Sitting of 31 May 1858

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—for Limerick City, James Spaight, Esq.
NEW WRITS.—For King's Lynn, v. Lord Stanley, President of Board of Control; for Hertford County, v. Sir Edward George Earle Lytton Bulwer Lytton, Bart., Secretary of State.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Bishsops' Trusts Substitution (No. 3).
2° Markets and Fairs (Ireland); Public Health.

MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LINCOLNSHIRE, AND GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended read—:
  MR. HENLEY MR. HENLEY moved the further consideration of this Bill be postponed for ten days. The Bill did not comply with the Resolutions proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cardwell) several years ago. The promoters, however, were willing that an Amendment should be inserted by which those Resolutions would in effect be complied with; and in order that this might be done and the evidence on the Bill placed in the hands of hon. Members, he moved this postponement.
  MR. ROEBUCKasked whether this was with the consent of the promoters?
  MR. HENLEYreplied, that his attention was called to the provisions of the Bill, and he took objection to them. Mr. Baxter called on him on behalf of the promoters and said he had not the least objection to an Amendment being introduced. It had since been suggested to him that the alteration might be made elsewhere, but he said it was an important matter and had better be done in the House.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be taken into consideration upon Thursday, the 10th day of June next."
  SIR JOHN HANMERsaid, be was personally responsible for the part of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman objected to. It seemed to him desirable that the obstructions to the traffic should be removed for ever, and that they should not have the matter brought up again in ten years.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) in thinking that a postponement should take place, to give the House an opportunity of reading the evidence taken by the Committee.
  COLONEL FRENCHwas of opinion that a ten days' postponement was too long a one. He thought three days would be amply sufficient.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he fully concurred in the course proposed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley), and could assure the House that there were other objections to the clause besides that mentioned by his right hon. Friend. He (Mr. Spooner) thought it would be most improper to allow such a departure from the general rule as that proposed by the clause in question, without the matter first receiving the careful consideration of the House. He avowed that he was a shareholder in the London and North Western Railway so that the House would take his opinion for what they might think it worth.
  MR. ROEBUCK MR. ROEBUCK moved as an Amendment that the consideration of the Bill be postponed till Friday next.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Thursday, the 10th day of June," in order to insert the word "Friday," instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Consideration of Bill, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

  THE "CAGLIARI."—QUESTION.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the demand for compensation made on behalf of the British Engineers, Park and Watt, has been conceded by the Neapolitan Government, and whether they have been released unconditionally? Also, whether the Sardinian subjects who constituted part of the crew of the Cagliari are still detained by the Neapolitan Government?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the British Engineers, Park and Watt, were released unconditionally. No compensation had yet been made on their behalf. The Sardinian subjects who constituted part of the crew of the Cagliari were still detained by the Neapolitan Government.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to ask the question which the right hon. Gentleman had not answered; namely, whether compensation has been refused by the Neapolitan Government.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was very inconvenient to have questions on such matters put without notice. Questions of compensation or indemnity were not matters which ought to be settled off hand. The Government believed that the compensation which they had demanded for the British Engineers was a just claim, and therefore they thought they should succeed in obtaining it.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the question whether the demand had been conceded involved the question whether it had been refused, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman had full notice of the question which had been put to him.

  SMALLPOX.—QUESTION.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Privy Council Committee whether his attention has been called to the fact that, out of 1,636 deaths reported to have taken place from all causes in the quarter ending the 31st March, 1858, at Burton-on-Trent, Sheffield, and Merthyr Tydfil, 419 are reported to have been caused by Smallpox, and whether he proposes to introduce any Amendment of the Vaccination Act?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, it was unfortunately but too true that the number of deaths which the right hon. Gentleman stated had taken place, and there were other places in the United Kingdom where a similar proportion of deaths had taken place from Smallpox. In several places not less than one-third of all the deaths during the quarter had taken place from Smallpox. He believed that the cause was owing both to bad vaccination and to neglect of vaccination. With regard to the last part of the question of the right hon. Gentleman, whether he intended to introduce any Amendment of the Vaccination Act, there were only two modes by which the object could be attained. One

  1197
  was to render more stringent the penalties, and the other was to make provision for carrying out more effectually the provisions with regard to vaccination. He was not prepared to introduce any measure for making the penalties more stringent, but he thought that a clause in the Public Health Bill which enabled the Board to issue regulations on the subject, might effect the desired object.

  MEDICAL STAFF OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH.—QUESTION.
  MR. PALKsaid, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Privy Council Committee whether it is the intention of the Government to continue the chief Medical Officer of the General Board of Health at the present salary of £1,800 a year, and also whether it is their intention to continue the medical staff of the present Board?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, the General Board of Health Act would expire in September next, but he understood that that would not affect the position of the chief Medical Officer in his present salary. In reply to the second question of the hon. Member, he begged to state that if the Bill passed, the whole duties of the Medical Board would not cease. The Bill would continue certain duties which would require the services of an officer, but he hoped that one officer would be sufficient for the purpose.

THE EDUCATIONAL ESTIMATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had given notice to the Vice President of the Committee of Privy Council for Education of his intention to ask when the Education Estimates would be prepared. It was understood, he (Mr. M. Gibson) believed, that when those Estimates were presented to the House they would be prefaced by a general statement on the part of the Minister for Education, and that public notice would be given when they would be brought forward. He therefore begged to ask the right bon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether that course would be pursued, and when the Education Estimates would be taken?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, said, the Government wished to give the House an opportunity of raising a discussion upon the subject. The Votes for Education were at the commencement of the Estimates (No. 4), and he should
  1198
  therefore propose that when they reached them they should be postponed to some day of which fair notice should be given. He would, if possible, fix the question for the commencement of some evening.

CASE OF MR. WASHINGTON WILES.

  PETITION.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he rose to present a Petition to the House from Mr. Washington Wilks, who was now in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The petitioner submitted to the House that he was not the author of the article which had been contradicted and which had caused the complaint to be made by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive). He said that the author of the statements contained in that article had misunderstood the information which had been conveyed to him, but that he, Washington Wilks, being the responsible publisher of the paper, and having permitted these sentiments to appear in his newspaper on his own behalf, now stated he unreservedly retracted that passage of the article which imputed to the hon. Member a partial or corrupt motive—namely, the passage to this effect: "Does he stand quite clear of any transactions in Caledonian stock whilst this investigation was pending?"—that imputation having been solemnly denied by the hon. Member, and the information on which it was founded having been misunderstood by the author of the article. Having made this retractation, and having withdrawn a charge which he was not able to substantiate, be further expressed his regret that it had ever been made. The usual course in a case of this kind was, that the petition should be presented, and notice should be given of any Motion which was intended to be made upon the petition. He (Mr. M. Gibson's) first desire was, as this petition of Mr. W. Willis contained an unreserved retractation of the imputations and allegations contained in the article, to move at once that he be discharged. But of course he (Mr. M. Gibson) should be sorry to propose anything which might appear to be a departure from the rules and precedents which applied to the case. He was, therefore, entirely in the hands of the House, and if they objected to the Motion for Mr. W. Wilks' discharge being entered upon immediately, he would move that the petition be printed with the Votes, and give notice that be should move his discharge to-morrow. He further begged to say he had been informed that the rea-

  1199
  son why the retractation of the obnoxious insinuation was not made at the bar was that, when Mr. Washington Wilks appeared at the Bar, he did not quite understand what was the requirements made of him. He understood that he was required to withdraw the whole of the article; and inasmuch as the greater part of the article consisted of comments and criticisms upon the proceedings of the Committee founded upon general public grounds, and contained arguments for the recommittal of the North British scheme—over which Committee the hon. Member for Hereford presided —Mr. Wilks was not prepared to withdraw the whole article, but he drew a distinction between fairly criticising the public conduct of a Member of the House, as is usually done in the press, and imputing to a Member of Parliament that he was influenced by interested and corrupt motives.
  MR. FITZROYrose to order. He imagined that it was not competent to them to discuss the whole subject and the merits of the petition then, the right hon. Gentleman having already stated that he intended to move that the petition be printed.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONgranted that he might be in error, but he felt it due to Mr. Washington Wilks to explain why he had not made the retractation before. He begged to move that the petition be printed.
  Motion agreed to.
  Petition of Washington Wilks, retracting the imputation of corrupt motives against the honourable Member for Hereford, which he regrets had been made, and praying that he may forthwith be discharged; to be taken into consideration Tomorrow, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that although in strictness he should have made the Motion he was about to submit at half-past four, he would ask the indulgence of the House to allow him to make it then, as he knew it would be the wish of the House that it should be made at an early hour. It was to the effect that Government Orders of the day should have precedence on Thursdays over the other Orders of the day during the remainder of the Session. He hoped that the House, having consideration to the lateness of the Session, and also to the fact that the business of Her Majesty's Government did not commence until the 12th of March, would consent to this Mo-
1200
tion. With regard to the Order of the Day for Thursday the 10th June, of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King), he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had intimated to the hon. Member that he would be willing to make an arrangement with him, so that his Motion might come on some other day.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONbegged to express his full concurrence in the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, which was in accordance with the course that had always been taken at this period in former Sessions. But perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would have the goodness to inform the House what was the nature of the business which it was the intention of the Government to introduce besides the Estimates.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved that the Estimates would not come on on Thursdays. He would add, that the measure which the Government proposed to take on Thursday next would be, amongst others, the measure of his learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland with respect to the sale of land.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he presumed that the hon. Member for Surrey was a consenting party to the proposed arrangement; but having given up a day on which he had precedence at the request of the right hon. Gentleman, he (Lord John Russell) thought the hon. Member would be entitled to Thursday next instead of Thursday the 10th.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had communicated with the hon. Member for Surrey, but unfortunately had not yet received his answer. He had reason, however, to believe, that the proposition would be agreeable to the hon. Member.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to know if the Indian Resolutions were to come forward on Friday next?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would prefer that they should be postponed until the reappearance of the President of the Board of Control in his place.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that the Bill he had introduced relative to joint-stock banks had been postponed in deference to the wishes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and now stood for Thursday. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow it to come on then.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- QUER: I supported the hon. Gentleman's Bill and voted for it, but I cannot do any more at present. I can only say that I shall feel very glad if he finds an opportunity of bringing it forward and passing it.
Motion agreed to.
Resolved, That Government Orders of the Day shall have precedence upon Thursdays during the remainder of the Session.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.
Resolution 13 (Royal Parks, &c.)
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he must express his regret at finding that no Vote was proposed to be taken for clearing out the Serpentine. After the success which bad attended the experiment with the ornamental water in St. James's Park, and the pumping power that was at his command, he hoped the noble Lord at the bead of the Board of Works would take this subject also into his consideration, and, seeing what a nuisance the Serpentine had become, owing to its filthy state, propose a vote of public money for the purpose of cleansing it out and rendering it more suitable as a bathing place for the numerous inhabitants of the metropolis who now resorted to its banks with that object in view.
Resolution 14 (New Houses of Parliament),
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that as the House was aware, the original Estimate fur building the new Houses of Parliament was £704,000, and that the sum actually expended had now reached the enormous sum of £2,250,000. It was only by dint of constantly calling for information upon the subject that the House had been enabled to get at anything like a proximate idea of what the entire expenditure was likely to be. It was due to the late Sir W. Molesworth to state that he was the first who had endeavoured to place seine check on this excessive outlay by putting an end to the old system, and in March, 1855, he contrived to make an Estimate of what was the total amount then demanded for the completion of the works. That amount was calculated at £280,000. It was also true that that Right hon. Gentleman's successor (Sir B. Hall) had done his best to keep within that Estimate; and on the 30th of March, 1856, in answer to a question which he (Sir H. Willoughby) put to him, the Right hon. Baronet stated that the £280,000 would complete the
1202
expenditure. It now turned out, however, that the arrangement had been entirely departed from, and that the sums which had been voted far exceeded that amount; in fact, were nearly double £280,000. In the years 1855, 1856, and 1857, the sums of £112,000, £93,000, and £162,000, had been voted for the new Houses of Parliament, and finally there was the Vote before the House of £160,000, making altogether upwards of half a million of money. Thus, the understanding come to with the late Sir William Molesworth, and which the right hon. Member for Marylebone had done his best to carry out, bad been completely defeated. He now wished to elicit from the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Works a distinct promise that the Vote of £160,000 should complete the matter. At any rate he begged to give notice that if hereafter any Vote whatever was asked for in addition to the £160,00, and he had the honour of continuing to sit in that House, he would take the sense of the House upon the subject. For of this he was fully persuaded in his own mind, that unless the House had the courage and pluck to take that course, they would never hear the last of these expenses. Indeed, when the question was examined by a Committee of the House, the only consolation they received was a sort of joke from Sir C. Barry, that the naked Estimate of £700,000 would be clothed in two millions and a quarter. Well, it had since been clothed in two millions and a quarter, and they were going on even in advance of that, say what they would, he contended, that the manner in which the expenditure for the new Houses had been conducted reflected no credit upon the House of Commons as controllers of the expenditure of the public money; but he trusted that the noble Lord at the bead of the Board of Works would give them an assurance that no more money should be asked for on account of the new Houses. If it should be, he sincerely hoped the House would take the matter into its own hands, and refuse the money.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he could assure the House that the Vote he had now taken would really complete the Palace, as he had explained to the Committee on Friday last. Whatever further operations the House might afterwards think fit to undertake would be for new buildings. Indeed the £160,000 mentioned in the Resolution was not all required by Sir Charles

1203
Barry, whose Estimates for completing the new palace amounted to £68,000, in addition to which there were £4,000 for the completion of the clock tower, and £4,000 for other purposes, which raised the total to £76,000.
MAJOR EDWARDS: After what has fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) I fear no Motion for increase of expenditure upon the present Vote will be permitted. At the same time, having heard bitter complaints from many of the ladies of my own constituents and others, as no doubt most other hon. Members have, of the want of access to this House, owing to insufficient accommodation in the ladies' gallery, I would suggest to the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, that by removing the screen which separates the gallery from the ante-room twelve or eighteen inches further back, at a cost, as I have ascertained, of about £200, double the number of ladies might be accommodated, namely, forty-two, instead of twenty-one as it is at present. Sincerely trusting the noble Lord will take the matter into his immediate consideration, I will not further urge the matter upon the attention of the House.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that much as their gallantry might lead them to study the convenience of the ladies, he thought that when they came to expend money for increasing the accommodation in the House, Members themselves ought to have the priority. Pretty as that House might be—he had heard it compared to a Swiss Cottage—no one who had had a seat in the old temporary House could fail to see that the accommodation now provided for hon. Members was scanty in comparison with that. In the old House there was a number of raised seats under the Speaker's gallery in full sight and hearing of all that was going on. The Members' gallery, too, was admirable, and there was access to it from within the House. Here, however, hon. Members must quit the House, go round a corner, and up a dark staircase, to get to the gallery. At the bar, too, there was much more accommodation provided; and he trusted that when his noble Friend took into consideration the subject of providing more accommodation he would, with all respect and deference for the ladies, think first of hon. Members.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he thought the House and the country ought to feel deeply indebted to his hon. Friend (Sir H.
1204
Willoughby) for calling attention to the important subject of the expenditure for the new Houses of Parliament, and he would follow up what had been stated by his hon. Friend by reminding the House of what it had been frequently reminded before, but in vain—namely, that whilst it was always ready to vote large sums of money for purposes which were comparatively trivial and frivolous it grudged those sums which were necessary for purposes of the most important national character. Without going into details, he thought it would be well for the House to remember that they were spending hundreds and thousands of pounds for buildings of a merely ornamental character; and that at a moment when it had been made known to them, through official channels, that the actual defences of the country were in a very incomplete state. For his part, he was of opinion that they ought to put a stop to such a comparatively useless expenditure, and lay out the public money upon objects which were more essential and important in a national point of view.
On the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply,

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER'S SPEECH AT SLOUGH.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONrose and said: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday last, when I, perhaps through negligence, was not present in the House, made an appeal to me upon a matter of very great national importance, and I therefore feel it my duty to take the earliest opportunity upon coming to town to answer his appeal. The right hon. Gentleman on Wednesday last—I think it was on the 26th instant,—before a large assembly of his constituents at Slough, made a speech which he will forgive me for saying has, I believe, excited the astonishment of most of those who have read it. It was natural that the right hon. Gentleman should feel elated at the position in which he then stood. For the first time he found himself in a large assembly, not only in a majority, but actually supported unanimously by those who were present. That was a position entirely new to the right hon. Gentleman. It was not surprising that he should be elated by the spontaneous cheers of 500 or 600 honest but deluded farmers—he who had been accustomed of late merely to the cheers of a small band of well-drilled supporters in this House,

