his words. But it was said that the canon was drawn up in ancient and ascetic times. It was the time of James I., and if he were to look back to any age for a state of profligacy and anything but asceticism on the part of the clergy it would be to that very period. They were told that these canons were drawn up also in very early times, when they were all ignorant of these things. But that was the very reason that they were of force. The Church of England claimed it to be its law and doctrine, because it was the law of the early Church. If it were not so, the Church of England would not be what it was; it would not be a Catholic Church, and it would not have its own Bishops sitting there, except the

  1995
  right rev. Prelate who claimed to be a Bishop of the Church of England. The right rev. Prelate claimed to be a Bishop of the Catholic Church, purified from the corruptions of Rome, and yet declared that her canons were to be of none effect. The Bill to which the right rev. Prelate gave his very extraordinary support distinctly said, "provided that nothing herein contained shall invalidate, alter, or affect any canon or constitution ecclesiastical of the United Church of England and Ireland now in force." Did the right rev. Prelate mean then to say that the passing of this Bill would not affect the canons of the Church of England? And to show the absurdity and ludicrous inconsistency of the Bill it would come to this, that should the Bill pass—a supposition which he could not insult the common sense of their Lordships by suggesting as possible—the law of the land, in the same statute, would declare that a person might contract legally a marriage before a registrar, and yet might have that marriage declared contrary to God's law, and therefore null and void from the beginning, by the canon which was not to be affected by the Act. So far as the Bill was concerned a marriage of this kind would carry with it all the effect of a legal marriage; but, although these persons might marry under this Bill, they could never be admitted to the Holy Communion by a faithful minister, for he would be bound to tell them that they were living in a state of sin, that they were offending the congregation by living in a state of sin, and that he could not and would not violate his functions by administering to them that sacrament, which, as a faithful minister of Christ, he would at the same time be bound to tell them was necessary to salvation. All the blessings, all the promises, of that sacrament must be abandoned by those who, if this wretched Bill passed, should contract these marriages.
  LORD OVERSTONEsaid, he had heard what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate with the greatest dismay, for if every supporter of this measure was to be debarred from the sacrament of holy communion, he himself stood before their Lordships as a man who could not by a faithful minister of Christ be admitted to that solemn rite.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERinterposed by saying that the noble Lord had misunderstood what he had said. He did not say that persons who supported this Bill
  1996
  would be excluded, but that it would be the duty of a faithful minister to exclude those who might contract marriages under it.
  LORD OVERSTONEsaid, he was glad he had misunderstood the right rev. Prelate, the tone of whose speech, however, still remained subject to just and very grave censure. He thought that if no right rev. Prelate essayed the task, it was the duty of some of the lay members of their Lordships' House to endeavour to do justice between the right rev. Prelates who had spoken, and to allay the somewhat unseemly asperity which has been displayed. He could not help thinking that the remarks of the right rev. Prelate who had last spoken were unreasonable and unjust. He had condemned another right. rev. Prelate in the strongest terms for stating that, in his opinion, Holy Scriptures did not condemn, but sanctioned, these marriages. But what had been the explanation offered to the House that night by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst)? That a right rev. Prelate of great authority, who was not now a Member of their Lordships' House, was responsible for the passing of an Act which put an end to the power of voiding these marriages. ["No!"] As he understood the Act, the power of making previous marriages void had ceased under this Bill, unless proceedings were taken before a certain time. An Act though indirectly countenancing those marriages could not have received the countenance of Prelates who hold those to be condemned by the express word of God. Their Lordships had been told that these marriages were directly incestuous and contrary to the law of God. Now, among the vast number of petitions which he had presented in favour of this Bill, there was one signed by 500 clergymen. He had also divided with right rev. Prelates in favour of a similar measure. He had presented petitions in favour of the Bill signed by the municipal authorities and by all classes in the City of London. On that evening he had presented a petition in favour of the measure signed by nineteen out of twenty-six Aldermen, by Directors of the East India Company and the Bank of England, by Bankers of the City of London, by merchants and solicitors. In the manufacturing districts the opinion in favour of this Bill was almost universal. A similar measure had been repeatedly sent up to their Lordships from the other House, which was

  1997
  supposed more especially to represent the feelings and the deliberate judgment of the people, and although the Members who had voted in favour of these Bills had been sent back to their constituents, they had been again returned, and had sent up subsequent Bills by increasing majorities. He had not given his support to this measure lightly and unadvisedly. The condemnation of these marriages, if intended by the will of God, would have been written with the finger of fire and not have been left as a doubtful and forced inference from such dark and ambiguous passages as had been quoted. He thought that any legislation was unwarrantable which interfered with man's free agency in a matter so important as that of marriage. He believed also that the present state of the law caused the most serious moral evils, and he feared that, if they rejected this Bill, their Lordships would inflict upon the community an act of injustice, and would greatly disturb the harmony and morality of society. He could not help regretting the violent and uncharitable language which had fallen from the episcopal bench, which was in his opinion, injudicious, unwise, and not sanctioned by the letter or spirit of that Holy Scripture to which they appealed.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNsaid, he very much regretted that the noble and learned Lord who had so lucidly explained the history of his Marriage Bill to their Lordships had left the House; but what had fallen from that noble and learned Lord might, he thought, bear this interpretation. At the time when the House was asked to legislate on this subject, these marriages were not void, but voidable; the children were not illegitimate, but they might be made so. In this very inconvenient and unjust state of things the noble and learned Lord introduced a Bill enacting that, unless a suit were instituted in the Ecclesiastical Court within two years, the children should be legitimate. The right rev. Prelate, now no more (Bishop Blomfield) here interposed, and at his suggestion it was enacted that voidable marriages should be thenceforth void ab initio; and inasmuch as this would be obviously unjust to the children of existing marriages of this kind, their legitimacy was not to be questioned. He contended that it was impossible to draw from this the authority of the right rev. Prelate, now departed, in favour of this Bill. He (the Bishop of Lincoln) would say nothing whatever as to
  1998
  the religious aspect of this Bill. He must say he regretted to find a member of the episcopal bench saying that he believed these marriages were not only not forbidden, but were sanctioned by the law of God. The right rev. Prelate was alone in his opinion; but he was at least to be commended for his boldness in stating his opinion. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Overstone) had laid great stress on the fact that there had been a large number of petitions in favour of this Bill; but from his own experience, both of a large metropolitan parish and of the agricultural districts of England, he doubted whether the majority of the people were in its favour. The number of petitions presented on this subject showed the low state of public morality on this question; but it was not to be wondered at, if when the people saw a number of noblemen and gentlemen, year by year, advocating this measure, and bringing it forward in Parliament, they should think perhaps they were mistaken as to its character, and that there was no great harm in it after all. Suppose polygamy were advocated through the country by an active body of men, and discussed in pamphlets and in newspapers, and that a Bill were yearly introduced into either House by a gentleman or nobleman of influence for the purpose of legalising it, would not many be found to petition for a repeal of the law, and some be encouraged to infringe it? It would be the same in that case as it was in this. He denied that the opinions of the women of this country generally were in favour of this measure; on the contrary, their instinctive feelings, which were a far better guide on such a subject as this than the reasoning of men, made them dread the passing of this Bill. It was, therefore, in their behalf and in that of the peace and happiness of the countless homes in this country, and in the name of purity of their families, that he entreated their Lordships not to read this Bill a second time.
  On Question that ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 22; Not-Contents 46:—Majority 24.

  CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Sommers, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Essex, E.

  Torrington, V.

  Granville, E.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Minto, E.

  Belper, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Ebury, L.

  1999

  Farnham, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Woodehouse, L.

  Glenelg, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Overstone, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archbp.

  Dungannon, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Melville, V.

  Strathallan, V.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Salisbury, M.

  Exeter, Bp.

  Hereford, Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Rochester, Bp.

  De La Warr, E.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Derby, E.

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

  Brodrick, L. (V. Middleton.)

  Colchester, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Crofton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Romney, E.

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

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Shrewsbury and Talbot, E.

  Melros, L. (E. Haddington.)

  Stradbroke, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Sondes, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the Negative.
  Ordered that the said Bill be read a Second Time on this Day Three Months.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading Read.
  LORD MONTEAGLE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, explained the object of the measure to be to extend to Ireland a principle which had frequently been brought before the attention of Parliament since the year 1854, and which in its practical application to England had been attended with the greatest advantage.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: My Lords, considering the importance of the subject of the Bill to which my noble Friend has asked your Lordships to give a second reading, I am surprised that he should have made so meagre a statement of its object and provisions. I regret, my Lords, to feel it my duty to object to my noble Friend's Motion. It is not that I am opposed to the principle of reforma-
  2000
  tories for Ireland, far from it; I believe nothing would more tend to the moral improvement of the country, than to subject the juvenile offender to such discipline, training, and instruction in a reformatory school as might nip vice, as it were, in the bud, and enable him, when arrived at maturer years, to return to society endued with good moral principles of conduct; for it is well known that it is in youth more commonly than in manhood that the career of crime commences, and that if vicious habits are not formed in youth they are much less likely to be formed later in life. The important question, however, is, in what manner can the youthful offenders be best reclaimed? and how should the experiment be tried in Ireland with the best probability of success? My Lords, this is a question to which it is impossible Her Majesty's present Government could have as yet turned their attention. The measure before you is that of an individual member of the other House, animated, I have no doubt, with the best intentions, but unaided by any of those sources of knowledge at the command of a Government, and in no degree responsible for what he recommends to you; and your Lordships, upon whom the responsibility of passing the Bill is to be cast, certainly have not in the present Session sufficient time to make any inquiry whatever into the subject. The provisions of the Bill appear to be ill-suited for the circumstances of Ireland, to which they alone apply. Your Lordships are aware that it is the unhappy lot of the poor to be the most exposed to the temptation of crime. Juvenile offenders are commonly the children of the poor; they are ill-educated in general in the country schools; in the workhouse schools, where they are brought more under discipline and regulated instruction, they derive far greater benefit; but under the poor law regulations the parent cannot give his child the benefit of the workhouse school, without himself becoming an inmate of the workhouse. If, then, a far better and really effective education be provided in the reformatories—if food, lodging, clothing, and medical care, together with instruction, secular, and religious, and such discipline and training as may be most conducive to the eradication of vice, and the laying of a good foundation for moral conduct, are therein gratuitously provided for the child, upon the sole condition of his having committed some offence for which he may have incurred the penalty