1205
who cheered him as well-drilled soldiers act at the call of the fugleman. It was natural that when the right hon. Gentleman heard the heartfelt acclamations of these honest but misguided farmers, who thought they had before them the unflinching champion of Protection, the uncompromising antagonist to Free Trade, he should be elated; and, therefore, if he had made a speech suitable to his position as a Minister of the Crown going down to meet his constituents nobody could have found fault with the manner in which he availed himself of that occasion. But I must say that the speech which he made was of that character, that if it had been made by a man of humbler condition, ignorant of national affairs, unaccustomed to the arts of government, knowing not the duties which belong to a responsible Government, we might have treated what he said with indulgence, and perhaps with compassion.
"Non Massica Bacchi Munera, non illis epulæ nocuere repôstæ."
But it was not so with the right hon. Gentleman. He came with a speech which bears much evidence of deliberate and studious preparation. He announced himself as speaking there as the representative of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore that which fell from his lips acquires additional importance, not only from the matter but from the person by whom it was pronounced. The right hon. Gentleman began by stating that the Earl of Derby, when he came into office, succeeded to a heritage of innumerable difficulties. I remember to have heard with my own ears from the lips of the Earl of Derby, that when he came into office he found the country in every respect in a satisfactory condition, and that his only ambition was that when he left office, were that time remote or near, he might leave the country in as good a position as that in which he found it. Now, the Earl of Derby is a man who, with his wonderful powers of mind, might have made the best speech that ever issued from his lips upon a sudden as well as after a fortnight's preparation, so far as composition is concerned; but the Earl of Derby upon that occasion said that he required a few days to prepare himself for that speech,—not to prepare for the periods of that eloquence which was to delight an audience, which represents almost every class in the community, but to inform himself of all the matters connected with his Government, in order that he might be able to speak
1206
with knowledge and authority upon the state in which he found the country at the time he entered upon office. Therefore I say that the assertion made by the Earl of Derby when he said the country was in a satisfactory condition is a refutation of the assertion that his heritage was encompassed by innumerable difficulties. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to enumerate what those difficulties were, and he placed in the first rank that with respect to which I am about to make a statement, in answer to the appeal made to me by him. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that when the present Government came into office they found the country upon the verge of war, and that the question of peace or war was hanging, not upon weeks, nor upon days, but actually upon hours. Now, Sir, all I can say is, that, so far as I am informed—so far as I know anything with regard to our relations with France at that period, that statement is utterly and entirely groundless. It is not only groundless, but it is actually the opposite of the truth. I cannot but express my surprise that the right hon. Gentleman should have made such an assertion anywhere, but more especially that he should have made it in the place and at the time that he did. Did not the right hon. Gentleman know the gravity of the statement which he made? But, assuming it to be a true statement, such a statement ought not to have been made in such an assembly. It ought not to have been made in a booth at Slough, to a parcel of carousing electors. If that statement had been true—if the right hon. Gentleman thought that the public interests required that it should be made known—if he believed that the country was apathetic with regard to the national defences, as has been stated just now by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck)—if he thought it was necessary to awaken the country to the chances of danger which from time to time hang over our heads, in order that not a moment might be lost to prepare the necessary defences, it is in this House, upon the Army and Navy Estimates, that an assertion of that sort should have been made. He should have made it upon the responsibility of a Minister speaking from the Treasury bench in a Committee of Supply, and it should have been made in such a manner as might not give offence to the country against which it was levelled. Again, I say that I deny that statement utterly and entirely. When

1207
upon Friday last my noble Friend the Member for London alluded to the subject, the right hon. Gentleman, with an air of triumph, got up and quoted something which I said in this House as a proof of his assertion, and he also mentioned as another proof, a circumstance connected with the French Ambassador. Now, as regards the two observations of mine which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, I say that those observations themselves entirely disprove and repudiate the assertion which he has made. The right hon. Gentleman quoted an answer which I gave to a question which was put to me by an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, and which I thought was a question calculated to give offence to the Government of France. My reply was, "Before I answer the question I should like to ask the House whether it was their wish and intention that those confidential and intimate relations which then existed between the Government of England and the Government of France should be maintained, or whether it was their wish to infuse into those relations a spirit of bitterness, irritation, and animosity?" I said nothing about war. What I said was, that there then existed the most intimate and confidential relations between the two Governments, into which I thought the repetition of questions such as that to which my answer alluded, questions aimed in a personal and offensive manner at the Sovereign of the French, would be likely to introduce a different spirit from that which then existed. My assertion then was, that our relations with France were of a most intimate and confidential nature, and I beg the House to remember when it was that that answer was made. The right hon. Gentleman has told us, that I made that statement only forty-eight hours before the fall of the late Government, so that it is clear, according to what I then said, that within forty-eight hours of our leaving office the relations between this country and France were of a most intimate and confidential character, instead of being such as were at all likely to lead to war. Then, said the right hon. Gentleman, the French Ambassador suddenly quitted England, and it is well known that an Ambassador does not suddenly leave the Court to which he is accredited without his departure meaning something very like a rupture. Now, what is the fact? Why, Count de Persigny—of whom I may say that there is not a more honest or plain-dealing man in England—
1208
he is a man thoroughly imbued with a patriotic love of his own country, and is proud of being a Frenchman, but at the same time he is deeply convinced that a cordial alliance between England and France is of the utmost advantage to both countries and to the world at large. Well, Sir, I say what were the facts? Why, they were these:—Count de Persigny went for a fortnight to France upon his own private affairs, and I believe that he was in Paris when the change of Government took place, so that instead of his departure from this country being coincident with that change, he returned to it about that time. Instead of a sudden departure of the French Ambassador happening closely with the advent of the present Government—I speak from recollection—I believe that he returned two days after they came into office; therefore, if anything is to be drawn from the departure of the French Ambassador it is valueless for the right hon. Gentleman's purpose. There was no ground for concluding that there was any imminent prospect of war from the departure of the French Ambassador. The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, explain the grounds upon which he made that most injudicious and improper statement—a statement calculated to affect the public credit of the country, and to throw distrust upon all our commercial transactions. I say, to throw distrust upon all our commercial transactions, because, when men are told that, at a moment, when they are quite ignorant of their position, their country is within hours of a war with France, how can you expect confidence to exist in the commercial relations between the two countries? And is it not an indiscretion on the part of a Minister of the Crown to sow broadcast over all our commercial transactions the seed of distrust and want of confidence? Well, then, I say that if the statement of the right hon. Gentleman were well founded, and in accordance with the facts, it was a most improper statement to make at the time and place when it was made. But if it was not well founded, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot state reasons which justify him in entertaining that belief, I shall be lost in amazement at the operation of the mind which would lead him to attempt to gain a little false glory for the Government to which he belongs, by the boast that they have accommodated a matter which was likely to produce actual war in a few hours. "War" and "hours" were the terms used by the right hon.

1209
Gentleman. He did not talk of an interruption of the friendly relations existing between the two countries, but he spoke of actual war—war with our ally—and that within a space to be counted, not by days or weeks, but by hours. If such a statement was injurious and injudicious as regards the affairs of this country, how injurious and injudicious was it as regarded our relations with France? The statement of the right hon. Gentleman accused the Government and Sovereign of France of a covert intention to attack this country without any previous announcement or previously declared quarrel; and in imputing such an intention to the Government of France it appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman imputes something very like a disloyal and treacherous proceeding. I say, therefore, that I call upon the right hon. Gentleman to explain or to retract the assertion which he then made. I again affirm—speaking from the knowledge of the state of affairs which I possessed as being then the First Lord of the Treasury, that when we went out of office there was nothing that indicated, in our opinion, any probability of any serious dispute, much less any probability of being, as described by the right hon. Gentleman, on the very verge of war. There may have been differences between the two Governments after the present Government acceded to office; there may have been possibly charges, and complaints on the part of the French Government of engagements evaded and of promises broken. That I know nothing about. It may be so, and, for all I know, the imminence of war pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, and which he sought to charge on our administration, may have arisen from circumstances which have occurred since the present Government came into office. Well, then, the right hon. Gentleman went on in that boasting speech to allude to the case of the Cagliari, and he took credit to the present Government for having rescued two fellow-countrymen from the dungeons in which they were immured, and for having brought them in triumph to this country. Now, as regards one of those men, he had been set free and handed over to the custody and care of the British Consul at Naples before the change of Ministry took place, and both had been rescued from the dungeons which they previously occupied, and placed in a comparatively light place of confinement before the present
1210
Government came into office; and, so far from the late Government having neglected the two English engineers, the papers which have been laid upon the table will show that there was upon the part of the late Government, for a considerable period, incessant attention bestowed upon the subject. If the two engineers were brought back in the triumphant manner described by the right hon. Gentleman, I should have expected him, in reply to the question which was put to him a short time ago, to state that those two men had been injuriously and unjustly treated, and that in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown compensation might be claimed—that a claim had been made for compensation, and that compensation had been triumphantly obtained. Well, then, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—and the greater part of his speech was an attack upon the late Government—that there was an intrigue carried on—I presume he meant by us—to bring about a war between Naples and Sardinia, which, he said, would light a flame of war over Europe. Now, I utterly deny that there is any truth in that assertion, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will state the grounds upon which it was made. The right hon. Gentleman boasted, also, that he has performed wonders in finance, that there was an immense deficit—millions of deficit, and that he has got rid of that immense deficit simply by placing a small tax upon Irish spirits and a penny stamp upon bankers' cheques. Why, Sir, if an immense deficit can be got rid of by such means the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer must be a much easier one than is generally supposed. Sir, for my own part, I ant afraid that the Government have only postponed the evil day. They have only postponed the consideration of that which they were afraid to meet, and have thrown upon other years those difficulties which they themselves shrank from encountering; and, so far from that being a subject for boasting, I believe that if it be the lot of the present Government to bring forward a Budget next year—as they appear to anticipate will be the case—the crime will bear its own punishment with it and they will rue the day when they adopted so easy an adjustment of a difficult financial question. The next point upon which the right hon. Gentleman applauded himself and his colleagues and cast contumely upon us, was India. The right hon. Gentleman said that our policy was one of unmitigated

1211
vengeance and general massacre—not one of mitigated punishment and discriminating amnesty. I may appeal to the words which I myself uttered many months ago as indicating the policy which we had recommended to Viscount Canning, and which I had no doubt he was about to follow. I stated in November, at a public meeting, not of the same description as that of Wednesday, but at which I trust I was more guarded than the right hon. Gentleman—I stated that the policy of Viscount Canning would be to punish the guilty, to spare the innocent, and reward the deserving. Now, that is the policy by which we stand—not a policy of general massacre or unmitigated vengeance. It is, therefore, Sir, a libel on the last Government, and also on Viscount Canning, to accuse either us or him of having intended to act on the principle of unmitigated vengeance and general massacre. But the right hon. Gentleman said that they were going to rebuild and reconstruct our Indian empire on a sure foundation; and the method by which that end was to be pursued was by the sending forth of a missive, to be published to the world, here and to all the nations of India, proclaiming principles which tend to the dismemberment of that empire—principles which, if acted upon as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman's speech, would necessarily lead to that disastrous result, and the first object aimed at in the enunciation of which was to degrade the Governor General and deprive him of the power to exercise his high functions. And this is what the right hon. Gentleman calls the reconstruction of our Indian empire! Why, this would be as if a man called upon to reconstruct a spacious mansion were to commence by pulling it down in order to build a bridge. The principles of the right hon. Gentleman would drive us back to Calcutta, and the days when we had but a few small factories on the banks of the Hooghly. And this, he says, would increase our power and our greatness in India. But the right hon. Gentleman, being in a mood to spare nobody, was, I think, also somewhat severe upon his own colleagues. He boasted of the manner in which the late debate had been conducted. He said, in fact, that the only speeches which he deemed worth mentioning were those made by persons unconnected with the Government. Anybody who heard that statement, and was unaware of what had taken place in our recent debates on Indian affairs, must
1212
have inferred that no Member of the Government had said a word, that their whole defence had been left to independent Members of the Government having been afraid to say anything for themselves. Did the right hon. Gentleman forget that there were four speeches—five, indeed—made from the Treasury bench, and all of them remarkable? Did he forget the speech of the Solicitor General, which certainly I shall not easily forget—a speech of great ability and great promise—one that, even though made against us, I was glad to hear delivered by any Member of this House, and which proves the hon. and learned Gentleman to be a distinguished ornament of Parliament. It was, indeed, as my noble Friend observed, a speech somewhat forensic in character—that is to say, it was the speech of an advocate speaking from his brief, and who would have been able to make out as good a case on the other side if a brief of an opposite kind had been given to him. But it was an admirable speech, nevertheless, and did not deserve to be passed over in the manner it was by the right hon. Gentleman. We had also a speech from the Attorney General for Ireland, marked by the impassioned eloquence and declamatory power with which that right hon. Gentleman always addresses us, and though, indeed, it was not quite so elaborate in argument as that of the Solicitor General, it was still a speech, made as it was in defence of the Government, which was entitled to some notice on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. Next, we had a speech of considerable ability from the Under Secretary for the Home Department, and then another from Lord Stanley, a Cabinet Minister, who has now been appointed as head of the India Board. The address delivered by that noble Lord was a calm, sober argument, and one which I think ought not to have been overlooked as if it were nothing at all. It is true that the other Members of the Cabinet—the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and their other colleagues—very prudently held their tongues, probably feeling that "the least said the soonest mended." They accordingly left their defence to those who could know little about the matter, who were not in the secrets of the Government, who were not responsible, and might therefore assert anything that came into their heads. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then, as far as regards the Indian

1213
question, accused us of that of which we were not guilty, and was a speech of which not only we have a right to complain, but which, I think, entitles his colleagues in and out of the Cabinet to protest against the slight thus put upon them. The right hon. Gentleman then takes a review of the relative position of parties on both sides of this House, and he makes what he supposes to be a most overpowering charge. He says there now exists in this country that which has not been witnessed since the days of Charles II.—namely, a cabal—a cabal sitting on the Opposition benches of this House, which has conceived the most extraordinary, the most unjustifiable, and most unheard of intention to dispossess the present Government and take their places. Well, the word cabal only means a body consisting of a small number, and I believe the grammatical distinction between a cabal and a party is merely the distinction between a few and many. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman says we are "a cabal" he thinks we are the few, and he calls himself, I presume, the head of "a party" because they have the majority in this House. But, surely, if we on this side are deserving of the epithet "cabal" because we are few, the right hon. Gentleman might be sparing in his invectives, inasmuch as the few cannot overpower the many, and their designs, however unheard-of, alarming, or mischievous, must, by reason of their numerical inferiority, be most difficult to carry into execution. But when he complains that his Government has, ever since it was established, been the object of incessant attacks and intrigues, I should like to know to whom he alludes. He cannot make this charge against us who sit on these benches. Why, Sir, we have acted with uncommon forbearance. And it has come to my ear that many of those who wish us well have thought that we were neglecting and shrinking from the discharge of our duty in allowing the Government to go on from blunder to blunder, proving every day their incapacity to govern; and we have been supposed to be backward in the exercise of our constitutional functions in not calling the House to affirm that the present Government are not deserving of the confidence of the country. Sir, we did not pursue any such course. But when a case arose which appeared to us to involve principles of the utmost danger to the dominions of the Crown, and to imply an offence on the part of the Ministers of the Queen, which, as
1214
was well stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir R. Bethell), might in former times have subjected a Government to impeachment—principles, I say, which tended to disturb out possessions in India, to encourage the revolters, and to throw dismay and discouragement among the ranks of our troops, then we thought the moment had come—and I should have been ashamed of myself if I had not stepped forward on such an occasion—to endeavour to elicit the opinion of this House on conduct so discreditable to a Government, and so perilous to the empire which it was their duty to uphold. But is it, then, so factious a proceeding within three mouths after the accession of a Ministry to propose a vote of censure against them? If the right hon. Gentleman had consulted the records of a former Session he would have found that others have been guilty of the same "factious" conduct; for within three months of the formation of the last Government votes of censure upon them were proposed, and those votes were repeatedly introduced by what, if paucity of numbers constistutes a cabal, I may fairly call a cabal of that day, whose obvious purpose was to turn out the Government of the Queen. But we are told that this cabal is uncommonly well informed, especially in regard to foreign affairs. Now, I cannot retort that charge upon the present Ministry. I acquit them entirely of any such imputation. But when the right hon. Gentleman talks of the cabal having abundant resources at their command, which they apply in an unscrupulous manner, and says that they obtain information by unconstitutional means, I should like him to have the goodness to specify the grounds on which he makes this assertion. No doubt we do know a good deal about foreign affairs, and we should be highly reprehensible if we did not. Having been in office for a considerable time, and having had to deal with foreign affairs of great importance, we necessarily know a good deal of those foreign affairs; and, let me add, we know a little about domestic matters too. Now, Sir, I should like to know who those foreign intriguers are who are conspiring with us for the purpose of dispossessing hon. Gentlemen opposite from their seats. I think I am entitled to say, that had we brought the country to the verge of war it is not likely that the representatives of any foreign Government would be so anxious to restore us to power; they

1215
would be more likely to wish to continue the more peaceful Administration—as the right hon. Gentleman represents it—which now holds the reins of office. Then, Sir, I entirely repudiate the charge of the right hon. Gentleman, that we are conspiring to obtain information on foreign affairs by unconstitutional means, and that we are conducting ourselves in a manner different from that which should actuate the movements of public men. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to attack the press. I will leave the press to defend itself—it is quite able to do so; but when the right hon. Gentleman implies that some candidates for office are contributors to the press, I should like to know whether there are not hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who have contributed to "the Press," and that for the purpose of bringing themselves into office. These, Sir, are the grounds on which I object to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I deny altogether, so far as my knowledge goes, the assertion that there was any imminent probability of war between England and France at the time we quitted office. I repeat that the relations between the two countries were most friendly, intimate, and confidential, and that so far as we are concerned the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman is entirely without foundation. Then, Sir, with reference to the assertion that we are a cabal, if the use of that term implies that we are few in number, I have only to say that the result will yet show which of the two sides has the greater number of supporters in the House. But I deny entirely, if we are a cabal in the sense of a party aiming at upsetting the Government, that that is a novel proceeding. To say that there has never been a cabal since the days of Charles II., having for its object to upset a Government, is an assertion I did not expect to hear from a quarter so enlightened. Such a thing is no novelty; but I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that which is a novelty. It is not that there should be a cabal in Opposition, but that there should be a factious Government—that there should be a Government carrying into office all the factious feelings by which they were actuated in Opposition—a Government which publishes libels on the former advisers of the Crown, and on acts of the Crown carried out on the advice of those former Ministers—a factious Government that sends forth and publishes not only to Europe, but to India, principles
1216
which, if carried into execution, would lead to the dismemberment of our Indian empire—a Government which, whatever motives it may have been actuated by, publishes to the world a most affronting insult to the highest officer of the Crown in any of Her Majesty's dominions.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: What has taken place on this subject reminds me of an unfortunate circumstance that has recently happened in that country which has been so much the subject of the remarks of the noble Lord. A gentleman of letters, having done, or said, or written, something that offended a very powerful body, was called to account by a member of it. He met his opponent without any hesitation, and in the first encounter conducted himself with fair repute and success. But no sooner was this affair over than another gentleman was sent for—one whose fierce mien and formidable reputation were such that his friends thought he would put the matter right. He, too, demands satisfaction, and is accompanied by a considerable body of other gentlemen who seem by their appearance to signify that if the second assailant is not more successful than the first, then they will find others to succeed him. In short, having some how or other got into a scrape, they mean if they cannot fight it out to bully out of it by numbers. I am sure the House will understand that I use the word "bully" only with reference to the illustrative instance. I cannot from all this discussion believe that my fate in this second encounter will be as unfortunate as that of the gentleman to whom I have referred, because the noble Lord, although he has come up from the country to make his assault has in no degree strengthened the cause that was more temperately urged on Friday by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. In the first place, let me remove the misconception on which the principal argument of the noble Lord rests. The noble Lord has based his argument on an entire misquotation of what I said in Buckinghamshire—though, of course, I acquit the noble Lord of any intentional unfairness,—for I never said that when we came into office this country was on the verge of war. What I did say was, that war might have taken place at the end, not of weeks or days, but of hours. The inference of the noble Lord that by that statement I meant to convey the impression that the late Government had left the