  2001
  of a fortnight's imprisonment, the temptation will be very great for the poor parent to have his child somehow brought within the grasp of the criminal law, in order to obtain for him a really good education, and at the same time to rid himself of the expense of his support. Another reason for which the proposed plan of reformatory schools is unsuited to the circumstances of Ireland, is the disparity of numbers as between Protestants and Roman Catholics, especially in the west and south; it is variously estimated at from one-fourth to one-sixth; but in the statistics of crime given in the report of the Inspector General of Prisons the disparity is far greater. There the proportion is about one Protestant to ten Roman Catholics; it is therefore probable that as each reformatory school must be under the exclusive management of persons of the same religious persuasion as that of the parents or guardians of the children sent thereto, there will be no reformatories except for Roman Catholics, and an advantage will thus be given to the members of one communion over those of another. I am far from grudging to the Roman Catholic body any advantage that may legitimately accrue to them from their preponderance in numbers, but the endeavour of the Legislature should be to place the members of all religious denominations as far as possible upon a footing of perfect equality with respect to the advantages derivable from the expenditure of public money. The proposed plan would operate unequally. A much better plan would be to adhere in reformatory as in workhouse schools to the principle so much lauded for the last thirty years, of united education of Protestant and Romanist in the same schoolroom—a system which, though a total failure, and not acceptable to any denomination of Christians in the country schools, is not unsuited to public institutions, where children of different creeds are necessarily thrown together, and where, under the superintendence of paid and responsible officers, the rules of the National Board regarding united, secular, and separate religious instruction, can be enforced and carried out. If there is any truth in the vaunted excellence of the national system, the religious interests of the pupils would be well secured where its principles were sure of being strictly applied. I am persuaded, at all events, that reformatories, conducted under the superintendence of public and responsible officers, would be much more beneficial to
  2002
  their inmates, of every religious persuasion, than if subjected to the sole and exclusive control and management of persons of the same religious persuasion as that of the parents whose children were committed to them. The principle, moreover, of instituting schools of an exclusively denominational character, exclusive alike in the management and in the admission of pupils, is not alone inconsistent with the existing system, but altogether novel in Ireland, except in the College of Maynooth. The experiment in the case of reformatories was only recognized in England by the Act of the last Session; it is as yet untried. Such an experiment, surely, should not be applied to Ireland—a country to which such opposite principles of government have generally been applied—without the most careful consideration of the subject by a responsible Cabinet.
  I would further venture to observe that the present is a peculiarly inopportune season for applying it to the case of Irish reformatory schools. Your Lordships are aware that the words in the Bill which require a reformatory school to be under the exclusive management of persons of the same religious persuasion as that of the juvenile offenders to be committed to it, will, so far as they relate to Roman Catholics, practically subject those schools to a superintendence and management exclusively ecclesiastical. I would ask your Lordships, then, whether we should be justified at the present moment in confiding so great a trust as the moral reformation of nine-tenths of the juvenile offenders in Ireland to such hands, after the evidence recently taken before the Committee of the House of Commons on the alleged destitution in Gweedore, so directly inculpating the entire body of the priests in that district. I will not more particularly allude to that inquiry than to observe that, both in its lengthened progress and in the Report to which the Committee ultimately came upon it, it has been much before the public in Ireland, and has left an impression very far from favourable to the Roman Catholic priests as moral instructors of the Irish population. I should be sorry to infer from a single case, although it included, I believe, the whole of the clergy of the district, an opinion unfavourable to all the rest of the Roman Catholic clergy. Such an inference would be neither just nor, I am sure, correct; but it is not exactly at the moment when such a case has been brought under public notice, that without any inquiry re-

  2003
  formatories should be established upon a principle which would practically give to that body the sole and uncontrolled conduct of the education and training of any class whatever of Her Majesty's subjects. Before I sit down, my Lords, I would beg to call your attention to some of the provisions of the Bill. My noble Friend, in introducing this measure to your notice, stated that the reformatory school would be under public supervision and regular inspection. I do not find, my Lords, any provision for this, except that the Inspector General of Prisons is to report to the Lord Lieutenant upon the condition and regulations of schools proposed to be licensed as reformatories, and that upon his report such licence may be afterwards withdrawn; but I find no clause requiring such inspection. By the 3rd clause I find that the grand juries may present money in aid of reformatories, and by the 5th clause may appoint a Committee to enter into an agreement with the directors or managers of any reformatory school for the reception and keeping of offenders under sentence; but by the same clause it is provided, that the expenses hereby incurred shall be presented without any previous application to a presentment sessions. By this means the ratepayers are excluded from any control over, or any examination into, the charges they are required to defray. Although the managers of reformatories are thus secured against loss, your Lordships will find that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury are, also, under the 13th clause of the Bill, to defray either the whole or such part of the cost of the care and maintenance of any juvenile of fender as the Chief Secretary may recommend. Now, my Lords, I wish to know whether the managers of these reformatories are to be paid both by grand jury and Treasury for the same object, and if not, to which quarter the expense is to be charged? Again, by the 15th clause the parents of the juvenile offenders may be required to pay respectively 5s. a week for each child—it may not be easy to obtain from poor parents so large a contribution, if any, indeed, could be exacted from them; but if it is paid, who is to reap the benefit? The grand jury, or the Treasury? Or is it to go to swell the funds of the reformatory? The Bill is silent upon the subject. I believe that practically nothing would be obtained under this clause, as it does not mention by whom the parents may be sued, or in whose behalf. But I would beg to
  2004
  call the attention of the noble Earl at the head of the Government to the 20th and 21st lines of the clause, which, if enacted as they at present stand, would alter the existing constitution of the Petty Sessions Court. The words are, "and it shall be lawful for any two justices of the peace, or any stipendiary magistrate sitting in petty sessions for the district," &c., to constitute the tribunal before which parents may be sued for the weekly payments for the support of their children in reformatory schools. It is thus, for the first time, either cunningly or accidentally proposed to establish a difference between the jurisdiction of the local and of the stipendiary magistracy. Hitherto they have been upon a precisely equal footing, and have worked harmoniously together; but, by the words I have quoted from the Bill, it would henceforth require the presence of two local magistrates to do at petty sessions what a single stipendiary magistrate might do. I trust my noble Friend opposite, in commending this Bill to the acceptance of the House, did not intend thus to degrade the order of the Irish magistracy to which he belongs. The next remark I would make upon the provisions of the Bill is, that by the 8th and 9th clauses it is made optional with the managers of reformatories to receive, or refuse to receive, such juvenile offenders as may be sent to them. What, my Lords, I would like to know, is to become of the child so rejected? He might be a very bad boy, one whom the managers did not like to undertake for; but because he may be a bad case, he is only, therefore, I conceive, the more in need of the reformatory treatment for which this Bill purports to make provision; but by these clauses it is placed in the power of the managers to frustrate the proper operation of the Act where most it was required. I will only trouble your Lordships by noticing one more clause, which is the 7th. It fixes the age of sixteen, as that up to which juvenile offenders may be ordered, after a certain term of imprisonment, to be sent to a reformatory school, and detained there for any period not exceeding five years; thus, a lad under sixteen may be forcibly detained and trained in religious principles up to the age of twenty-one years, from which his convictions may dissent. This is not consistent with religious liberty. The same clause gives an appear to a juvenile offender, or his parent or guardian, against any order of the justice's sentencing to detention in a reformatory

  2005
  school. What, my Lords, is to become of the offender pending such appeal? The Bill makes no provision for such a case; it appears to have been most loosely contrived from beginning to end—to be a specimen of most clumsy House of Commons legislation, unaided by the experience and unchecked by the responsibility of the Government. I would earnestly entreat my noble Friend at the head of the Government, who, I am sure, can have no object in view but the public good, not to give his sanction to this measure. It is one for which there exists no urgent necessity. Crime has much diminished, and especially in the class of juvenile offenders. This may be partly owing to education. I believe it is chiefly owing to the absence of distress, to the fuller employment of the poor, and to the beneficial effect of the summary jurisdiction entrusted to magistrates at petty sessions in dealing with juveniles. The intent of this Bill I believe to be good and creditable to the hon. Gentleman who introduced and carried it through the House of Commons. I do not ask your Lordships to reject it, but to defer its consideration to another Session—to dismiss it without prejudice. The important questions involved in it could then be deliberately examined into by the Government during the recess. My noble Friend, on assuming the reins of Government, and his colleague in the other House, held out the promise of a modification of the system of National education, by which the Bible, now for so many years banished from the general school-room, might in some cases be restored. I believe that nothing would more tend to the advancement of education, and to the proper moral training of youth, than such a measure; I regret that this promise has not received its fulfilment. With regret I have also observed, that most important Bills have, in the present Session, been allowed to pass at the sole recommendation of individual Members of Parliament—the Jew Bill and the Property Qualification Repeal Bill—measures affecting the constitution of the Legislature—ought not, I conceive, to have received the sanction of the Government without having been introduced with Ministerial responsibility. Let me hope, that while that which ought to have been done has been left undone, the passing of this Bill may not be added to the list of things done that ought not to have been done.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that it was
  2006
  quite true that this was not originally a Government Bill, having been introduced into the House of Commons by a private Member; but the Government had sanctioned its principle by adopting it, and had given to its details the most careful consideration. The whole of the arguments of the noble Earl against it were founded on the assumption that what had proved extremely beneficial to England would be no good to Ireland. Undoubtedly, the introduction of the system into England had been attended with the most beneficial consequences, and he was unable to understand what there was in the composition of the Irish character which should render it less useful in that country. For his part he thought it of very great importance to establish juvenile reformatories in Ireland. The noble Earl had said that if there were good workhouse schools, and good reformatory schools, the poor people would be tempted to induce their children to commit crime to be sent there in order to get an education which they could get nowhere else in Ireland. He denied that the education of the people in Ireland generally was badly cared for; on the contrary, they were in a far better position in that respect than was the mass of the population in England. As to Roman Catholic, having the management of the schools, he thought considering that nine-tenths of the juvenile criminals would also be Roman Catholics there was no great grievance in that. It was not true, however, that there would be no machinery of inspection and reporting, because the very first clause contained a provision for the visitation of Her Majesty's inspectors of prisons. One very pertinent question had been asked, and that was as to the power of appeal. That clause would have to be considered in Committee. At present it was proposed to give the child a power of appealing against being sent to a reformatory after spending fourteen days in prison; that appeal was to be within fifteen days, but if the Session was sitting or at hand it was to be to the next Session. It was a very serious question what was to be done with the juvenile offender between the expiration of the sentence and the hearing of the appeal. Without discussing, then, the clauses of the Bill, which would undergo a strict examination in Committee, he should only say that, as this was an attempt to extend to the sister country a plan for the moral reformation of juvenile offenders which had been found

  2007
  to answer well in England, he should give his support to the second reading of the Bill, hoping that it would receive such prompt and ample consideration as would enable it to become law in the course of the present Session.
  THE EARL OF CARLISLE, after the very satisfactory observations of the noble Earl opposite, would not detain their Lordships further than to inform the noble Earl (the Earl of Clancarty) that this measure had met with general support from the more moderate of both the Roman Catholic and Protestant communities in Ireland, though it had had to struggle against the detraction of the more violent of both communions. In his opinion it well deserved the attention of their Lordships. The noble Earl (the Earl of Clancarty) so well performed his duties as a magistrate in Ireland that any Amendment suggested by him would receive their most serious attention. He would add, that though in the matter of adult reformatories Ireland had very much the start of England, she was yet unfurnished with juvenile reformatories, and he hoped their Lordships would give a speedy passage to this Bill, which was intended to remedy that defect. He defended placing the schools under Roman Catholic management, and observed that though mixed education could be well and properly applied to the general bulk of the population, yet it was necessary that exclusively religious education should be given to the juvenile criminal to bring him back to the paths of honesty and virtue.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONexpressed his gratification that this Bill had been introduced, considering that juvenile reformatories were much wanted in Ireland. There were some matters of detail in the Bill to which he objected, but he should not think of throwing any impediment in the way of the second reading, and only regretted that it had been brought in at so late a period of the Session as not to admit of due consideration being given to its details.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments.
  LORD WROTTESLEY LORD WROTTESLEY moved the omission of the words, in page 4, line 17, which provide that the Councillors who are required to have served or resided for a cer-
  2008
  tain time in India shall not have last left India more than ten years next preceding the date of their appointment. The noble Lord said those words had been introduced as an Amendment, on the bringing up of the Report on the Bill, and in his opinion they would operate injuriously, by disqualifying for the office of Councillors men who might be peculiarly well fitted for the discharge of its duties. He objected, moreover, to all restrictions upon the freedom of election.
  THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEalso thought that those words ought to be omitted from the Bill.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he should insist on the retention of those words. They would ensure the advantage of recent experience in the Council, and it should be remembered that they would only apply to nine out of the fifteen councillors. The remaining six members of that body could be selected without any reference to such a povision. He thought they might as well omit the clause altogether as adopt the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 29.
  THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY moved the omission of the words, "with the concurrence of a majority of the Council," in the clause relating to the appointment of the members of Council in India. The effect of that Amendment would be that the selection in that case would be left to the Secretary of State, uncontrolled by his Council.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he believed that greater unity and vigour of Administration would be secured by leaving the appointment of the members of Council in India in the hands of the Governor General.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 55, enacting that, except for preventing or repelling actual invasion, the revenues of India shall not "without the consent of Parliament," be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operation carried on beyond the frontiers.
  LORD CRANWORTHwished to remind the noble Earl that "the consent of Parliament" meant an Act of Parliament; while the consent of "both Houses of Parliament" would be inferred by Addresses to the Crown.
  EARL GRANVILLEhad asked more than once what was meant by the words "consent of Parliament," but he never received an answer, He should like to