1217
affairs of the nation in such a state that war was inevitable, is a fallacious one. I freely admit all that the noble Lord says when he states that on the retirement of the late Government there was no prospect of a war with France. Of course, when there was a Government which had avoided answering a despatch which it was supposed conveyed an insult to the people of this country—when there was a Government which not only declined answering that supposed insulting despatch, but which also strove to introduce a Bill into this House to change the laws of England, it was very easy for such a Government to maintain a good understanding with the Power whose purposes (that Power being at the time entirely misguided) it was then prepared to fulfil. But the moment a change of Government took place —the moment there was an Administration whose duty it was in deference to the Resolution of this House to answer in a becoming manner the supposed insulting despatch, and to declare to France that they were not prepared at its instance to recommend any change in the laws of England, the House will at once see that the issues of peace or war became imminent. The change of Ministry must have been annoying to the Government of France, although after all it was not so much a question between the two Governments, as between the irritated feelings of two proud nations; and those who are aware of the circumstances know that the expressions which I used in Buckinghamshire were not indifferent, or inaccurate, or exaggerated expressions, but that they were perfectly justified by all that occurred; that they were even historic expressions, which could be used at this time, not only without giving offence to France, but that, on the contrary, they had reference to circumstances which most completely contrasted with the state of things that now exists. And how did the Government act in the difficult position in which it was placed? Called on to pursue a policy exactly contrary to that which the noble Lord says was the security for a good understanding between the two countries, Her Majesty's Ministers, trusting to the great sagacity and natural good disposition of the eminent person who rules France, believed that if the whole circumstances of the case were brought before his unerring judgment, and relieved from the influence of those parasites in both countries who had induced him to believe that the people of England
1218
would submit to a change in their laws, he would decide upon the matter in a way conducive to the happiness of both countries. That confidence in him has not been vain. From that moment the relations between the two countries assumed, week by week and month by month, a more satisfactory and cordial character; and I say again, that under these circumstances I was justified in the statement I made—that we maintained the honour of the country, the blessings of peace, and that inestimable alliance on which the civilization of Europe depends. Therefore, all the observations of the noble Lord to prove that the late Government of the Queen did not leave this country on the eve of a war are founded on a fallacy. I will admit, for the sake of argument, the whole case of the noble Lord. I will admit, to use his own expression, that there was nothing when he went out of office that threatened war between the two countries; but the condition of peace, in my opinion, in the opinion of this country, and of the House, was a shameful condition, the pursuance of a truckling policy, which was not only not for the honour of this country, but was clearly against the interest of France, and the advantage of our faithful ally. And I believe that no person was more convinced of that than the Emperor himself, and that was proved by the manner in which the Emperor and his Ministers received the news of the trial of Bernard in this country. His Majesty felt, then, that the Ministers of this country having declared frankly and fully the conditions on which the relations of the two countries should be maintained had acted loyally, and that there had been a faithful administration of justice; and although the result might be mortifying and disappointing, yet it never became a source of misunderstanding or coldness between the two countries. His Majesty expressed, in a manner that did him the greatest honour, his conviction that the law of England had been faithfully appealed to and administered in his own case. Well, then, I was justified in stating that we had, in unison with the Parliament of this kingdom, vindicated and maintained the honour of this country, and had not forfeited that alliance which, I am proud and happy to say, now exists with cordial feelings on both sides, but which, according to the noble Lord, could not be preserved except by a policy that this country repudiated. The noble Lord has, I will not say per-

1219
verted, because he has completely misunderstood the statement I made when he says that I wished to convey the impression that there was a danger of France suddenly attacking us. I said no such thing. I only meant to state a fact—a notorious fact, and not a Cabinet secret—that within twenty-four hours the policy of England with regard to France was changed; that it was no longer a truckling, a servile, and a disgraceful policy that was pursued—yet a policy which seemed to flatter the feelings of the Emperor and of the people of France—and that there was, therefore, a danger that in a moment war might have taken place. I say that the conduct and fairness of Her Majesty's Government, and the wisdom and magnanimity of the Emperor, prevented such a result, and that these qualities render the alliance on both sides as firm and cordial as any that ever existed. Why should I shrink from saying that before a meeting of my countrymen and constituents? I should have been ashamed if I had been afraid of making that declaration to my constituents. The noble Lord, however, declares it to have been injudicious and improper; but these are epithets to which I might apply a different meaning. It is easy to say that they are injudicious and improper, but I might retaliate to-night and say that his interference is injudicious and improper. He says that it was a statement calculated to affect the public credit of this country. I can only say that public credit is a much more delicate thing than I have any idea of if a statement such as I have vindicated to-night could have the slightest effect upon it. What affects the credit of the country is a secret and servile policy pursued to please some foreign Power, in total ignorance of the character of this nation, and ending by disappointing that Power, and baffling any wishes that we had improperly allowed it to cherish. That is the way to injure the public credit of the country. The noble Lord then travels to Italy. He is still hankering on the case of the Cagliari—that case on which the noble Lord was so reserved and so silent when he sat on these benches. The noble Lord grudges us the satisfaction of freeing two of our countrymen whom he had permitted to remain for long months unnoticed in prison, and at last, ashamed of himself and his colleagues, makes an inaccurate statement to-night, which I defy him to prove, by which he
1220
wishes to convey that it is not true that these two unfortunate Englishmen had been freed by our efforts and influence. The noble Lord is entirely wrong. Both of our countrymen were prisoners when we acceded to office, and the first thing we did was to telegraph to Mr. Lyons, and to send him to Naples to interfere on their behalf. The noble Lord says that Watt was already freed, and under the care of the English Consul. But how was he freed, and why, and under what conditions? That unfortunate man, in consequence of the treatment he had received and the neglect of the noble Lord and his Government—the reason of that unfortunate man, I say, was affected, and upon the application of the English Consul, who behaved throughout with spirit and humanity, he was permitted to leave his dungeon for an hospital or lazaretto; but on what terms? Why, the moment his reason returned he was to come back to his imprisonment to meet his trial. As I have already had the satisfaction of announcing to-night, in answer to an hon. and learned Gentleman, these English subjects have left their prison without trial and free. They have quitted Naples without conditions, and yet the noble Lord has attempted to state that one of these persons owes his liberation to the influence of the late Government. Well, I make but one remark on the statement of the noble Lord that I have declared an attempt has been made by certain persons to excite war between Naples and Sardinia. The noble Lord has taken to himself and his colleagues every observation I made in Buckinghamshire, although many of the noble Lord's statements are very inauthentic in many particulars. That there has been an attempt to embroil Italy and to take advantage of this unfortunate occurrence to excite war between these two Italian States; that the consequences of such a war, if those attempts should succeed, would be to put Europe in a flame, and would be fatal to that constitutional cause in Sardinia in which we are so much interested; that those who have joined in these attempts have believed that they would prove inconvenient and injurious to the existing Government—these are my firm convictions, and they are founded upon no slight evidence. The noble Lord, in his discursive range, then goes into the question of finance. He appears to be sore that the measures recommended by Her Majesty's

1221
Government should be affirmed by this House, and passed without difficulty. The noble Lord appears disposed to put in opposition to the measures of the Government the Budget prepared, but, unhappily, not brought forward by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the great feature of which would seem to be a large increase in the income tax. That appears to be acknowledged by the noble Lord. ["No!"] It was acknowledged by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I thought the noble Lord as the head of the Treasury might be responsible for that policy. The noble Lord then flies to India, and he repeats a charge which was not much insisted on by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and which is without foundation, that I said the policy of the late Government with respect to India was a policy of extermination. I am sorry that a speech made at a public dinner in the country should be analyzed in this manner in the House of Commons; but if any hon. Gentleman will consider in an unimpassioned spirit my observations delivered in Buckinghamshire he will find that by no possible logical construction can they be made to apply to any previous policy pursued by this country towards India. My observations were made to apply to a policy of confiscation and its consequences. Those consequences are vengeance, and if vengeance there must be massacre. I say that confiscation, vengeance, and massacre are the gradations of a climax which led me to prefer the superior policy of mercy. That is the statement I made. I said that you have to choose between the policy that we recommend—the policy of amnesty, of religious toleration, and respect for property—and a policy based on Viscount Canning's Proclamation, which, being one of confiscation, must lead to consequences exactly the contrary. That is all I said, and I entirely adhere to it. But the noble Lord having touched upon France very fully, with a series of observations which I have shown are all founded upon misconception, having touched upon the case of the Cagliari, with a statement which I have shown to the House is entirely unfounded, having touched upon the question of India, in which I have shown to the House that the inferences he has drawn are entirely unauthorized, comes to what I believe is the real and the main cause of this adjourned debate on the Buckinghamshire speech. The noble Lord
1222
says I have called the Opposition a cabal, and that cabal is not an appropriate term, irrespective of other objections, because cabal means a very limited body of individuals. I should not care to quarrel with the definition of the noble Lord, because it prevents the course of public business, but that I am unwilling to assent to his definition. By cabal I understand is meant a secret society of conspirators—a secret and unknown society, and, therefore, I need not assure the House of that of which it is perfectly aware, that when I talk of a cabal I am not talking of an Opposition, or a party in the House of Commons, whose whole conduct is public, whose numbers, whatever may be their opinions, must be considerable, and whose behaviour within these walls must be attended with circumstances totally discordant with the popular idea of a cabal. And I am as certain as that I am addressing you now, Sir, that I never in Buckinghamshire talked of a cabal in the House of Commons, or used a word by which any hon. Member of the House of Commons might ever consider that he was a Member of a cabal. There may be Members of the cabal in the House of Commons. I am sure there are members of the cabal who are not members of the House of Commons, and therefore I protest against the noble Lord taking up the observations which I made on the cabal, and wishing to insinuate to the House of Commons that in using that word I intended to describe what must be a very considerable number of its Members. I want to know from the noble Lord what is the real meaning of these repeated movements. I want to know whether we are again to have a discussion on the Buckinghamshire speech—whether the debate is again to be adjourned. I take it for granted there will be no division. Divisions are no longer the fashion. So far as I could collect the meaning of the noble Lord the Member for the City, the object of his demonstration on Friday night was to put the great Liberal party of the country in an intelligible position, as opposed to Her Majesty's Government. That is a legitimate and constitutional course. If the noble Lord the Member for the city is a Liberal—if he sympathises with the great Liberal party—I think the noble Lord perfectly justified in showing to the country that the great liberal party with which he is connected entertain certain opinions, and

1223
in contrasting these opinions with the opinions of those who occupy the Treasury bench and this side of the House. But I am bound to say that I do not see how that clearly applies to the noble Lord who has addressed us to-night, because, so far as I can form an opinion, I cannot understand that there is any thought, sentiment, or interest which can identify the noble Lord and the late Government with the great Liberal party. I take the two nights, Friday and Monday, because it is only by looking at the combined action that I can understand the scope of all these movements. I understand there arc great questions which are to be brought forward and which will test the character of parties in this House. The great Liberal party is in favour of vote by ballot. Is Her Majesty's late Government in favour of vote by ballot? The great Liberal party is in favour of the total abolition of church rates. Is Her Majesty's late Government in favour of the total abolition of church rates? The great Liberal party is in favour of that Bill of the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. L. King), to discuss which I appointed this evening. Is Her Majesty's late Government in favour of the hon. Member's new franchise? All that we know from the past is, that they opposed it on principle and offered grave arguments to influence the opinion of the House against it. There is another subject upon which the great Liberal party entertains strong views, and that is the subject of economy. Was Her Majesty's late Government in favour of economy? It is my painful duty every day of my life to be witness of the expenditure of the late Government, and a more extravagant, reckless, and profuse expenditure I never saw. The great Liberal party is in favour of publicity. We are always hearing that they look upon publicity in transactions of State as of great importance. There never was a Government which exercised such reserve on affairs of State as Her Majesty's late Government, and the only charge ever urged against the present Government was, that they did produce a public document. The only charge against us was, that we published a despatch. No one can ever say that we intercepted a letter. There is one other subject upon which the Liberal party have always shown great interest, and that is upon the conduct of the executive Government. They have always demanded that the conduct of the executive
1224
Government should be temperate and moderate. But what has been the conduct of the late executive? They were the first Government which carried on wars without the sanction of Parliament, and if we look to the other great branch of the executive—namely, the exercise of patronage—is it not notorious that the exercise of patronage outraged all the sense and spirit of the country? Well then, Sir, I want to know what is the use of these manœuvres—I will not say of a cabal. I never supposed that the cabal sat in this House, although very possibly there are many in this House who knowingly are influenced by the councils of the cabal. But what I want to know is, what is the meaning of all these operations?—because it seems impossible, so far as I can form an opinion, that the old delusion can again be revived, that there is the slightest connection or sympathy between the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton and his friends and the great Liberal party. Upon every subject there is total want of sympathy—there is total dissimilarity of views. So far as I am personally concerned, I am really quite regardless if every time we go into Committee of Supply a late Cabinet Minister, or those who think they may be Cabinet Ministers, rise and demand explanations of the observations which I made to my honest constituents. The noble Lord is quite horrified that I should have spoken in a booth on matters of State policy. Special announcements on matters of State—on matters of peace and war—should be made at a carousal in a club-room, such as we may remember, when you invite Her Majesty's officers who are to undertake operations of warfare, and when Prime Ministers take the chair, and in what is styled—though not by me—an inebriated assembly announce for the first time to the country that a great military expedition is to be undertaken. But, Sir, although I may not escape from this criticism night after night (and I am perfectly prepared to meet any of those who may attack me), what must the country think—when time is so precious, when the public business is so backward, and when affairs in this House are so urgent—of the conduct of the noble Lord and his co-managers in this operation? What must they think of these attempts night after night to prevent the progress of public business, and to give vent to all these unavailing expressions of discontent

1225
with the position they now occupy? I would put it to the noble Lord to contrast his position at the present moment with what it was three months ago—even after that great disaster which deprived his Sovereign and his country of his services as Prime Minister. He entered the House proud, and avowedly proud, of being tile chief of what was considered a great and even overwhelming Opposition. However illusive the expectation, there was a general idea that he possessed great power, which would be irresistible when he exercised it, and that, although for a moment he might condescend to sit is the cold shade of Opposition, he could at any instant resume power and place, and be the real arbiter of the destinies of his country. What has made the difference between the present position of the noble Lord and that which he occupied three months ago? I lay no claim for the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in that respect. I will say here, as I said in that place which has been the subject of criticism, that we have sedulously, diligently, and with devotion attempted to do our duty; but I cannot suppose that anything we have done has effected this great change in the position of the avowed Opposition. It is rather the sense of the country that their conduct has been animated by feelings which are not respected by the community. The noble Lord complains that they have been called a "cabal." What I call a cabal is a body of men, whether it be in this House or in another house—either a private house, or a house devoted to affairs of State—banded together, not to carry out a policy, not to recommend by their wisdom and their eloquence measures calculated to win the approving sympathy of the community, but uniting all their resources, their abilities, and their varied influence—for what?—to upset the Queen's Government, without even in so doing declaring any policy of their own, or giving any further clue to their opinions than this—that the first article of their creed is place. It is this conduct which has made the great body of the people of this country look with aversion on these machinations and manœuvres,and has gained for Her Majesty's Government the sympathy of all honourable and generous minds. If I wanted to confirm the Government in power—if I were anxious to assure a longer tenure of office, I should beg the noble Lords to continue their practices. I should be delighted, night after night, if they called on
1226
me in this manner to defend statements made to my constituents, not one word of which I retract, and which I made with that due thought which such statements required. I should wish the noble Lord to continue this course, for I am quite certain that, whatever difference of opinion there may be in this House, or in England, between the great Conservative party and the great Liberal party, there is this one point of union between us—that we are equally resolved both in this House and throughout the country no longer to be made the tools or the victims of an obsolete oligarchy.
SIR GEORGE GREY: The right hon. Gentleman, in the speech which he has just made, has complained over and over again of the unfair proceeding of my noble Friend tie Member for Tiverton in calling upon him for an explanation of certain passages of the remarkable speech addressed by him to his constituents, on the ground that in my noble Friend's absence the noble Lord the Member for the City of London had already called upon him for a similar explanation. But my noble Friend, as the head of the late Government, was bound to take the very first opportunity in his power to demand from the right hon. Gentleman an explanation of those gross imputations Of misconduct which he made against the late Government, which were totally unjustifiable, and which I venture to say were such as no man in the position of the right bon. Gentleman ever made before against his predecessors. The right hon. Gentleman asks how often are these demands for explanation to be renewed—how often, I ask, is the right hon. Gentleman to give explanations in reply to these demands totally at variance with each other? How will his "honest" constituents be surprised—and I suppose he used the word in the sense of "simple"—when they read the gloss which he has to-night put upon the words he addressed to them the other day. It is indeed a humiliating spectacle to see the leader of the House of Commons driven to explain away indiscretions by making statements in his place in Parliament, which are wholly incompatible and inconsistent with each other. The passage in the speech is this:—
"It is well for us now to think lightly of perils we have passed through, and even to forget them; but when I tell you, and tell you seriously, that the question of peace or war when we acceded

1227
to office was a question, not of weeks or days, but of hours, I am sure you will remember that peace has been preserved while the honour of the country has been vindicated."
That is from The Times' report, and I understand the right hon. Gentleman does not deny its accuracy. [The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Hear! hear!] When questioned on Friday night, the right hon. Gentleman in substance repeated that statement, and when called on for the grounds on which he made it, he referred to an answer given in this House by my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton just before leaving office, and also to the subsequent departure of the French Ambassador from this country, which took place after the present Government came into office. But to-night the right hon. Gentleman says be gives an unqualified adherence to all that has fallen from my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton; he allows that there was no question of war or peace when the present Government acceded to office; and he tells us that it was only after they were in power, when they came to deal with the question which had been left to them by their predecessors, that any danger arose. He says too, that those dangers arose from the truckling policy which We had pursued, and, forgetting that he and his friends originally supported that policy, and that the right hon. Gentleman, the present Home Secretary, repeatedly declared his adherence to it not only when first the Conspiracy Bill was introduced, but also in the debate on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton, he now turns round and endeavours to gain popularity in the country by vituperating that policy. At all events, we have now got a statement which I hope will reach the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman, and it establishes beyond doubt that the "alleged imminent" danger of war does not refer to any period when the late Government was in office, but entirely and exclusively to the time which has elapsed since the affairs of the country have been in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. With regard to India, I must remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman has reiterated in substance the charge which particularly affects Viscount Canning, if it affects anybody—the advocacy of massacre and indiscriminate vengeance. A few nights ago the right hon. Gentleman, happy to escape from a division, adopting
1228
a different tone, took care to inform the House that the Government had telegraphed to Viscount Canning assurances of their firm support and unqualified approbation. The present Government proclaim that they have a policy with regard to India, and yet we find them one day giving their unqualified support to Viscount Canning, and a day or two after one of its leading members telling his constituents that this distinguished nobleman, invested with all the authority of the Crown in India, is an advocate of indiscriminate massacre and vengeance. Comparing dates, I presume the Government telegraphed to Malta to catch the Indian mail, in order that the same post which took out the news of the publication of the despatch of Lord Ellenborough should also carry out the intelligence of the Earl of Ellenborough's retirement, in the hope that one piece of news might counteract the mischief likely to be caused by the other. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to gain a little temporary popularity for the Government by traducing and misrepresenting the motives of one of the most distinguished representatives of the Crown. What effect these attacks may have upon Lord Canning I do not know, but I hope that he will prove himself superior to any personal considerations, and that, without departing from the principles on which he has ever acted, of stern justice combined with equity and mercy, he will continue to discharge his duty as he has hitherto done, regardless of those personal insults and affronts which have been heaped upon him. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that every day he found fresh evidences of the fact that the expenditure of the late Government had been characterized by reckless and wanton extravagance, and he took credit to the present Government for advocating economy in opposition to wasteful and reckless expenditure. But if we were wasteful and reckless, what has been the course taken by the present Government? They did not hastily adopt our Estimates as we left them. They very properly asked for time to consider them; they took in the first instance Votes upon account, and then they came down upon their own responsibility and asked the House to agree to our Estimates. And by how much have they reduced those Estimates? They admitted that the Votes for the Army and the Navy—those two great branches of expenditure—had been prepared with a careful regard to efficiency,

1229
and with economy. Only a few thousand pounds were struck off those Estimates, and even that was not done without an intimation that it might be necessary during the present Session to ask for a supplementary Vote to replace the items which they had struck out. If, then, the Estimates of the late Government were characterized by reckless and wasteful extravagance, how can the right hon. Gentleman ask the House to go into Committee of Supply upon Estimates which are substantially the same as those which were prepared by the late Government? The truth is, that the right hon. Gentleman has been so long in Opposition that he has acquired the habit of spreading broadcast charges in high-sounding language which he either shrinks from proving, or is unable to sustain; but I trust that what has now taken place will furnish a lesson to the right hon. Gentleman, and teach him to act with more dignity and with more caution than he has yet displayed in the high office which he holds, and that he will think, not so much of catching the transient popularity of the hour, or of hurling a sarcasm at a political opponent, but that he will think, act, and speak as a statesman, for by so doing he will be far more likely to gain the confidence of the majority of this House than by adopting the course which has hitherto marked his career.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I think that the House will feel that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has rather endeavoured to make up by vehemence of manner for lack of argument in his speech. But I do not rise so much to reply to the right hon. Gentleman as to enter my protest against what appears to me to be a most unpardonable waste of public time. After having consumed a whole week of public time in that faction fight, the termination of which afforded another remarkable instance of how very short and rapid is the descent from the sublime to the ridiculous—after having so wasted a week, and having found how little effect their own speeches produced, hon. Gentlemen opposite are now endeavouring to extract some present advantage front attacking the speech of my right hon. Friend delivered to his constituents in Buckinghamshire. I cannot feel surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be a little dissatisfied with that speech of my right hon. Friend; for I believe that it has enlisted more public sympathy, and
1230
has excited public feeling more than any speech which has been delivered for a long period of time. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton and the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken very justly characterized that speech as a remarkable one, and no doubt they deeply regret the effect which it has produced upon the country. I must protest, however, against what I consider to be a most unfair misrepresentation of the language which was held by my right hon. Friend, both on Friday night in reply to the noble Lord the Member for London, and to-night in reply to the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton. I deny that my right hon. Friend is open to the imputation which has been cast upon him, with equal severity and injustice, of having held one language last Friday and another to-night—of having on Friday given one explanation of that passage which has so offended hon. Gentlemen opposite, and of having to-night given a totally different explanation. I contend that there is no difference in the language of my right hon. Friend. He has stated to-night that he adheres to all that he said at Slough. He stated—I do not quote the precise words, but he stated in substance—that when the present Government succeeded to office the disturbance of peaceful relations between this country and France was a question not of weeks or of days, but of hours. That is a form of expression which we all of us understand; and I have no hesitation in distinctly stating here my belief, from the knowledge which I, as a Minister of the Crown, have had of those relations, that those words of my right hon. Friend were substantially correct. It will not do, then, for hon. Gentlemen opposite, disappointed in the result of a party attack, and anxious in the bitterness of their disappointment to try and snatch a party advantage, to lay hold of a phrase, and to quibble upon a word. To say that a thing was a question, not of weeks or of days, but of hours, is a common expression to imply that it was imminent, and the fair and candid interpretation to be placed upon that expression of my right hon. Friend was that we succeeded to the Government under circumstances which made war imminent. We do not shrink from that statement, and I challenge the noble Lord to disprove it if he can. I appeal with confidence to the language of the noble Lord himself. What did he say when he moved the Conspiracy Bill? I will not occupy the House with quotations; but what, I ask, was the tone

1231
of the noble Lord? He told us in plain language that the Government offered that atonement to France for what had taken place in this country, and he said, "If you do not pass this Bill you endanger the alliance between the two countries." The noble Lord complained to-night of the remark of my right hon. Friend on Friday upon the answer which the noble Lord gave to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Griffith); but I maintain that the same tone pervaded that answer as pervaded the speech to which I have just referred—"You must be cautious as to the language you hold in this House; our relations with France are in a difficult position, and any accidental or unguarded language may endanger the alliance." What was the next occasion on which the noble Lord addressed the House? On that memorable night when he was defeated on the division and was obliged to relinquish office, he then distinctly held the same language in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford—that so critical was the state of our relations with France that unless that Bill were passed there would be a great danger of their interruption. Again, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under the late Government, "in another place," in more guarded language I admit, but in substance, gave expression to precisely the same sentiment. Further, I appeal to the language of a State paper, which I am sure no one can have forgotten—the despatch which Earl Cowley sent home from Paris after the division, in which he referred to the irritated state of public feeling in France, to the necessity which there was for the most cautious conduct of affairs, and to the imminent danger of the interruption of the friendly relations between the two countries. I allude to this state of feeling without imputing the slightest blame either to France or England. There is no doubt that at that moment it was of the most dangerous character, and that great irritation prevailed; and I say this the more openly because I think that that feeling was honourable to two great and powerful nations. The French people had seen their Sovereign on the point of being massacred by a most atrocious attempt upon his life. They were ignorant of the laws of our country; they found that that nefarious attempt had been concocted in England, and, therefore, their indignation naturally was directed against England; on the
1232
other hand when the noble Lord brought forward his Conspiracy Bill a feeling no less strong was excited in England that the Government should introduce a Measure to alter the criminal law of England at the dictation of a foreign Power. Irritation was thus produced on both sides, and when it was at its highest, and after the noble Lord had given us those warnings to which I have adverted, the Government of the noble Lord was compelled to relinquish office. What was the line of policy that ought to have been pursued by the Government which succeeded that of the noble Lord? We could not outrage the public feeling of this country by persevering in that legislation. We were obliged to abandon the course taken by the late Government, which, rightly or wrongly, had the appearance of foreign dictation, and we were obliged to intimate to France that that was the line of policy we should adopt. There can be no doubt that it was to that period that my right hon. Friend referred and that the relations between the two countries were of the most critical nature, and that the continuance of those peaceful relations was strictly what my right hon. Friend called it, a question of hours and not of days. I am at liberty to state in confirmation of this view, and in direct contradiction of what has fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite, that upon more than one occasion the late French ambassador to this country, the Count do Persigny, did remonstrate upon the policy of this country, and did state in plain terms that if the policy of this country was not changed it would be impossible for the friendly relations between the two countries to continue. Under these circumstances is my right hon. Friend to be assailed for having taken credit to Her Majesty's Government for having put an end to this state of things—a state of things which I have not overdrawn or overstated in one single iota? Most cordially do I agree with what has fallen from my right hon. Friend this evening, for that dangerous state of things could only have been put an end to by the greatest caution, forbearance, and temper on both sides, and we should recognise distinctly that judgment, sagacity, and forbearance which have been so eminently displayed by our loyal and true ally the Emperor of the French, and owing to which that state of irritation which I have described has been most happily removed. I trust now that a better state of feeling exists, and

1233
that on both sides of the Channel the people of the two great nations feel that the prosperity not only of these two great nations but of Europe depends upon the maintenance of friendly relations between themselves. I must say, then, that I think we have great reason to complain of the exaggerations of the noble Lord to-night. The noble Lord has to-night very freely hurled imputations upon us. I beg to tell the noble Lord that he was wholly inaccurate, so far as I have been able to read, in his quotation of the speech of the Earl of Derby. He says the Earl of Derby paid a very high compliment to the late Government, of which the noble Lord was the head—that the satisfactory state in which things were when he took the reins of power was highly creditable to the late Government. The noble Lord evidently intended to draw a broad contrast between the language of the Earl of Derby and that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No doubt the Earl of Derby did speak as he always speaks, in the spirit of a high-minded gentleman. When he came into office he
gave credit to his predecessors for whatever was praiseworthy in their acts. But what was the passage to which the noble Lord referred? Why, it was a passage doing full credit to the condition of the army. The noble Earl said that he was rather anxious, considering the state of our foreign relations, with regard to the state of the army, and that he found it in a condition much better than he expected, the exact phrase being that he found it "numerically respectable." This passage, however, the noble Lord wishes us to understand was an explicit declaration that under the noble Lord's Government England was in a prosperous condition. Before I quit this reference to the noble Lord, I will venture to remind him that, so far as I recollect, the Earl of Derby paid no compliment to the late Government with respect to the state of our foreign relations. I will not detain the House longer. We have heard too much about my right hon. Friend's speech. I think we are wasting our time upon an after-dinner speech. To make attacks upon an accidental phrase in such a speech is really too paltry a mode of carrying on political warfare in this House. These attacks are so unworthy of the House that I will only venture to ask them whether they think the noble Lord is the man to rise and
1234
make complaints of harsh language on the part of political opponents. I beg to tell the noble Lord that I have not forgotten, and I doubt whether any of those with whom I have the honour of acting have forgotten, the language in which the noble Lord thought fit to indulge one year ago in his address to the electors of Tiverton. That was not an after-dinner speech. That was not an oration delivered in a moment of excitement. It was a letter deliberately written by the noble Lord in the retirement of his library. In that letter the noble Lord thought it becoming in him to say, that those who had divided against him on the China question had condescended, or were willing, I think, was the phrase, to make the degradation and humiliation of their country a stepping-stone to power. The noble Lord has this evening said, that part of the speech of my right hon. Friend at Slough was a libel upon the noble Lord's Government. I am not one of those who like to use hard, harsh expressions in this House—I think the noble Lord will admit that I am not in the habit of doing so—but I tell the noble Lord that I thought then, and think now, that that phrase was the most libellous and calumnious that ever was used by a public man against his political opponents. What was the course that we took? We did not interrupt the public business when Parliament reassembled, and complain of this or that phrase. It is very true that my noble Friend who is now at the head of the Foreign Department did write a very dignified rebuke of that insulting language; but when Parliament reassembled, we did not think it worth our notice. I think that the noble Lord, after he had used that language, was the last person who had any right to come down to this House and complain of such language as that of my right hon. Friend. I challenge and defy the noble Lord, if he searches the speech of my right hon. Friend from one end to the other, to find language half so offensive or so unjust as that expression in the noble Lord's letter on the China question. I hope that this subject may be allowed to drop. Our time has been too much wasted upon these party struggles—these mean scrambles for place—for they assume that character, and I hope for the credit of this House and of those who have taken part hi them, the public business may be allowed to proceed. I think we have this day received intelligence which ought to read us a lesson to address ourselves to the affairs of the

1235
country and not the affairs of faction. We have received to-day news from India which may well make us anxious. I do not say it ought to make us despond—God forbid! but it ought to make us consider deeply what is going on in India. No reflecting man can read those accounts without feeling that the time has come when those who are intrusted with the government of this country ought to address their undivided attention to public affairs. Let me say another thing. I believe there is not a heart in this country that does not ache at the intelligence we have received this day. Who does not feel that we have lost one of the noblest and bravest men that ever gave honour to this country? I think, therefore, we had better direct our attention to the present aspect of our country's affairs than waste our time in these party struggles. If we are not worthy of carrying on the affairs of the country, tell us so, and tell us so in unmistakeable language. We can then understand your course. But let the public affairs of this country be conducted by somebody. Let us go on in the performance of our duty, unimpeded by these factious struggles. If you have any charge to make against us, make it—bring our conduct fairly to the test of public opinion by moving a vote of want of confidence.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I cannot agree with the allegation of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that these discussions are a waste of time. I have always understood from the highest authority that ever ruled in this House that every Vote of Supply is a vote of credit to the Minister of the day. It is sometimes a permanent Vote of credit, and sometimes a provisional Vote of credit, and that I consider to be the character of the Votes of Supply since the present Ministers have assumed office. They are endeavouring, I will not say how successfully, to persuade two-thirds of the House of Commons whom they declare not to have been attached to them when they came into office, to place confidence in their measures and in their administration of public affairs. Now, if in the course of our proceedings a speech is made which assumes credit where credit is not due, which gives a varnished and falsely coloured view of public affairs, which casts imputations upon men who do not deserve them, and which finally gives a false account of that which is going on, I think it behoves those who may conceive
1236
themselves affected by such a statement to ask in this House, when a Vote of Supply is asked, what is the meaning of those representations, whether they can be explained, or whether they shall be retracted. Now, a speech of the right hon. Gentleman, whether made here or elsewhere, a speech which was given in all the public papers, and which, therefore, was published to the entire country, assumed that the question of peace or war between this country and France was a question not of days, but of hours, when the present Government came into office, but that the present Government by their wisdom averted the evil of war. That speech implied, moreover, that there was a cabal in existence which was endeavouring to blow up the flames of war between Sardinia and Naples, with the view of risking the peace of Europe and involving the whole of Europe in war for the party objects of those who endeavoured to create that war. The right hon. Gentleman, moreover, stated in that speech that the present Government, instead of pursuing a policy of unmitigated vengeance and massacre in India, were laying the foundations of the peace and future prosperity of that country. I am not saying whether those statements were well or ill founded, but they naturally provoked those who differed from them, and denied their truth, to call upon the right hon. Gentleman to make some explanation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington) says, "Why don't you sit down quietly under these imputations? Why don't you allow it to be said that you left the country in such a state that in a few hours it might have been plunged into war; that you were engaged in a cabal, that you were endeavouring to create war throughout Europe, that your policy was a policy of unmitigated vengeance, massacre, and confiscation. Why cannot you sit down quietly and allow all these things to be said of you?" Now, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman made a great impression throughout the country, and if that impression be founded upon that which is false, it should be dispelled, and if it be founded upon a real state of affairs, then let it be confirmed, so that the real state of affairs may be placed before the public. Now, the impression created by the allegation of the right hon. Gentleman is, that we were at one time within a few hours of war with France, and that naturally produces the inquiry whether that took place under the late Government. Now, when I asked on