  2009
  hear from the noble Earl opposite what was meant by the term.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the consent of Parliament might mean either an Act of Parliament or a Resolution passed by both Houses.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought it should be distinctly stated in the Bill what was meant by the words.
  THE EARL OF DERBYproposed a clause to follow the 62nd, the object of which was to enable any person provisionally appointed Governor General to exercise his powers before taking his seat in Council. It was to provide for the case of a person who at the time of his appointment might not be at Calcutta, and to render it unnecessary that he should proceed thither before proceeding to discharge his duties. The clause was as follows:—
  "In case the person who shall be entitled under any provisional appointment to succeed to the office of Governor General of India upon a vacancy therein, or who shall be appointed absolutely to assume that office, shall be in India upon or after the happening of the vacancy, or upon or after the receipt of such absolute appointment, as the case may require, but shall be absent from Fort William in Bengal, or from the place where the Council of the Governor General of India may then be, and it shall appear to him necessary to exercise the powers of Governor General before he shall have taken his seat in Council, it shall be lawful for him to make known by Proclamation his appointment, and his intention to assume the said office of Governor General, and after such Proclamation, and thenceforth until he shall repair to Fort William or the place where the Council may assemble, it shall be lawful for him to exercise alone all or any of the powers which might be exercised by the Governor General in Council, except the power of making Laws and Regulations; and all acts done in the exercise of the said powers, except as aforesaid, shall be of the same force and effect as if they had been done by the Governor General in Council: Provided that all acts done in the said Council after the date of (such Proclamation, but before the communication thereof to such Council, shall be valid, subject nevertheless to revocation or alteration by the person who shall have so assumed the said office of Governor General; and when the office of Governor General is assumed under the foregoing provision, if there be at any time before the Governor General takes his seat in Council no Vice-President of the Council authorized to preside at meetings for making Laws and Regulations (as provided by Section Twenty-two of the Act of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Years of Her Majesty), the senior ordinary Member of Council then present shall preside therein, with the same powers as if a Vice President had been appointed, and were absent."
  Motion agreed to. Clause added.
  THE EARL OF DERBYthen moved the insertion of the following clauses after Clause 67:—
  2010
  "After the commencement of this Act, such of the Directors as have been elected by the General Court of the said Company, or who shall from time to time be so elected, shall be the Directors of the said Company, and the major part of such Directors for the time being shall form a Court of Directors; and where the presence, signature, consent, or concurrence of Ten Directors is now requisite, the presence, signature, consent, or concurrence of the major part of the Directors for the time being shall be sufficient; and to the intent that the number of Directors may be reduced to Six, Two Directors only shall be elected by the General Court of the said Company at each biennial election to fill the vacancies occasioned by the expiration of the term of office of Directors; and so much of the said Act of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Years of Her Majesty as requires any of the Directors to be persons who have resided Ten Years in India shall be repealed, and in the oath to be taken by a Director of the said Company, under Section Thirteen of the said Act, the words 'in the administration of the Government of India in trust for the Crown' shall be omitted.
  "It shall no longer be obligatory on the Directors to summon Four General Quarterly Courts in every year as heretofore.
  "Except claims of mortgagees of the Security Fund hereinbefore mentioned, the said Company shall not, after the passing of this Act, be liable in respect of any claim, demand, or liability which has arisen, or may hereafter arise, out of any treaty, covenant, contract, grant, engagement, or fiduciary obligation made, incurred, or entered into by the said Company before the passing of this Act, whether the said Company would, but for this Act, have been bound to satisfy such claim, demand, or liability out of the revenues of India, or in any other manner whatsoever."
  Motion agreed to. Clauses added.
  Further Amendments made.
  On Motion, That the Bill do pass,
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, before this Bill leaves I wish to address a few words to your Lordships on a subject which, though not making any part of the Bill, is closely connected with the government of our Indian empire; but to which, nevertheless, very little allusion has been made in the course of the discussions—I mean the subject of religion, and the singular and responsible position which England holds as a Christian nation ruling over a nation of heathens. My Lords, I make no complaint that the Bill is silent on this important subject. It could not be otherwise. The purpose of the Bill is to frame a government, not to declare how that government is to be administered—to create a machinery which is to be worked elsewhere. I also agree in the principle that has been so often laid down, that India must be governed in India, and not not from England. Still, my Lords, the subject to which I allude is one on which