1237
Friday I was told that the proof that such a state of things existed was to be found in an answer made by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton to a question put to him by an hon. Gentleman opposite and in the sudden departure of the French Ambassador. To-night, however, the explanation is totally different, for we are now told that the danger arose not during the administration of the late Government, but during that of the present, One of two things must be the case,—either that character for prudence, justice, good sense, and friendly spirit towards this country which we have always attributed to the Emperor of the French has been wrongly attributed to him, or he is, on the contrary, very ready to pick a quarrel and make war upon an; but if the Emperor of the French is, as I believe him to be, a man of prudence and good sense, if he be actuated by a friendly spirit towards the people of this country, as I believe him to be, then I am unable to believe one word of this story of our being within a few hours of war with France. I certainly have no intention of imputing to the right hon. Gentleman that be wilfully or intentionally stated that which was not well founded, but I think that he has been carried away by the brilliancy and fertility of his imagination into supposing dangers to exist which really had no existence. When the Emperor of the French had it explained to him,—and I admit that it was most fairly and temperately explained to him by the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs,—that our laws did not allow to make the change proposed, but that the laws as they existed were sufficient to punish assassination, or conspiring to assassinate, I have no doubt that he was satisfied with the explanation, and that in time a good understanding was sure to prevail. The good understanding which the right hon. Gentleman states prevails now, is the natural consequence of the irritation subsiding which was caused by the fearful and horrible attempt of the 14th of January. That occurrence took place four months ago, and it is the natural action of the human mind to calm down as the event which has produced irritation becomes more remote. The right hon. Gentleman, however, misinterpreting that which is the natural cause of a natural effect, forgetting that naturally the minds of the people of France are calmer than they were when the streets of Paris ran with the blood of the victims of that horrible attempt, and that
1238
the first feeling of irritation having subsided, it was only natural that the previous feeling of friendliness to this country should return, has attributed the revival of those friendly feelings to the wisdom and prudence of the Government. Then, with regard to the next question, namely,—as to a cabal which is endeavouring to stir up war between Naples and Sardinia, I oust say that I naturally supposed that the cabal referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was some cabal formed in this House. I thought, perhaps, that it was meant that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgewater (Mr. Kinglake), was the promoter of that cabal, and that the right hon. Gentleman had discovered the whole plan; but it appears now that the cabal does not exist in this House, but that it exists somewhere else. The right hon. Gentleman asks the people of Buckinghamshire and the people of England for their acknowledgments and support for defeating the cabal, and he asks for sympathy in consequence of the difficulties to which he is exposed by the existence of that cabal. Now, Sir, I should like to know where the cabal has its existence. Does the right hon. Gentleman—and I am almost afraid to mention the subject—does he charge any foreign Minister resident at the Court of Her Majesty with being engaged in a cabal against the Government to which he is accredited? Does he complain that any member of the late Government or that any Member of this House is engaged in any cabal? Well, then, if there be no such cabal, all the credit is taken from the Government for defeating it, and they have no claim to the sympathy which they ask for in being exposed to the dangers of encountering that cabal. Then I come to the question as regards unmitigated vengeance, massacre, and confiscation. Now, I have always supposed from the time I read that speech that the policy of vengeance, of massacre, and confiscation was the policy of somebody; that it was a policy which the Government had had to consider, and to which they objected, and that they had adopted a policy of which unmitigated vengeance and massacre formed no part. We now, however, learn that it is only a sort of hypothetical policy. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that confiscation on the part of Viscount Canning will produce vengeance not on the part of the European troops, but upon the part of the Natives, and that vengeance will produce massacre. Now, I think certainly that it was worth my noble

1239
Friend's while to ask for some explanation, for the result has been that we have got an explanation which no one could have dreamt of. No one, I am sure, could have supposed that that was the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman until he explained it to the House. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has talked of a party Motion. I do not hold a great deal of communication with the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, but I understand from his late colleagues that, in his view, after the present Government was installed in office, it would be for the interest of the Liberal party not to bring forward any Motion with the view of displacing them, but that the best course for the Liberal party to pursue was to consider what subjects of general interest would be brought forward, to distinguish points of agreement and disagreement, and by degrees to consolidate their strength, and form themselves in such a manner that they might carry great public measures of great public advantage. That I believe was the opinion of the noble Lord, and I think that there were few who did not share in it. Well, Sir, when that wonderful despatch of the Earl of Ellen-borough's was shown to me by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) to whom it had been communicated by the Earl of Ellenborough, I said at once, "This is an abominably bad despatch." It struck me at once that it would hardly do for this House to be content with merely reading that despatch, to have it, in fact, thrown in their faces, and not to take any notice of it, and that, in a party sense, however injurious it might be, we could hardly avoid doing so if we paid due regard to the interests of this country in India, and if any regard ought to be paid to a person placed in the position of Governor General of that country. That was my opinion, and I believe that it was a very general opinion in the House. Then came the resignation of the Earl of Ellenborough, who had written and directed the publication of the despatch, and upon that event taking place great difference of opinion ensued. There were certain persons who originally were prepared to say that something must be done to show the sense of the House upon the despatch which had been placed upon the table, but who were content when they saw that some atonement had been made, not to proceed with the Motion. Hence those differences which led to the route of my postponing the subject during the present right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell), and the
1240
triumph of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It appears to me that we could hardly have passed by that despatch consistently with our duty. There was something rather strange in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty upon the subject of India. It was proposed by the late Government to transfer the government of India from the East India Company to the Crown, and that proposal was assented to by the House, and adopted by the present Government, who, when they came into office, announced their intention of introducing a measure upon the subject. That measure they introduced, and a most ridiculous measure it was. I do not remember any measure which encountered more general disapprobation. Well, Sir, I did not wish to take advantage of the blunder of the Government or to put them into any difficulty, and I therefore proposed to proceed with the consideration of the subject by way of Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, who himself was always ready to take a share in a party Motion when he sat on this side, but who now considers nothing so horrible as an attack upon the Government, will not, I think, accuse me of party motive in making that proposal. I think, however, that the Government are bound to proceed with these Resolutions, and to ask for the decision of the House upon some of those points upon which the hon. Member for Sheffield proposed to take a decision, and some few points upon which hinges the nature of the constitution of the government you propose to substitute for the Court of Directors. But the right hon. Gentleman says we cannot now proceed with those Resolutions because Lord Stanley has accepted the office of President of the Board of Control. Now, the right hon. Gentleman himself was the chief proposer of the measures having reference to India, and I should have thought that he would have been able fully to discuss these questions without my noble Friend the President of the Board of Control. Well, the Bill of the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. L. King) has been carefully postponed till next week, and I do not know when we shall proceed with those Resolutions. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: On Monday next.] Very well; that shows more inclination to advance than I believed to exist, but, still, postponing the subject during the present week shows very little inclination to pro-

1241
ceed with the measure, and I should certainly not be surprised to hear, after a few nights' debate, that it is too late in the Session to proceed with the question. If that is their intention I beg them to state it. Do not let us waste night after night in unprofitable discussions upon various Amendments to the Resolutions; but let us know at once that it is not your intention to go on with the measure. I must say the present Conservative Government does not inspire me with any very great confidence in its Conservatism. We have been accustomed in former times to see Conservative Governments resisting a good deal and making very slow progress; but, being of a very patient temper myself in regard to reforms, and thinking the country has the power in its own hands, and is sure in the end to get the reforms which it wants, I should bear with some equanimity a rather low rate of progress on the part of a Conservative Government. But when I see a Conservative Government go off with sudden jerks and starts, sometimes evincing the obstructiveness which characterized the old Tory party, at other times going off at a pace like extreme Radicalism, I am filled with as much alarm as if I were to see you, Sir, proceeding leisurely and at the usual pace in your state coach to Buckingham Palace, and your horses were all at once to dash off at the rate of twelve or fourteen miles an hour. The plan of the Government with respect to the election by popular constituencies of certain members of their proposed Indian council was not a Conservative measure; certainly it was not a Whig measure; and it was even too extravagant and democratic for the most extreme Radicals. It is these eccentric movements which keep me in a state of continual suspense in regard to the present Administration. The First Lord of the Admiralty may tell us that all the time is lost which is spent in making any inquiry into these points, hot I hold that the character of the Government of this country, and whether it is to be a Conservative or a Liberal and progressive Government, is a question of the utmost importance to the welfare of the people. And when I see a right hon. Gentleman departing so much from all usual precedent, and, I must add, from the dignity and decorum of his position, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in his late speech in Buckinghamshire, it causes me a good deal of apprehension, not lest the Government may
1242
be too Conservative, not that it may resist too much, but lest it should rashly and imprudently incur dangers which it will be difficult for any future Government or Parliament to remove.
MR. WHITESIDE: The speeches we have heard from the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton and the noble Lord the Member for London remind one forcibly of the relation between Castor and Pollux. The one rose when the other set. The conjunction would appear to be an ominous one. It was thought last week that the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had gone into the country to repose upon his Parliamentary laurels; but it seems that he temporarily disappeared from among us only that he might favour us with the results of his illustrious retirement. The noble Lord the Member for London is afflicted with apprehension as to the policy of the present Ministry. He thinks it moves sometimes too fast, at other times too slow, and if it would only maintain the happy medium of old constitutional Whiggery, no doubt it would receive the noble Lord's approving smile. The noble Lord cannot be accused of having gone too fact, because sometimes he did not go at all; and on several questions of great public interest his puny and abortive efforts at legislation have—to use his own expression—left a legacy of mischief behind them which it would be a difficult task for a body of sensible men to rectify. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has truly said, that if you think the great interests of the country are in jeopardy under an incompetent Government, you can bring forward a Motion to displace them, and restore the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton to that position in winch he so lately secured the good opinion of this House, and, what is better, the universal approbation of the country. The noble Lord the Member for London now says, it is shocking that such a despatch as that of the Earl of Ellen-borough should have been made public, but that the error had been atoned for by the resignation of that noble Earl, and that there the matter might have been allowed to drop. If that is the noble Lord's opinion, certainly he did not carry it out in the late debate.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I did not say that that was my opinion, but that it was the opinion of some.
MR. WHITESIDE: I had thought that I might class the noble Lord himself

1243
in his dignified category of "some;" but certainly after the Earl of Ellenborough's resignation the adverse Motion was persevered with, and its advocates would have pressed it to a conclusion if they had not trembled in their skins at its impending result. From that result Her Majesty's Government had not shrunk, and the withdrawal of the Resolution certainly did not take place at their instance. I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly justified in the expressions which he used relative to the support rendered to the Government on that occasion by hon. Gentlemen who do not agree with its general principles, and I cannot regard the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton on this point as characterized by the best taste. Every man who can appreciate sound argument and high eloquence must appreciate the powerful address of the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright). But I ask the noble Lord, laying aside forms and phrases, and looking for a moment at matters of substance, to listen to a passage from the letter of the Calcutta correspondent of The Times, from which he will be able to judge whether, after all, the views contained in the Earl of Ellenborough's despatch were very far wrong:—
"I presume the Oude Proclamation reached you some time since. Lest it should not, I enclose it here. The Proclamation has not been withdrawn or softened, but Mr. Montgomery (our Commissioner in Oude) has received carte blanche to deal with each case as he chooses."
What does Mr. Montgomery do? He sets aside your confiscatory Proclamation, and his course is to compound with the Native aristocracy. That is exactly the contrary of your Proclamation. [Cries of "No, no!" and "Yes."] I say "Yes," because your argument was this:—"We mean to deal with the village proprietors, but not with the great nobles and the aristocracy." And how does this man of sense, who is, I believe, a countryman of mine, proceed? He compounds with the aristocracy, and here is the result:—
"His course is to compound with the aristocracy, and the landholders, finding that the chief gives them their property, are coming to him fast."
So that if he had acted on your Proclamation, we can easily conjecture the result. He followed the policy suggested by the
1244
Earl of Ellenborough, and I am sure there is too much justice in this House to condemn a statesman for words, if in substance he was right. The letter from which I have quoted proceeds:—
"There is, however, little hope of the pacification of Oude for some months. We hold only the city, and that we are compelled to fortify again. I would only mention that the North-West officials, so long devoted to the village system, are everywhere recanting their opinions. They admit that the Native aristocracy is essential to our own security—that the zemindaree system has preserved Bengal, and that without permitting landholders to grow, permanent peace is almost impossible."
That was the argument of the Earl of Ellenborough's despatch, and now it has received its confirmation. With regard to the case of the Cagliari, I have read the correspondence of December last, which the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone) rightly said gave Sardinia a fair claim to call upon England to befriend her. If hon. Gentlemen will have the curiosity to look into the legal opinions and the facts stated in the papers on the table, they will see that the despatch in question is unlike all the correspondence that precedes it, and that it must have been written by some other person than the individual from whom all the previous communications proceeded. I allude to the despatch which asks whether Sardinia will adopt a different course from that which she had hitherto pursued; and the remark I have made is a fair criticism arising upon the document itself. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton asks how my right lion. Friend came to make such a speech after dinner. Did the noble himself never make an after-dinner speech? It cannot be forgotten that, on the 9th of November last, he made a speech at the Mansion House, in which he challenged France and the whole of Europe to mortal combat, declaring that if any foreign nation thought we were not ready for battle because our troops had been sent to India, he begged to assure them they were in error, for he was quite prepared to engage in conflict with them. And so the noble Lord was. If ever a Minister escaped from half-a-dozen votes of censure which ought to have been pronounced upon him, it was the noble Lord. The noble Lord says he is very familiar with foreign affairs. Of course we can only be guided by the official documents laid before us. But how the Minister who endorsed the conduct of the Earl of Clarendon in signing

1245
at the Paris Conferences the protocol directed against the freedom of the Belgian press should have escaped the indignant censure of a British Parliament has always filled me with amazement. The noble Lord said that the circumstances in which Viscount Canning was placed ought to have been taken into account, inasmuch as he had only 400 men to hold the country between Calcutta and Dinapore. No doubt this ought to be taken into account; but who left Viscount Canning in that defenceless state? Why, the Government of the noble Lord, which directed our troops to carry on a war with Persia, the object of which nobody ever understood—not even the noble Lord himself. The effect of the China war, of which the noble Lord boasts so much, was to leave Calcutta without the protection of a single ship. When Mr. Layard asked for an explanation of the grounds on which the Persian war was undertaken, the noble Lord told us something about an epistle from the Shah which was not exactly couched in the style of the Polite Letter Writer, and he managed, with his usual adroitness, to turn the laugh upon his interrogator, but he never condescended to give the House any intelligible explanation of the origin of that war. The consequence was that that war, like every other war entered into without justice, entailed not only the loss of blood and treasure upon this country, but produced serious troubles and dangers in other parts of our empire. The noble Lord boasts in a triumphant manner of the condition in which he left the affairs of the country when he quitted office; but when he spoke in so triumphant a tone he seemed to forget that he was driven from office—that he had incurred the censure and disapproval of this House because he had not replied to a despatch which implied that assassination was favoured in this country, but, on the contrary, accepted the insult. I was myself a party to the transaction which then took place. I heard the defence of the noble Lord, and I am bound to say that, after the vote of censure which this House passed, it does not become the noble Lord to boast of the skill and success with which he conducted the affairs of the nation with regard to France. Such a boast is a reflection on the wisdom of the House of Commons. I must say I do not think the noble Lord has much improved the position taken up on Friday night by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London
1246
(Lord J. Russell), and I think if the noble Lord and his friends opposite can do no better than they have done in making this attack, their wiser course would be to give us some of those great and brilliant measures which they are always promising to bring in, but which we are so seldom permitted to see, and leave the House to judge of the value of their measures when they are brought forward.
MR. KINGLAKEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer having stated somewhat complacently that the statement of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton with respect to Sardinia was unfounded, he (Mr. Kinglake) could assert on the contrary that it was perfectly accurate. On the 15th of February, nearly a week before the retirement of the late Government, Watt was released, not from custody, but from prison. On Feb. 23, that is after the vote which displaced the late Government, but while the Earl of Clarendon was still holding the seals of the Foreign Office, the Earl of Clarendon wrote a despatch pressing for the entire liberation of Watt, on the ground that his return to England and the company of his relatives would be calculated to restore his mental health. After the retirement of the late Government the King of Naples liberated this man. But how did he liberate him? Why, he liberated him in terms which corresponded to the very letter with the despatch of the Earl of Clarendon. He asserted confidently that the Earl of Clarendon was the cause of the permission given to Watt to return to this country. So much with regard to Watt. A few words with regard to Park. On the 12th of March, that being the first day on which Her Majesty's Ministers met the House of Commons, he (Mr. Kinglake) brought forward a Motion, the object of which was to obtain permission for Watt and Park to return to this country; and, after hearing what he had to say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up, and, having expressed a good deal of sympathy with these unfortunate men, he deliberately told the House that nothing could be done. A debate, however, arose on the subject, in which the feeling of the House on the subject was strongly and generally expressed, and Her Majesty's Government then showed a disposition to take strong measures to secure the liberation of the prisoners. On the 18th of March, six days after he (Mr. Kinglake) brought forward his Motion, the Earl of

1247
Malmesbury wrote his first despatch, in which he asked for the liberation of these men. It was a humiliating thing for this country that no demand, properly so called, was made for their liberation except by the Sardinian Government. The instructions to Mr. Lyons which had been so much vaunted were not instructions to demand with a high hand their liberation; they were instructions to inquire. He asserted, therefore, that the result of this Cagliari affair was not an achievement of Her Majesty's Government, but was due to the House of Commons.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, the extraordinary position assumed by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down compelled him to make a few observations. Notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, he was convinced that a very slight observation of the facts of the case would convince any one in the House or out of it that it was owing to the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government that Watt and Park were at this moment free. On the 15th of February, Watt was removed from the infirmary. When he was brought before the court he was found quite unable to answer any question; and on the 20th he was taken back to the infirmary. A medical commission was appointed to inquire into the state of his health, and what was the result of the report of that commission? Why, on the 1st of March the Grand Court decided that Watt should remain at the infirmary; but added to this decision was the order— "The prisoner must stand his trial whenever he is sufficiently able to appear." The order was, in effect, one that the prisoner should remain in hospital till he was fit to be tried; yet that was what the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Kinglake) seems to think was an order for unconditional liberty. The real facts of the case were these. For nine months, as the country knows, these men were entirely neglected. One of the first things which the present Government did after their accession to office was to send to Naples a man of high character and who was chosen for the duty on account of his diplomatic experience, with instructions to exert his influence to the utmost to secure an alleviation of the condition of the prisoners. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, complained that Mr. Lyons was not instructed to treat the matter with a high hand. How, he would ask, could Her Majesty's Govern-
1248
ment, who, it must be recollected, had only just acceded to office, instruct him to so act until they had ascertained whether they would be fortified in so doing by justice, by law, and by the advice of their own law officers? When they had got that advice, and ascertained the exact position of affairs, they took the course which they were justified in taking. He asserted that from the moment of their coming into office, Her Majesty's Government had never had the treatment of these unfortunate men out of their consideration, and that they were now prepared, as they had ever been, to deal with this question in a manner becoming the honour of this country, and in accordance with what they considered to be due to the injured sufferers; and he was confident that their course would reflect honour upon themselves, and prove satisfactory to the country.