  2011
  strong and conscientious convictions are entertained by a very large portion of the community, who deeply feel the anomalous and responsible position in which we are placed as a Christian nation ruling over a vast population of idolaters. My Lords, we are as far as possible from desiring any open attempt on the part of Government either to overthrow the false religion with which, unhappily, we have to deal, or to establish that which we know to be true. So far are we from desiring any such interference that we should think nothing gained by the conversion of the whole peninsula, supposing that it could possibly be effected through bribery or compulsion. But, while we grant to the religion of the Natives complete toleration, it is not necessary to conceal or compromise our own, or to let it appear to be a matter of indifference to us whether the Natives become converts to truth or not. And undoubtedly there is in this country a strong opinion prevailing that the course which has hitherto been pursued may wisely and safely be modified. My Lords I venture to specify a few points which I trust will be hereafter observed in the administration of affairs in India. First, that no distinction of caste be any longer recognized. Secondly, that in all schools to which aid is given by the Government the Bible shall be read—not commented upon for its doctrines, but read for its facts. Thirdly, that all connection on the part of the Government with the rites and customs of an idolatrous religion be entirely abolished, even if the object of such connection be simply the preservation of order; that those lands which have hitherto been employed for idolatrous purposes, and of which I believe the Company have become trustees, should be made over entirely to the Natives themselves, so that this nation may be altogether released from any participation in things which are detestable in themselves, and scandalous to the reputation of a Christian country. Fourthly, that Native converts to Christianity should be admitted to all employments the duties of which they can adequately fulfil. In measures like these there is nothing that ought to excite the suspicion of the Natives, nothing contrary to the most perfect toleration, nothing savouring of proselytism—it is merely an acknowledgment of the religion we ourselves profess. And surely, my Lords, we ought to look forward to the time when, under the providence of God, India shall form no excep-
  2012
  tion to the multitude of countries in which truth has prevailed against falsehood, and the Gospel has triumphed over idolatry and superstition, so that in the end it may appear why a remote country like England should have been allowed to have dominion over the vast territory of India.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, after what has fallen from the most rev. Prelate, I may be permitted to observe, that while I think that due protection ought to be given to the professors of all religions in India, and nothing should be done to discourage the efforts of Christian missionaries in that country; on the other hand, I am quite certain that it is essential to the interests, the peace, and the well-being of India, if not also to the very existence of our empire in India, that the Government should carefully abstain from doing anything except to give indiscriminate and impartial protection to all sects and all creeds; and that nothing could be more inconvenient or more dangerous on the part of the State than any open and active assistance to any, or any attempt to convert the Native population from their own religions, however false and superstitious. My Lords, I hope I misunderstood the most rev. Prelate when he said that he should recommend the Government not in the slightest degree to recognize the distinction of caste. On that subject I will say, as far as the interest of the public service is concerned, it is not desirable that the same indulgence and punctilious deference for the caste of the Natives entering that service as was previously observed should be continued for the future; but to say that you will not recognize caste at all in India is to say that you will not recognize that which is intimately interwoven with all the cherished feelings, habits, associations, and most vital principles of the people. Therefore, my Lords, while in the public service I certainly would not allow prejudices of caste to interfere with the discharge of the duties which any person may voluntarily take upon himself, I say it is the bounden duty of the Government to pay that attention to caste which even in this country we pay, though not in the same degree, to the different ranks of society, and which any Government must, more or less, respect, if it would not be brought into constant collision with all classes of its subjects. There was one topic touched upon by the most rev. Prelate in his observations with which I entirely concur. Wherever pro-

  2013
  perty in land or in any other form has been assigned to religious purposes, however repugnant to our feelings, provided they do not violate every principle of morality and decency, I think that that property ought to continue to be scrupulously applied to the ends to which it was dedicated. But I agree with the most rev. Prelate that it is most desirable that the Government and its officials should, as far as possible, separate themselves from any active interference in the detailed management of the property devoted to the support of idolatrous ceremonies in India. When I had the honour to hold the seals of the Colonial Department I introduced this principle into Ceylon, and required the arrangements under which the Government officials in that island had previously acted in regard to the Native rites and ceremonies to be modified, while the management of the funds applicable to such purposes was handed over to those with whose opinions they better accorded. I think the Government did its duty with credit then, as it will do its duty with credit now, by withdrawing as much as possible from any active participation in the detailed management of property of this description, while it at the same time strictly maintains the existing application of the endowments.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I wish, my Lords, to explain that in speaking of caste I entirely referred to the public services.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, I think it due to the feelings of the country, which though recently silent, has by no means been asleep on this subject, that some expression of opinion should be given by your Lordships before the Bill to regulate the future government of India leaves this House. To nothing which has just fallen from the noble Earl can any exception be reasonably taken. I am exceedingly gratified, and I believe the public will also be gratified, with the sentiments which he has enunciated. Those sentiments are very much in accordance with the petition which I had the honour to present to your Lordships signed by the representatives of all the bodies in this country engaged in the diffusion of Christian knowledge and in the encouragement of missionary operations. In that petition there is nothing violent, nothing fanatical. The demand of the petitioners is confined to what is strictly moderate and reasonable. What they require is the assertion
  2014
  of the most unbounded religious liberty in India; that the professors of all religions without distinction, should be put upon a footing of perfect equality. They say that in that country in the eye of the law the professors of all religions must be placed on a footing of equality; and they maintain that in the selection of candidates for the public service, there must be no rule but that of fitness for the public service. No man must be chosen or rejected simply because he is a Hindoo, a Parsee, a Mahommedan, or a Christian: all must have an equal claim to serve the State. I believe it would be prejudicial rather than otherwise if the Government were to come forward and give any direct assistance to the propagation of Christianity. What the petitioners ask is that the Government should neither promote that faith by active measures, nor in any way retard it—that it should neither be a favourer nor an opponent of Christianity. They expect that reasonable protection shall be given to all sects who conduct themselves with propriety. They hope the Government will not be ashamed to avow by its acts and in its official documents that it is a Christian Government; that it looks upon Christianity as the best form of religion and the best basis of all civilization; but that, neither directly nor indirectly—by force, bribery, or any other such inducement, great or small—will it endeavour to turn any Native from the religion to which he belongs. And this was the concluding prayer of the petitioners:—
  "That all existing lets and hindrances being removed, and no new ones being opposed, free scope and action be given to the diffusion of Christianity through Her Majesty's territories in the East Indies."
  My Lords, it is said that the neck of the rebellion is broken, and many of the guerrilla bands which disturb the peace of India are composed of persons who were not engaged in the original mutiny. I have seen letters from India from persons of the highest authority, expressing the opinion that something in the nature of an amnesty might now be proclaimed, so as to avoid the risk of driving large masses of men to desperation. There is another point to which I would call your Lordships' attention, and the attention of Her Majesty's Government. One of the brightest traits in the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough's) administration of India was the invariable deference and respect he evinced for the feelings of the

  2015
  people, and the noble and generous manner in which he extended over them the shield of his protection. I regret to find from letters I have recently received that there has recently been growing up a strong antipathy between the Europeans and the Natives in India. The older civilians and military men, indeed, know their duty too well to give way to such a feeling; but the young officers who go to that country imbibe the worst prejudices, and I am told that the common language in which they speak of the Natives is, "vile and detestable niggers." I fear it will be long before the confidence which formerly prevailed between European and Native will be again restored; perhaps half a century may elapse before an Englishman will be able to settle down in security in the interior provinces of India. But I wish, my Lords, to read an extract from a letter just received from Benares, which shows that a state of things now exists in that country which demands the most vigorous interposition of the Government. It is as follows:—
  "Benares is very quiet, and, as usual, with few troops; but we are better without them. The other day the sons of the Rajah of—got a horsewhipping from some officers for not salaaming; and I expect we shall have many such scenes. There is a great dislike and contempt of the Natives among the newly arrived portion of the European forces. It will be well if it goes no further."
  The writer continues:—
  "I know the young men; they are very quiet and gentlemanlike, with a taste for drawing and mechanics, and could not have been guilty of intentional insolence. There is a very bad spirit growing up among the Europeans towards the Natives, the most faithful among whom must become utterly disgusted if we do not take care."
  My Lords, I believe that the Asiatics will submit to much—to rapine, violence, spoliation, and oppression—but submit to insult they will not; and I know of no one single tiling that is more likely to retard the civilization of that country and endanger the peace and security of our empire than the continuance of such a state of things. A great many preach the Gospel with their mouths and others preach it by their lives. I am glad to see the Gospel advanced by both these means; but I am quite sure that no one single thing will more tend to advance civilization, even more than the exertions of the missionaries themselves, than that the language and conduct of all persons should be in harmony with the Gospel. The noble Earl will excuse me for having brought forward
  2016
  this subject, but I felt that a continuance of the present state of things would produce such serious results that I could not help expressing a hope that he will direct his atttention to the subject.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I perfectly agree with the noble Earl that in the present state of India one of the most alarming circumstances is the great and constantly increasing animosity between the Natives and the Europeans. I greatly regret that I am compelled to admit that that animosity is, in a very great measure, owing to the extreme severity of the punishment which has been inflicted upon the Natives. I do trust that the example set by Sir John Lawrence with respect to punishment will be followed throughout the entire country. Sir John Lawrence has with great propriety introduced a regulation by which it is required that no man's life shall be taken away (if that should be necessary) without the concurrence of three persons, and I hope the same course will be adopted generally as long as hostilities last. But the Government of India last year thought fit to pass a law to restrict the press of India. That law has been very naturally carried into effect for the protection of the Government from hostile comment and observation. I wish I could say that the protection of the Government had been extended to the people. It has not. Every one of those editors whose mouths have been closed against the Government has been permitted to use from day to day language most exasperating to the whole people of India. They are described as contaminated by every vice. From day to day the regiments which have been disarmed are threatened with extermination in a manner that is likely to produce the most terrible effects. If it is necessary to prevent the press from libelling the Government, a restriction should also be imposed upon the press to prevent it from libelling the people of India. I am satisfied that if the press of India be not thus restricted the results will be most dangerous. If we allow the press thus to libel the people it is idle to expect that young officers arriving in India will not have their minds poisoned by the stories which they read day by day in the newspapers. With regard to a most important matter—that of the future policy of the Government with respect to religion in India—I ask your Lordships to permit me to read a few sentences from the last authoritative exposition of their policy,