DIFFERENCES WITH THE UNITED STATES.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he thought that the present discussion had been unduly prolonged. He wished to call the attention of the House to a state of feeling on the part of the people of the United States which required the attention of the House, and which had arisen from the fact that certain ships of the United States had been boarded and fired into by British cruisers. It was alleged that a boat belonging to a British man of war had entered Sagua la Grande, a port on the south coast of Cuba. This boat was manned by fifteen British seamen and commanded by an officer. It boarded all the vessels—one Spanish and twelve American—that were in the harbour, demanded a sight of their papers, inspected the holds, and in some cases went to the extent of breaking into casks in the holds. This was done, not in one of the creeks where suspicious vessels were likely to rendezvous, but in a port of considerable trade, and frequented by a large number of vessels belonging to the United States. In other cases vessels were boarded, fired into, or searched. Intelligence of these acts arrived by the mail on that day week, but further information had been received by the mail that morning. He did not mean to represent these occurrences as very alarming, for he was one of those who could not contemplate the possibility of war between two countries so nearly allied by commerce, but the Government ought to do something

1249
to allay the angry feeling which existed in the United States on this subject. The papers of that morning stated that the United States Government had given orders to the various collectors of Customs to report all outrages committed by the British in the Gulf of Mexico. Orders had also been issued to fit out the frigate Saratoga at New York, and the brig Dolphin at Boston, for strengthening the Gulf squadron. These vessels might come into collision with the British men of war, and a state of things might arise which the people in both countries would deeply deplore. It was further stated that the President had demanded explanations from England and Spain in reference to the search and visitation of American vessels in the vicinity of Cuba and its harbours. The captain of the American brig Wingold, which arrived at Boston on the 16th, reported that on the 30th of April, after leaving Sierra Morena, he was fired into by a British cruiser. One of the balls was buried in the mainmast, close to the captain's head. This vessel was afterwards boarded by a fully armed boat's crew, which insisted on examining the brig's papers. It might be that these vessels were supposed to be engaged in the slave trade, but he did not see how British cruisers were justified in boarding indiscriminately vessels in port. He wished to ask whether it was the fact that several merchant vessels belonging to the United States, engaged in the trade with Havannah or with the west coast of Africa, have been fired into, boarded, searched, and detained by British cruisers, and if so by what authority and under whose instructions the commanders of these ships had acted?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman would admit that it was not a convenient course to introduce a matter of this kind into a debate on another subject. Her Majesty's Government had received no account of the indiscriminate firing and boarding alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, and many of the facts reached their ears then for the first time. If the hon. Gentleman gave notice of a question on the subject, the Government would give him every information in their power.
MR. GRIFFITHsaid, that he was anxious to make one or two remarks in justification of the course he had taken in putting the question to the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, when Prime Minister, which had been referred to in the
1250
course of discussion, namely, whether Her Majesty's then Government would suggest the publication of the apology of the French Emperor in the Moniteur? It was the production of the second despatch of Count Walewski, expressing the regret of the Emperor of the French for the publication of the previous despatch, which had turned the feeling of the house, and given the noble Lord the majority of 200; but he believed that if the House had been at all aware that that despatch would not receive the same publicity as the addresses of the French Colonels, the majority would have considerably dwindled down. The question which he had put to the noble Lord was couched in the mildest terms, but the noble Lord's answer was such as to draw down a perfect shower of indignation on his devoted head. He apprehended, however, that the feeling of the country had not ratified the answer of the noble Lord. The original majority of 200 was not obtained upon the merits of the case, but on the apology contained in Count Walewski's despatch; and the question he (Mr. Griffith) had put was only such as it was his duty as an independent Member of Parliament—the slave or follower of no master or Minister—to put; and whatever might be the opinion of the House, he was prepared to contend that the feeling of the country did not then, and did not now, ratify the answer of the noble Lord.
MR. INGHAMsaid, that in reference to the case of the British engineers Watt and Park he wished to remind the House that the late Government acted under the direction of their law advisers; that there were great difficulties in the way of obtaining accurate knowledge of the facts, from the suspension of diplomatic relations between England and Naples; and that the engineers received the best legal assistance at the instance of the Government, and by the same means were permitted to see their relatives and friends.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
House in Committee; Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
The first two Votes were agreed to.

(1.) £36,639, Mint.

(2.) £22,010, Inspectors of Factories, &c.

(3.) Motion made and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £6,251, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Re-

1251
membrancer in the Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges, formerly paid from the Hereditary Revenue, to the 31st day of March, 1859."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there were several objectionable items in this Vote. There was a charge of £3,563, a larger sum than last year, for the Queen's Treasurer and Remembrancer in Scotland. Then there was £97 for Her Majesty's limner, £184 for Her Majesty's historiographer, and £16 13 s. 4d. for the clockmaker. These offices ought to be abolished.
MR. WISEsaid, he objected to the charges for horse racing, and he should therefore move that the Vote be reduced by £98 16 s. 6d. for the Queen's plate, to be run for at Edinburgh.
MR. WILSONsaid, he very much concurred in the remarks which had fallen from his hon. Friend. He had always felt the objection referred to, but there was this answer to it. These sums had been originally gifts presented by the Crown, and it thus became part of the settlement when the Queen came to the Throne that they should be paid out of the civil list. That was the case at least in England, and if the hon. Member looked at the heading of this Vote he would see that this was an analogous case in Scotland.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he believed that the people of Scotland did not care for these sums; though they would like to see some of the public money expended in Scotland, they wished it to be expended in a rational manner.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that the item was a charge handed over with the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Scotland at the commencement of the reign, and it would not be fair to do away with it now. He also would observe, that one of the plates was granted by sign-manual of George I., and the other by sign-manual of George III.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the Queen's Remembrances was an important officer, with active duties to perform, and it was quite a mistake to suppose that his office was a sinecure. As to racing plates, the question which arose upon this Vote, and which would equally apply to the rest, he himself was less disposed than almost any one, from individual tastes, to support horse-racing; but he had always been told, and he believed, that the ground on which such votes had been supported was that it was a national object to encourage the breed of horses [a laugh]. Hon. Gentlemen
1252
might smile; but there was no doubt that racing in this country had exercised a most important influence in improving the breed of horses, and that we had accomplished this in England under what he might term a voluntary system, whilst in foreign countries whatever improvement had been made was the result of giving encouragement out of the national resources. Upon the whole, he thought he might appeal to experience as showing that our system had been infinitely more successful than that which was pursued in foreign countries.
MR. BLACKsaid, that if it were supposed by the House that this grant was regarded by the people of Edinburgh as a compliment or favour in any sense, they were very much mistaken. They would be equally mistaken if they imagined that its being taken away would be looked upon in the nature of a slight or injustice. He should support the Amendment.
MR. BLANDremarked that it would not be fair to strike out this Vote unless the sums paid out of the Civil List for English plates were also discontinued.
MR. SLANEYsupported the Vote, on the ground that horse-racing afforded an innocent means of recreation to large classes of persons who had few other sources of amusement.
Motion made and Question put,—
"That the item of £98 16 s. 6d. for the Queen's Plate, to be run for at Edinburgh, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
The Committee divided: Ayes 44; Noes 70: Majority 26.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(4.) Motion made and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £6,431, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge of Salaries for the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1859."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was sorry that the Irish Members were not ashamed of this Vote. He believed that the people of Ireland had no sympathy with this establishment, and it was ridiculous that the Lord Lieutenant should have the same kind of officers as the Queen. The Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland cost altogether, he believed, nearly £50,000. What could he want with a steward of the household, a comptroller, four aides-de-camp, two "gentlemen-at-large," and officers of that sort?
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he would advise the hon. Member, if he had any

1253
doubt with regard to the feeling which prevailed in Ireland upon the subject of retaining the establishment of the Lord Lieutenant, to visit that country and judge for himself. His noble Friend near him (Lord Naas) would, he was sure, be happy to see him, and put him in the way of acquiring all the information he wished respecting it. Moreover, the question of maintaining the Lord Lieutenancy had recently been discussed at considerable length, and a majority had determined in favour of continuing the office; and, considering the position which the Viceroy occupied, he believed that the officers referred to by the hon. Gentleman were necessary.
MR. BLACKsaid, he did not understand what the Lord Lieutenant wanted with a gentleman of the bedchamber; if it had been a chambermaid, it would have been more intelligible.
MR. WISEsaid, he objected to several items in the list of attendants on the Lord Lieutenant. There were four aides-de-camp; not military functionaries at all, but civil, and very civil and obliging they were; but he did not know what on earth they bad to do but to ride on horseback, to write invitations, and to carve at table. Then there was a steward, or comptroller, a chamberlain, a gentleman usher, eight gentlemen of the bedchamber, two gentlemen at large, and other functionaries, amounting altogether to £2,606 a year. He meant to object to this, and to the sum of £1,800 for the Queen's plates to be run for in Ireland; and, as a beginning, he would move to omit the Vote for the four aides-de-camp, amounting to £647.
Motion made and Question proposed,—
"That the item of £647 13 s. 4d. for Four Aides-de-Camp to the Lord Lieutenant, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
MR. BAGWELLsaid, the hon. Gentleman had better move to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant altogether; for if the Lord Lieutenant was to be kept up, he must have some sort of state.
MR. BLACKsaid, he should propose to allow these gentlemen half their salaries.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it was an inconvenient thing to raise questions of principle on a mere incidental question of detail. The question raised by the hon. Gentleman really was, should they or should they not abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant. He was not himself in favour of retaining that office for a single day longer
1254
than it could be proved to be necessary; but while it was retained, the nobleman holding it ought not to be shorn of all reasonable and decent ceremony.
MR. WISEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, and take the sense of the Committee upon another question—the maintenance of the two "gentlemen at large," whose salaries amounted to £257. What "gentlemen at large" meant in connection with the office of Lord Lieutenant he did not know, but that phrase was ordinarily applied to lunatics let loose.
Original Question again proposed.
Whereupon Motion made and Question put,—
"That the item of £257 17 s. 4d. for Two Gentlemen-at-large, be omitted from, the proposed Vote."
The Committee divided: Ayes 42; Noes 88: Majority 46.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(5.) Motion made and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £15,804, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, to the 31st day of March, 1859."
MR. BAXTERsaid, he thought the House ought to have some information as to what the duties of the Chief Secretary were, especially as one right hon. Gentleman, who had held the office, described it as a glorious sinecure, where the duties were very light and the salary very large. There were some very curious items in the Vote. For instance, there was an allowance of £425 for coal for the Chief Secretary, and £375 for the Under Secretary. Really these officers might have to perform their duties, not in Ireland, but in Spitzbergen. Then he found eighteen clerks, but he could not conceive that there was employment for all these gentlemen. He should move to reduce the salary of the Chief Secretary by £1,000, to reduce that of the Under Secretary by £400, and to disallow the items for fuel.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, if the hon. Gentleman would consider that Ireland was a kingdom larger than many continental kingdoms, he would see that its government could be no light or easy matter. Of course there were two ways of discharging a duty—one was by not doing it at all, the other was by looking into the whole work with his own eyes; and he was sure, if the hon. Gentleman should ever hold the office, and discharge the duties conscientiously,

1255
as he had no doubt he would, he would find that the post of examining the reports of the constabulary, and the correspondence with the magistracy on the state of crime and such questions, would occupy him from an early hour in the morning till late at night. He should oppose the Motion, for he was sure they would never get a person competent to discharge the duties if they reduced the salary.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would remind the Committee that the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) had stated to his constituents that he was the best-paid officer under the Crown, and that the whole time occupied in the performance of his duties did not exceed two hours a day. He (Mr. Williams) thought the charge for fuel most extraordinary—it would purchase at least eight times more coal than the Secretaries could possibly use. At the present price the allowance would give the Chief Secretary 300 tons of coal a year, and the Under Secretary 218 tons.
MR. WISEsaid, he begged to call attention to the Report of a Select Committee which sat in 1850, and which had recommended the salary of the Chief Secretary should be £3,000, which was exactly what the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had now proposed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it had been his duty when formerly in office to take into consideration the recommendations of the Select Committee to which reference had been made in regard to the salary and allowances of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. With all respect for the decisions of a Committee of that House, he thought that several of its recommendations had been arrived at too much in deference to the prevalent feeling of the moment. The public service of this country was certainly undermanned, and the hasty adoption of the recommendation for reducing the Lords of the Treasury was much to be regretted. At the time that reduction was made stories were current, based on the old tradition of bygone days, that Lords of the Treasury were appointed only to make a House and cheer the Ministry, and that they exercised an undue influence on the deliberations of Parliament, The consequence of the reduction was that great difficulty was now experienced it transacting the business of the Treasury. With respect to the Chief Secretary for Ireland his salary stood, when last revised, at £5,500, with considerable allowances
1256
for maintaining the parks and gardens attached to his office; and the recommendation which the Government of the day made was, that the salary should be fixed at £4,000. That sum, it must be admitted, was not an excessive remuneration for the duties of such an office. Hon. Gentlemen opposite certainly had one high authority for the views they expressed on this point. A man of the intellectual calibre of the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), who had filled the office of Chief Secretary, might, from a laudable and natural feeling of ambition, depreciate its humble duties; but it was the business of the present Ministry, which was composed of men of a more plodding genius, to carry on the Government of the country as well as they could. And so far from the post of Chief Secretary for Ireland being a sinecure, it had been suggested to the present Government whether it would not be necessary to increase the strength of that establishment. The duties of the Chief Secretary for Ireland were identical with those of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in England. They were not, indeed, of the same magnitude, but bore the same relative proportion as Ireland did to the rest of the kingdom. Yet they were equally various with those discharged by the Home Secretary, and when the salary was fixed by the Government at £4000, it was felt at the time that that amount was rather under than over the mark. As to the sum of £425 allowed for fuel, it must be remembered that this item was not intended for the Chief Secretary's private establishment, but for the maintenance of the park and gardens attached to the official residence, in which the public were interested. It was to be hoped, therefore, that the Committee would not accede to the present Motion.
MR. BLANDsaid, he wished that the right hon. Member for Stroud had explained to the Committee the grounds on which he based the statement he had made to his constituents. When at his late post that right hon. Gentleman had discharged its duties very efficiently, but he was frequently absent from Dublin, and during the elections he was sojourning in Scotland. The salary of the Chief Secretary had been I already cut down, and if any further reduction was to be made it ought to be prospective in its operation. At the same time the item for fuel was very extravagant.
MR. LEFROYsaid, he thought that as long as the office of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was continued the subsidiary establishments should be maintained on an adequate footing.
MR. BRISCOEsuggested that the salary of future Chief Secretaries should be fixed at £3,000 instead of £4,000.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the Committee of 1847 recommended that the item of £3,000 for contingencies connected with the Chief Secretary's Office required more minute investigation. An inquiry had been instituted accordingly, and the item for contingencies had been subsequently reduced, and classed under distinct heads. The £425 for fuel was applied to the maintenance of gardens with extensive hothouses which belonged to the public. He believed there was no worse-paid officer under the Crown than that of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, which involved very I heavy expenditure, and so far from being a source of pecuniary profit to its holder, was generally the reverse. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would not assent to any reduction in the Vote.
MR. MACMAHONregretted the absence of the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), who was formerly Chief Secretary for Ireland, but he felt it his duty to say that he thought that right hon. Gentleman was entirely above his office. When the right hon. Gentleman first held the office, he (Mr. MacMahon) wished to see him occasionally on public business, but it was very difficult to find him. He (Mr. MacMahon perhaps found him once at his office, but he did not think he found him twice. When he intended to put a question in the House, of which he wished to give the right hon. Gentleman notice, it was very difficult to find him there; and at last he (Mr. MacMahon) abandoned all attempts to give the right hon. Gentleman notice of any question he wished to put. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman really knew the duties of his office, or that he either understood Irish affairs, or wished to give himself any trouble to understand them. He (Mr. MacMahon) was not in favour of retaining the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but lie thought that so long as they kept up that office there should be no cheese-paring with regard to the salaries of the chief officers of the Viceregal Court. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
MR. BAGWELLsaid, he wished to say
1258
that he had not been so fortunate as the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. MacMahon), for he had called several times upon the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) when he was Secretary for Ireland, and he never found him in his office.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he believed there never was a more efficient Secretary for Ireland than the noble Lord opposite (Lord Naas), but the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not convinced I him that he ought to withdraw his Amendment. The Chief Secretary for Ireland received a salary double that of a Secretary to the Treasury, and he could not suppose that the duties in the one case were double those in the other.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he deemed it only fair to the right hon. Member for Stroud to say, that he did not think he was quite open to the blame that had been thrown upon him. The right hon. Gentleman's private residence was within a couple of hundred yards of the Irish office, and he (Sir D. Norreys) believed the right hon. Gentleman transacted a great deal of his official business at his own house. He could only say that whenever he did not find the right hon. Gentleman at the Irish office he was told he would be found at his own House. On going to the right hon. Gentleman's house whenever he had business to transact with him, he was able to find him immediately, or he always met with some person connected with the office, who at once showed him to a place of business. He (Sir D. Norreys) was, however, of opinion that the salary of the Chief Secretary ought to include all the charges of his official expenditure, and that demands ought not to be made in the Votes for the small items enumerated in this Estimate.
MR. BUTLERsaid, he wished to call attention to an item of £41 for a resident housemaid in the Chief Secretary's office in Dublin.
MR. CHAIRMANinformed the hon. Gentleman that he was out of order, as time item had not yet come under the consideration of the Committee.
MR. BUTLERobserved that, as the public business of Scotland was conducted very satisfactorily without the intervention of a Chief Secretary, he did not understand what necessity there could be for such an officer in the case of Ireland.
Motion made and Question put,—
"That the item of £4,425; for Salary to the