  2017
  dated only on the 13th of April last, in a letter from the Court of Directors to the Governor General, published for the information of your Lordships. In that letter are these words:—
  "The Government will adhere with good faith to its ancient policy of perfect neutrality in matters affecting the religion of the people of India; and we most earnestly caution all those in authority under it not to afford by their conduct the least colour to the suspicion that that policy has undergone or will undergo any change. It is perilous for men in authority to do as individuals that which they officially condemn. The real intention of the Government will be inferred from their acts, and they may unwittingly expose it to the greatest of all dangers, that of being regarded with general distrust by the people. We rely upon the honourable feelings which have ever distinguished our service for the furtherance of the views which we express. When the Government of India makes a promise to the people there must not be afforded to them grounds for a doubt as to its fidelity to its word."
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEthought, that as long as they employed a Native army it would not be easy to abstain from giving some countenance to the religious ceremonies of the Natives.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: Before your Lordships pass this Bill I hope I may be permitted to make one or two remarks. I understand that the point to which my most rev. Brother alluded was the practice that has existed for some years, of the Government taking into its own hands the management of the lands by which the heathen temples are supported. That practice has not as yet altogether ceased, and the result is, that these lands are kept in a far better state, and the heathen temples are, therefore, much better maintained than if the lands were under the control of those who would squander the proceeds and use them to their own advantage. The Government ought no longer to be responsible for the maintenance of that religion in any way. This is a matter of some importance, and we know that, notwithstanding what we have often heard, some change in this respect is desirable. The ancient traditional policy and management in India, as to religion, is not, indeed, likely to be altered; but there is a deep feeling in the hearts of religious people in this country that in that policy for many years back there has been some mistake. I do not mean to say that exaggerated statements were not from time to time made upon this subject during the pressure of the calamities of last year. But I think that when all allowance is made for exaggeration it will still be found that there is a deep-
  2018
  seated feeling in the hearts of Englishmen that we do require some change in some of these matters, and I think the speech of the noble Earl at the head of the Government shows that we really are disposed to look this matter fairly in the face. It would not, I think, satisfy the feeling of the English nation if this year were to pass over without our future administration of India bearing upon it the shadow of that great event which has so deeply afflicted the nation, and which we cannot but regard as being in some degree a visitation from God. No doubt, my Lords, we ought to exercise the utmost impartiality towards our heathen fellow-subjects. No doubt we ought to show the greatest forbearance to them. No doubt the Church of England and the Christian religion itself can never be advanced by a policy of mere force and power on the part of the Government. But we ought to show to the people of India that we wish to give them, not only Christian justice and Christian civilization, but, above all, ultimately the inheritance of Christian truth.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: I think, my Lords, that we can have very little doubt what the conduct of a Christian Government ought to be; but I confess that I heard with some misgivings the extract which was read by the noble Earl below me (the Earl of Shaftesbury), especially when accompanied with the emphasis which the noble Earl threw upon certain expressions which are well capable of being understood in two different ways. If by the "neutrality" which was referred to nothing more was meant than that there should be no attempt on the part of the Government as a Government, directly or indirectly to interfere with the religious belief of its heathen subjects, I for one cannot object to that word being taken in its fullest sense. But if by "neutrality" is secretly meant that there shall be stamped on the English Government and their representatives in India an aspect of entire indifference as to whether this religion or that is to prosper and abide—if by "neutrality" is meant that their characters are to exhibit that happy indifference as to Christianity which shall impress on the heathen mind the conviction that they care not whether they are Christians or heathens, then I believe that such neutrality would be fatal and false to the religion we profess, and that ultimately it would destroy the empire that has been entrusted to us. It seems to me that the distinction is plain and in-

  2019
  telligible between making the Indian people feel that we do not by force and fraud, by policy or by violence, interfere with their religious belief, because our own religion teaches us that such interference would be wrong, and impressing them with the conviction that we withhold our interference because we have ourselves no distinct preference for our own faith. One seems to me to be the line of Christian truth, and the other to be the line of a wicked neutrality; and I am only most anxious that nothing should go forth to mar the impression that we do not mean the English Government in India to be ashamed of its Christianity; but that we wish it to make due provision for the supply of the Christian necessities of its own troops and civil servants, because it believes Christianity to be true, and is not afraid in the face of its heathen subjects to show that it believes it to be true, and that it builds its own expectations of its continued prosperity upon the blessing of that God whom it professes to serve. I trust that that is the only sense in which neutrality as to the Christian religion is to be admitted into the future Government of India; and I think it the more important to declare this, because I cannot but feel that there have been in times past many instances in which neutrality was understood to mean carelessness about the truth of Christianity and a fear to avow in the face of heathendom that we were ourselves firm believers in the Christian revelation.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think that the meaning of the words quoted by the noble Earl is very obvious—that the Government is not to interfere in any manner with the religion of its subjects in India; that it is not in its official capacity to use either force or corruption for the purposes of proselytism. I may say that it gave me great pleasure to hear the declaration which was made by the noble Earl at the head of the Government. I think that it was most useful and important—most useful with regard to the influence which it will produce upon the opinions of people in this country, and most important not only with respect to the temporal interests of the government in India, but as indicating the most advantageous system for the gradual spread of Christianity in that large kingdom. With regard to the policy of mercy which has been advocated this evening, I feel no distrust of Her Majesty's Government in that respect, and I am quite sure that there need be no fear of Lord Canning. It gives
  2020
  me great satisfaction to find the general concurrence which is now expressed by all in regard to that discrimination of punishment and to those principles of mercy for which the noble Lord made himself so very conspicuous last autumn, and then subjected himself to so much rebuke.
  On Question, Resolved, in the Affirmative.
  Bill passed accordingly and sent to the Commons.
  "Dissentient,—
  "1. Because the Bill establishes a Home Administration for India at once inefficient, unconstitutional, and expensive.
  "2. Because the Council it gives to the Secretary of State is too numerous for either deliberation or action, while the parties composing it consist mainly of the very individuals who were engaged in conducting that form of Government which the Bill itself condemns and supersedes.
  "3. Because the Measure provides that a moiety of the Council shall be chosen on the vicious and long-condemned principle of self-election.
  "4. Because the Members for Council are virtually appointed for life; and besides being endowed with large salaries and ample pensions, are moreover paid by a great patronage, for the dispensation of which they are wholly irresponsible.
  "5. Because the Government provided by this Bill, partaking largely of the character and composition of its condemned predecessor, holds out little hope that the misgovernment which has driven the people of India into rebellion will be abandoned.
  "6. Because the Members constituting the Council of India, while drawing large salaries and enjoying extensive patronage, are, contrary to Parliamentary precedent and sound principle, not prohibited from holding other offices of emolument, or engaging in commercial transactions; thus interfering with their efficiency as Public Servants, and exposing them to the suspicion of jobbing and corruption.
  "7. Because the Council constituted by the Bill, cumbrous, expensive, and inefficient, can have no other effect than either to thwart the Secretary of State, or to screen him from Parliamentary responsibility, while efficient and experienced Under Secretaries would have afforded more effectual and constitutional advice and assistance in the discharge of his duties.
  "ALBEMARLE."
  House adjourned at a quarter to Twelve o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.