1259
Chief Secretary, be reduced by the sum of £1,000."
The Committee divided: Ayes 55; Noes 151: Majority 96.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would take the sense of the House on the sum of £425, the amount put down for coals. That amount of money represented 600 tons of coals a year, or about a ton and three quarters a day. The Chief Secretary was allowed a most splendid mansion, rent and taxes free, and elegantly furnished at the public expense, and ought, therefore, out of his income of £4,000 a year to pay for his coals. It was said that with the office of the Chief Secretary there were connected hothouses and other establishments belonging to the public, but he should like to know what portion of the public got the pine apples.
Motion made and Question put,
"That the said item be reduced by the sum of of £425, being the allowance for fuel to the Chief Secretary."
The Committee divided: Ayes 68; Noes 148: Majority 80.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to ask for an explanation of the item of £500 for drawing Government Bills.
LORD NAASstated that the Committee appointed in 1852 to inquire into the Irish Office recommended that the gentleman who then held the situation of drawer of Bills for the Government should be allowed to retire, his services not being required any longer. About two years ago, however, it was found necessary to appoint another gentleman to the same office, and the item of £500 was the amount of his salary. The noble Lord added that he thought it might probably be desirable to make some alteration in the present arrangement.
MR. HORSMANsaid, that he was responsible for the appointment. Considerable saying had been effected by having the Bills of all the departments drawn by one person. The matter was fully discussed at the time, two years ago.
Vote agreed to, as was also the next Vote.
(6.) £7,119, Paymaster of Civil Services (Ireland).
(7.) £2,613, Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums (Ireland).
MR. BAGWELLsaid, he wished, before this Vote was agreed to, to draw the attention of the Government to the case
1260
of Dr. White, lately one of the inspectors of lunatic asylums in Ireland. Dr. White was one of the most meritorious servants of the Crown in Ireland, and had been compelled to resign his appointment in consequence of a severe railway accident, which had disabled him, while proceeding on a visit of inspection to the Waterford Lunatic Asylum. He felt certain that the Committee would not consent to this public servant being pensioned upon the small allowance, £320 per annum, he believed, which had been allowed him, but would give him an allowance more commensurate with his merits and services.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that that Dr. White, who was appointed by Lord St. Leonards, had for twenty, five years been a most efficient public servant. He had been inspector of lunatic asylums in Ireland for ten years, at a salary of £900 a year, with a guinea a day for travelling expenses. He went one day on duty by rail, and on the journey met with a terrible accident which gave him concussion of the spine, and laid him on his bed for life. The result of an action against the Company had been a verdict with £2,500 damages. But the whole allowance made to this gentleman, who was one of those rare gentlemen that had pleased both parties in Ireland, was £375 a year from the Treasury. He trusted that the Government would reconsider the subject, with a special view to the circumstances of the case. This gentleman of very small fortune, was now reduced to a sick room for life, and the cost of medical and other attendance was £200 a year.
MR. G. A. HAMILTON, who bore testimony to the value of Dr. White's public service, said that his case had been decided upon according to the ordinary rules, but as he thought it was attended by peculiar circumstances, he promised that it should be reconsidered.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he had been counsel for this unfortunate gentleman and he could state that one of the grounds for mitigating the damages paid by the railway company was a belief that Dr. White would receive a handsome sum by way of pension from the Treasury.
MR. BAGWELLsaid, he rose to make a personal explanation. The Right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) had just informed him that if he had been in the House when he stated that he was never to be found at his office——
MR. CHAIRMANintimated that the hon. Member was not in order in making such a statement. The Vote was already passed.
Vote agreed to.
MR. BAGWELLsaid, he would move the adjournment of the House.
MR. CHAIRMANinformed the hon. Member that he would not be in order in making his statement even upon a Motion to report progress.
(8.) Motion made and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £22,615, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Public Works in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1859."
MR. BAGWELL MR. BAGWELL moved that the Chairman should report progress and ask leave to sit again.
SIR GEORGE GREYsuggested that the hon. Member might make his proposed statement on the Report.
MR. BAGWELL: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) comes to me and says I stated what was not true.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Member must feel that it is quite irregular to refer to a debate which took place at an earlier period of the evening upon another Vote. The question of reporting progress does not allow the hon. Gentleman to make such a statement as be proposes.
MR. HORSMAN: The hon. Gentleman has mistaken the tone in which I spoke to him. I made a private observation—["Order, order!"]
Motion made, and Question,—
"That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.
MR. MACMAHONsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland whether he intended during the present or next Session to introduce any measure with regard to Irish fisheries.
LORD NAASsaid, a Bill was in preparation for consolidating these laws; but he could not hold out any hope of any change being made in them, for they already worked satisfactorily.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was astonished to find out there were three Chairmen to this Board.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONexplained, that they were three Commissioners, who acted also as Chairmen in the general valuation in Ireland.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes:—
(9.) £35,768, Commissioners for Auditing Public Accounts.
(10.) £17,879, Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission.
(11.) £12,330, Inclosure and Drainage Acts.
(12.) £38,800, General Registry Office.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the disgraceful fact that there was no registration of births, deaths, and marriages in Ireland, and to request him to devote his attention to this subject.
LORD NAASsaid, he was glad that attention had been called to this important subject, for he was sure that no greater boon could be conferred on Ireland than the establishment of some such system as that which was in operation in England. When he was last in office he considered this question, but he found that it was surrounded by peculiar difficulties, which made him hesitate to propose any scheme of registration for Ireland. Such a measure could not be worked without the cordial co-operation of the Roman Catholic population, but he could assure his right hon. Friend that any proposition emanating from that body would be most cheerfully and willingly received by the Government.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following:—
(13.) £3,310, General Register Office, Dublin.
(14.) £5,652, Registrar General of Births, &c., Edinburgh.
(15.) £14,355, National Debt Office.
(16.) £2,800, Public Works Loan Commission.
(17.) £1,770, West India Islands Relief Commission.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobjected to this Vote being continued year after year, when he believed there were hardly any duties to be performed.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was necessary, under the Act, to appoint the Commission, and they had very necessary duties to discharge.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the Commission had an important duty to perform in collecting a large outstanding debt due from the West Indies.
Vote agreed to.
(18.) Motion made and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £9,820, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Contingent Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners in Lunacy in England, and the Salaries and Expenses of the

1263
Board of Lunacy in Scotland, to the 31st day of March, 1859."
MR. BAXTERobjected to the payment of £500 each to two Deputy Commissioners in Scotland. The feeling in Scotland was, that the services of these gentlemen might very well be dispensed with, and that a secretary and two clerks could easily discharge the duties. He moved that the Vote be reduced by £367 2s. 6d., being the salaries of the two Deputy Commissioners from November, 1858, to March, 1859.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Lunacy Act for Scotland gave the Secretary of State a discretion as to the appointment of these Deputy Commissioners, and he had abstained from appointing them till he had received from the Board an unanimous opinion that they were necessary. The appointment, however, was for a limited period only.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, these Deputy Commissioners would certainly not be continued longer than was necessary, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
MR. E. ELLICE, JUN., said, that the inquiry was proceeding most satisfactorily, but a great amount of work had arisen which had not been contemplated, and without the aid of the Deputy Commissioners the Commissioners would be very much embarrassed.
Motion made, and Question,—
"That the item of £1,367 2s. 6d. for Two Deputy Commissioners in Scotland, be reduced by the sum of £367 2s. 6d," put, and negatived.
Vote agreed to.
The following Votes were also agreed to:—
(19.) £1,223, Superintendent of County Roads, South Wales.
(20.) £2,103, Registrars of Friendly Societies.
(21.) £32,000, Foreign and other Secret Services.
(22.) £401,357, Printing, &c., Houses of Parliament.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he wished to call attention to the enormous expense incurred in printing the Reports of Commissions. The Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the Endowed Schools in Ireland had been printed in four volumes. No English or Scottish Member had applied for a copy of it, but copies of it had been circulated in Ireland. Now,
1264
the expense of printing that Report, exclusive of the sum paid for the shorthand writers' notes and other charges, amounted to £5,000, and the weight of paper used in the publication was thirty-four tons. He thought these facts showed the necessity of a close supervision in respect of the printing of the proceedings of Commissions.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, it was quite true that the return moved for by the hon. Member for Edinburgh showed that thirty-four tons of paper had been used in printing the Report in question, and that the expense of that printing was £5,000. The matter had been taken into consideration at the Treasury, and a first Minute, dated May 10, had been made. That dealt with the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry. And, with a view to check the cost of printing, it was ordered that the copies of Reports to be printed should be limited to a number absolutely essential, and that when the time for printing the Report of a Commission of Inquiry arrived the head of the Commission should address a letter to the Treasury, stating the number of copies required to be printed, apart from those required for Parliamentary distribution and for sale as Parliamentary papers. The object of this was to prevent the evil complained of by the hon. Baronet—that of the heads of Commissions having the power to incur, without check, what expense they liked in the printing of any number of copies of their Reports. The Treasury had followed that up by another Minute with respect to the printing of Departmental Reports and Papers. With respect to them, it was ordered that no paper should be included in the copy sent to the Stationary Office to be printed until the attention of the Head of the Department had been called to it, and his written sanction for it being so included had been obtained. The next point was as to the number of copies for distribution to Members of Parliament and for sale. That was to be ascertained by inquiries to be addressed to the Head of the Stationary Office, to the Librarian of the House of Commons, and to the Clerk of the House of Lords. With respect to the number of copies printed for gratuitous distribution, the Treasury stated their opinion that there had been in many cases an excess in the number of copies printed for this purpose, and one that was at variance with sound principle. Some time ago it had been determined to reduce to

1265
the narrowest limits the number of copies of the Ordnance Maps and of the record publications. That had been done—these publications were now sold at a very low price—they were purchased by those who really valued them, and the consequence had been that the sale had been greatly increased. It was now ordered that the number of copies of Departmental Reports and Papers printed for gratuitous distribution should be limited to fifty, except under special circumstances, and with the sanction of the Heads of the Departments. Economy could only be attained by Heads of Commissions or of Departments of the Government acting on the principles laid down by the Treasury. These expenses had of late swollen to a considerable amount. He believed that many of the papers printed had never been used, but had accumulated in the stores, to be ultimately sold as waste paper. It was a monstrous waste of public money to print papers which could be of no possible advantage. And he trusted that the Treasury arrangements to which he had referred, and the principal credit of which was due to Sir Charles Trevelyan (the Assistant Secretary), would attain their object, which was to control the expenditure under this head as much as possible. He believed that if the Minutes were acted upon there would in a short time be a considerable diminution in the expense of printing.
MR. BLACKbelieved that a saving of many thousands a year would be the consequence of the Minutes.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished to know whether the £5,000 derived from the sale of waste paper arose from over printing?
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that it was a result of the extravagant scale on which printing had taken place. He might mention one instance of the results which had already attended the Treasury Minutes. A short time ago, he had received a letter from a gentleman at Dublin who had something to do with the printing there, stating that he would draw the attention of the Lunacy Commissioners of Ireland to the necessity of diminishing the number of their Reports, printed for gratuitous distribution as much as possible. A meeting of the body in question was held on Thursday last, when the number of copies of their Reports, which had been already sanctioned at 2500, was reduced to 1000, and the saving of £150 was thus effected. He was quite sure that the
1266
Chairman of the Commissioners, Sir Thomas Redington, was as anxious for economy as any one. But this instance showed what a tendency there was to laxity in the publication and printing of Reports, unless the attention of the Heads of Commissions and Departments was pointedly called to the subject. It was necessary to establish rules which insured his attention being drawn, and his sanction given to the publication of documents and to the number of copies to be printed.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the regulations referred to by the Secretary to the Treasury appeared to be very judicious, and he hoped they would have the desired effect, The effect desired, however, would not be attained, unless a check was exercised upon the amount of matter printed, as well as upon the number of copies printed. Because, for instance, as in the case of the Report already referred to, the cost of printing would be very large even if only a few copies were struck off.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, they were indebted to the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) for having brought forward the subject.
SIR DENHAM NORREYScomplained that these Reports were not distributed, after application had been made by a Member, with other Parliamentary papers.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONexplained, that hon. Members could always obtain, on application, a copy of papers not ordered for distribution. It was thought desirable to make a regulation that papers not ordered for distribution should be applied for in order that they might only be furnished to those who really required them, and by whom they would be valued. The object of that was to check the excessive distribution of papers.
MR. WILSONsaid, that there was nothing the Treasury had found so difficult as to check the expense of printing Reports and Returns. This could not be effectually done unless there was in each Department some one responsible for the kind of matter printed; for the expense arose, not merely from the number of copies printed, but from the manner in which Reports were swollen by the insertion of unnecessary matter.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that one of the great sources of the expense of printing arose from the quantity of useless matter contained in the Reports of Commissions, Committees, and Departments. He thought it would be desirable that the Chairman of a Committee of that House, or of a Com-

1267
mission of inquiry, should make a distinct recommendation to that House, or to the Head of the Department to which the report was presented, as to what should be included in it. The Treasury Minute cast upon the Heads of Departments the responsibility both of seeing that no unnecessary matter was included in the Reports issued through their offices, and also that no more copies were printed than were required for circulation.
MR. LYGONsuggested whether the matter might not be stereotyped, by which means they would reduce the expense and maintain the supply.
Vote agreed to; as was also
(23.) £123,100, Postage of letters.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

OATHS BILL.

  REPORT OF CONFERENCE CONSIDERED.
  Order of the Day for taking into consideration the Report of the Conference had with the Commons on Tuesday, the 18th instant, upon the subject matter of the Amendments made by this House to the said Bill, read:
  Said Report and the Amendment made by the Lords omitting Clause 5, to which the Commons disagree, being read, and also t said Clause 5 being read;
  THE EARL OF LUCANrose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. The noble Earl said, he felt that some apology was due to their Lordships for asking them to modify a decision to which they had come so frequently and so recently on this subject; but he was compelled by a sense of duty to use his best endeavours to bring about the settlement of this long-agitated question, being deeply impressed with the inconveniences and probable dangers which attended the present position of the two Houses of Parliament; and he therefore felt it to be his duty to offer a suggestion which he thought might lead to a settlement of the question. In doing so he was acting proprio motu, and without any concert with any party in that House, having even abstained from acquainting the noble Earl at the head of the Government with his intention. The first part of the Amendment of which he had given notice was intended simply to remedy an error which, he thought, had been committed by that House in striking out Clause 5; for if they did not wish to relieve the Jews from any disability, at any rate it was not their intention to impose on them any fresh disability. The second portion of the Amendment was, that from and after the passing of the Bill it should be lawful for either House of Parliament so to modify the oath to be taken under it, as to meet the conscientious scruples of persons of the Jewish persuasion. He was aware that objections would be raised to the admission of Members by Resolution of one House; but he could see no reason why that should not be allowed if the proceeding were legalized by Act of Parliament. He was aware that he was asking their Lordships to concede much, but not, he thought, too much, when the object was to restore harmony between the two Houses of Parliament. Every man of reasonable foresight must be aware that this was a question that must be before long disposed of in some way; and, therefore, he hoped the House would consent to concession, and that the compromise which he had offered would be accepted. He would remind their Lordships of the repeated attempts at legislation which had taken place upon this subject. The question of the admission of Jews to Parliament was first brought forward in the House of Commons in 1830. In that year no Bill was sent up to their Lordships House; but since, and including 1833, there had been no less than ten Bills sent
  1140
  to that House from the other House of Parliament. The majorities in favour of the Bill in the other House had not been large—not exceeding thirty or forty—until the present year, when, being supported by the entire strength of the Government, the Bill was carried by a majority of 140. From 1836 the subject had been allowed to rest until 1848, when Baron Rothschild was returned for the City of London; and since then, repeated attempts had been made to induce their Lordships to consent. Various measures having the same object, and Bills were sent up in 1848, 1849, 1852, 1853, 1856, 1857, and 1858. The House of Commons until last year had been content with sending up Bills; but after the last Bill had been defeated, a proposition was made to admit Jews into Parliament under the provisions of an Act 5 & 6 Will. IV. The question was referred to a Committee, who decided that the provision of the Act did not apply to the case; and indeed it appears to him wonderful how any one could ever have supposed that it was applicable to the admission of Members to the other House, especially looking to the fact that it was passed in 1835, and had been in operation ever since without any one ever thinking that it could be made available for that purpose. Their Lordships all knew what had happened with respect to the Bill of the present year, and how a learned Gentleman had threatened, that if it were eventually thrown out he would, in some mysterious but constitutional way, admit the Jews to Parliament. Such was the present position of the question. In supporting the Amendment which he had to submit to their Lordships' notice he might be accused by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack with taking his stand upon very low grounds—those of policy and expediency: he could not help thinking that when their Lordships bore in mind that a measure similar to that under their notice had passed the House of Commons twenty-five years ago, and had on ten different occasions come up to their Lordships' House, they would concur with him in the opinion that it was most impolitic and inexpedient to persevere any longer in its absolute rejection. Their Lordships must, he thought, feel that the time for concession had arrived. For his own part, he had scarcely met a single noble Peer, or indeed anybody else, who, in conversation, contended that the exclusion of the Jews from Parliament could permanently be maintained. As a measure of

  1141
  prudence it was desirable that the question should be settled, and he believed that that object could be best secured by means of a compromise such as that which he proposed. In advocating those views he must not be supposed to shrink for one moment from upholding to their fullest extent the privileges of their Lordships' House, in dealing with questions of great national importance, and he was of opinion that the conduct of the other House of Parliament in appointing a member of the Jewish persuasion to be a party to the Conference which had taken place upon the subject under discussion amounted to something very like an insult. He was not aware whether Baron Rothschild had or had not attended that Conference, or whether he had acted as a Member of the Committee; but he had been informed that in accordance with the advice of the late Attorney General, he had abstained from taking that course. But, be that as it might, it was their Lordships' duty, laying aside all consideration of what had recently taken place in the other House of Parliament, to view the question before them dispassionately, and to pronounce with respect to it a calm and impartial decision. He might be told that in upholding the sentiments which he entertained, he was acting in violation of the religious feeling of the country; but he should wish to know what evidence there was to substantiate that charge. There was no such evidence to be found in the number of petitions which had been presented to that House against the admission of Jews to Parliament, inasmuch as the number of those petitions was extremely small. Neither was it to be discovered in the circumstance, that at the hustings any Member of Parliament had been called to account by his constituents because he happened to have voted in favour of Jewish emancipation; while it was a fact beyond all dispute, that nearly the entire press of the country supported the policy of admitting Jews to a seat in the Legislature. It might, however, be contended that the public out of doors were apathetic upon the subject, because they relied upon the House of Lords to reject any measure which had that object in view. That, however, was not the way in which the country was wont to act, and he felt assured that had the people of England felt so strongly upon the question as some noble Lords seemed to suppose they would, as it was their duty to do, have given unmistakeable expression to the sen-
  1142
  timents which they entertained. He should now leave his Amendment in their Lordships' hands, in the perfect assurance that, whether it pleased them to adopt or to reject it, they would be guided by the dictates of their own consciences and a due regard to the interests of the country. The noble Earl concluded by moving:—
  To leave out from ("Act") in line 3 to the end of the Clause, for the purpose of inserting ("on any occasion other than an Application to be admitted to sit and vote in either House of Parliament, the Words 'And I make this Declaration upon the true Faith of a Christian' shall be omitted; and that from and after the passing of this Act it shall be lawful for the House of Lords and for the House of Commons, respectively, by Resolution of tire House, to determine that the Form of the said Oath, so far as such Oath rests upon or refers to the Christian Faith, shall, for the purpose only of such Oath being administered to Persons professing the Jewish Religion, be modified, and to make such modification accordingly in such manner as to each such House shall seem best calculated to adapt the Form of the said Oath to the honest and conscientious scruples of the said Persons professing the Jewish Religion.")
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he hoped that at this last stage of the Bill before them he might be allowed to make a few observations. Indeed, he felt bound to rise, when he recollected the mark of confidence which he had the honour to receive two years ago. Then he had, at the request of several noble Friends, moved the rejection of a Bill similar to the present, and it was upon his Motion that the decisive vote against the admission of Jews to the Legislature had been taken. Looking, however, to all that had occurred within the last two years, he felt bound to state that, although several of the objections which he had upon the last occasion entertained to any such proposal remained still undiminished, yet that his views with respect to the policy and prudence of the House of Londs continuing to resist the admission of Members of the Jewish persuasion to Parliament were no longer the same. The reasons by which that change had been brought about, as well as those which induced bins to doubt whether the Amendment which had just been proposed furnished the best means of settling the question, and whether it would not be better to accede to the Motion which he understood was about to be made by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), he would briefly submit to their Lordships. In adverting to the altered circumstances which had arisen, and which affected not so much the abstract merits of the question as the policy

  1143
  of continued resistance, he must advert to the largely increased majority of the House of Commons in favour of the admission of Jews to Parliament. That majority had more than trebled in two years. Two years ago, upon a clause for admitting the Jews to Parliament, the majority in favour of the clause was forty-nine; this year, upon a similar clause, it was 153. Surely, this was no light point for consideration. He heard it said, indeed, by some that, although the majority of the House of Commons might have increased, there was still a majority in the country against this measure. Now he must submit that an argument of this kind required to be most lightly touched—to be handled with most peculiar care—by all such persons at least as were not in favour of some large radical and sweeping measure of Parliamentary Reform; for see what inferences might readily be drawn from the assertion, if rashly made, that on this question, or on any other, the House of Commons, for many years, and after several general elections, wholly misrepresented the feeling of the people. But what was really this feeling? It was a feeling which, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Lucan) had truly said showed itself in very few petitions to their Lordships, and did not make itself felt at a single election. Let this be compared with the manifestation of feeling in Scotland at the general election which preceded the last, when the constituencies refused to return any representatives who were not opposed to Maynooth, and when the result was that almost every candidate who came forward, whether Whig, Tory, or Radical, declared that at heart he had always been opposed to the grant, and was ready to pledge himself against it. Now, the repugnance shown to the admission of the Jews to Parliament differed very widely in its manifestation from this; it was languid and inert, it evaporated in talk, and it would be difficult to name a single case in which the advocacy of the claims of the Jews by a candidate had in any degree impeded his election. When the opinions of this House were thus languidly supported out of doors, it became very difficult for their Lordships to continue their resistance to the oft-declared wishes of the other House of Parliament. There was another consideration which, in popular apprehension, had very greatly altered the aspect of this question. When the claims of the Jews to sit in Parliament were first mooted, they were supported by
  1144
  not more than one or two occupants of the episcopal bench. Since that time, however, a considerable number of the right rev. Prelates, among others, had shown themselves favourable to the admission of the Jews. Now, it used to be said of some ultra-politicians in the time of Louis XVIII. that they were plus Royalistes que le Roi; and in the same way he thought that if so large a proportion of the right rev. Bench supported the claims of the Jews while a majority of this House opposed them, the popular apprehension might be that their Lordships, more zealous than the Bishops themselves, set themselves presumptuously forward as being more zealous for Christianity than even the Bishops themselves! Nor could he (Earl Stanhope) be blind to the fact, that within the last two years there had been several conversions on this subject, and that those conversions had uniformly taken place among those who had heretofore been opposed to the principle of the Bill; and in no one instance, so far as he was aware, had there been any conversion the other way. He saw opposite to him the noble Earl (the Earl of Donoughmore), who, although two years ago he had voted with him against the measure, had voted on the last occasion in favour of this Bill. He (Earl Stanhope) had been prevented, by indisposition, from attending the debate that had taken place the other night upon this question; but he understood that the noble Earl at the head of the Government had himself observed that no less than three of his colleagues in the Ministry in the other House of Parliament were favourable to an adjustment of the claims of the Jews. One of those Gentlemen, no doubt, had always been in favour of the measure, but the two other colleagues of the noble Earl had been converts within the last few years. Now, what did all those facts prove? Why, that the current of public opinion, so far as regards statesmen and Members of the Legislature, had been for years running strongly in favour of this measure; and consequently, it became a matter of serious consideration whether that House would be acting with propriety or prudence in resisting any longer the reiterated wishes of the other House of Parliament. Another event had occurred which, though it deserved no weight as an argument on the abstract merits of the question, had an important relation to the ground of policy. A Jewish gentleman had within the last two years

  1145
  been unanimously elected to occupy the high office of Lord Mayor of London. Now, it was universally admitted by all parties that no man could have discharged those high and important duties in a more dignified and unexceptionable manner. The heads of all the great parties of the State by turns partook of that gentleman's hospitality, and exchanged compliments and courtesies with him. Undoubtedly there was a considerable distinction between the task of administering laws and of framing them; and therefore, he remained still of opinion that you might justly refuse to allow a Jew to legislate while you freely committed to him merely executive functions. Still, however, when a Jewish gentleman had thus, with general concurrence, filled the office of Lord Mayor of London, he doubted whether the argument he had just used was not too abstract and refined for popular apprehension, and whether it did not dissolve away under the influence of such an example. The question abstractedly was, he repeated, not affected by such an argument; but if their Lordships desired to take their stand on public feeling, and to obtain the support of the country, they were bound to consider, not only what was of force as an abstract argument, but what the popular apprehension on the subject would be. Moreover, when this Bill was brought before their Lordships two years ago, it involved the question of the Roman Catholic oaths, and thus raised difficulties which did not now present themselves. Indeed, it was owned in the other House by one of the most conscientious opponents of the admission of the Jews—a right hon. Gentleman whose friendship he (Earl Stanhope) had the pleasure of enjoying (Mr. Walpole)—that this proposal had never yet been put forward in a manner so free from collateral objections as in the present measure. The question having been thus altered, as he conceived, it was no longer to be viewed as it had been hitherto. Reviewing the history of this question, and all those circumstances to which he had referred, he was bound to ask himself whether, as a Member of that House, he would be justified, even while retaining his former objections, in continuing his resistance to this measure. That House had, no doubt, its independent rights and duties; but he conceived it formed no part of those rights and duties to offer a continuous opposition to the repeated and continuously expressed wishes of the people as expressed by their representatives in the other House of Par-
  1146
  liament. It was the duty of that House, no doubt, not merely to exercise an independent opinion upon all subjects that came before them; but, also, to afford every opportunity for ascertaining the real opinions of the people on any particular question that might be pressed upon their attention, either by an appeal to the country or otherwise. That he maintained to be the constitutional right and duty of that House. He did not, however, think that any statesman would contend that it was the right of that House to offer a perpetual barrier to the will of the other House, year after year expressed in a clearer and a still more forcible and decided tone. If, then, he had rightly defined the rights and duties of the House of Lords, how did such principles accord with the present state of this question? Could it be held that their Lordships should oppose a perpetual barrier to the Jewish claims? Since 1848, when this subject was first brought before Parliament, he believed he might say, without impropriety, that their Lordships had staved off the question. They had staved it off for ten years. In that interval there had been two general elections, and full time had been afforded for the clear expression of popular opinion at elections, by petitions, and by every other constitutional mode. What had been the result? Why a largely increased majority—a majority trebled within two years—in the other House in favour of the measure; and under these circumstances he asked whether in continuing their resistance their Lordships were not exceeding the duty they were entitled to perform? He must say he doubted whether it was expedient that their Lordships should continue the resistance they had hitherto offered to this measure. Was it not desirable that they should husband and reserve their strength for other struggles before them? Would their Lordships, he asked, consent to a complete surrender of the question of church rates? Much as he (Earl Stanhope) deemed a settlement of the question of church rates desirable, especially with reference to the great towns, he should, and he hoped their Lordships also, resolutely refuse its unconditional surrender. Many Members—indeed a majority—of the other House of Parliament had, however, expressed an opinion in favour of the abolition of church rates without providing any substitute. He doubted very much whether with regard to such questions concessions on both sides might not be advantageous. Meanwhile

  1147
  he deemed it most important that their Lordships should not hazard their authority with regard to questions upon which resistance might be necessary or desirable, by opposing a settlement of these Jewish claims to which any long-continued resistance had become impossible. He was, also, swayed in his opinion by the fact which had been adverted to by the noble Earl who had moved the Amendment—he meant the consideration of what course might be pursued by the House of Commons if their Lordships persevered in rejecting this Bill. They had been reminded by the noble Earl that at the end of the last Session of Parliament a Committee was appointed on the Motion of a statesman of great weight and deserved authority—Lord John Russell; and the noble Earl adverted to some of its proceedings. He (Earl Stanhope) confessed that when he looked at those proceedings he entertained great doubt whether their Lordships, do what they would, could continue to exclude Jews from Parliament. He was afraid that if continued resistance were offered by their Lordships their Lordships' House would be passed over, and Jews would be admitted to Parliament in spite of them. Why did he say that? In the present Session the House of Commons had—not without resistance and discussion—by a very large majority named as a Member of the Committee to conduct the Conference the very Gentleman who had given rise to this controversy—a gentleman who was himself a Jew. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment expressed a doubt whether the gentleman in question could act. He (Earl Stanhope) was told that gentleman had acted—that he had been present at the Conference. The question was, not what we might think right or constitutional, but what the majority of the House of Commons intended to do, and if they did seat this gentleman by Resolution all their Lordships' doubts as to whether such a course was constitutional or legal would be of no avail; but considerable difficulty and controversy would necessarily ensue. The noble Earl had adverted to certain proceedings which took place in the Committee of the other House on the 10th of August last. He (Earl Stanhope) found on reference to the proceedings of the Committee that a Resolution declaring that the House of Commons was within the meaning of the 8th section of the 5 & 6 Will.,IV., c. 62, and was therefore authorized to administer
  1148
  or receive any oath, received the support of Lord John Russell, and that the Attorney General of the late Government; (Sir Richard Bethell,) and Mr. Disraeli, who was the leader of the present Government in the other House, had voted in its favour. He thought, then, when their Lordships found such names in favour of a proposition of this nature they would see that there was considerable probability of a proposal of that nature receiving the assent of a majority in the other House of Parliament. At the same time he (Earl Stanhope) doubted whether the question could be satisfactorily settled in the manner proposed by the noble Earl. For his own part, he intended, with regard to the Amendment of the noble Earl, to be guided by the advice and example of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Lyndhurst). If that noble and learned Lord objected to the Amendment, and adhered to the original proposition, he (Earl Stanhope) would give him his support; but if, on the other hand, the noble and learned Lord meant to adopt the Amendment, he would vote with him. His (Earl Stanhope's) desire was to see the question settled, even at the expense of some personal feeling, and he wished to give such a vote as the noble and learned Lord might deem best calculated to effect that object. He (Earl Stanhope) had not taken this course without much anxiety, and it would have been far more agreeable to his own feelings to adhere to the course he had previously pursued; but he did not think he was at all entitled to indulge those feelings of pride in his own consistency, when he believed them to be antagonistic to subjects of great public interest. He was strengthened in his belief of the propriety of the course he was about to pursue, when he remembered the advice so often tendered by one whose memory was regarded with the deepest veneration, not in that House only, which he had so long adorned, but by all persons and all classes—the late Duke of Wellington. For more than twenty years it had been his privilege to live on terms of intimacy and confidence with that great man, and he had heard the Duke of Wellington say that of all his acts in civil life there were none to which he looked back with so much satisfaction, as convincing him that he had not been useless to his country, as when he had raised his warning voice with the view of preventing a collision between that and the other House of Parliament, and ex-

  1149
  horting their Lordships to concede when the period of resistance had passed. At that time many of their Lordships differed from the Duke of Wellington; but could they now have any doubt, looking back to the matter in an historical point of view, that the noble Duke's counsels were wise? Take the case, for example, of the Reform Bill. No man at first opposed it with greater warmth than the Duke of Wellington: he resisted it until an appeal was made to the country, until Bristol and Nottingham were in flames, and until the current of popular feeling ran too high to be longer opposed with safety. Several of their Lordships continued, nevertheless, to vote against that Bill; but now, looking back to the matter at this distance of time, and being aware of the effects produced, could they doubt that the Duke of Wellington gave good advice in counselling concession, and saved the country at large from great calamities? If the noble Duke were present among them at this moment, could any one doubt what counsel he would give to their Lordships, when he found that, after many years of resistance on the part of their Lordships, the Commons, by great and repeated majorities, still passed the Bill for the admission of the Jews, and in their eagerness to effect the object contemplated a step which appeared to be beyond the bounds of the constitution? He then adjured their Lordships, after the noble Duke's death, to be still guided by his counsels. As for himself, his course was taken, and with reluctance certainly; but sustained by the sense that he was endeavouring to do his duty to his country, he should give his vote with the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) for the settlement of this long-agitated question.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: My Lords, I am anxious thus early to address your Lordships in consequence of the speeches of the two noble Earls who have opened the discussion, for while they are abandoning a long continued opposition to the Jewish claims, I, on the contrary, from having been formerly in favour of those claims, now entertain opinions adverse to their admission; opinions which governed the vote I gave upon the question in the last Session of Parliament, and upon which I shall feel it my duty to act upon the present occasion. I am, therefore, desirous of explaining a course of conduct so directly the opposite of that of the two noble Earls; but before doing so I would beg to notice briefly the in-
  1150
  sufficiency of the Reasons which they, especially the noble Earl who has just sat down, have given for the course they now recommend your Lordships to take. They in fact adopt in its fullest sense the fifth of the Reasons sent up by the House of Commons against your Lordships' Amendments to the Bill—namely, that—
  "The Commons having already on ten previous occasions, and in five Parliaments passed Bills for removing the civil disabilities of the Jews, and having of late years agreed to such Bills by constantly increasing majorities, are convinced that the opinion of their constituents and of the country at large has been irrevocably pronounced in favour of the removal of such disabilities."
  A very sufficient ground is no doubt here given for your Lordships making every concession to the wishes of the Commons that you can make consistently with maintaining the constitution in its essential principles. But I would remind the noble Earl who last addressed you, and has endeavoured to justify his present views by a reference to the course taken by the late Duke of Wellington at the period of the Reform Bill, that that great man did not counsel your Lordships to give way upon the question until public opinion had been loudly and unmistakeably expressed in favour of that measure, and that the concession then made to the popular voice did not involve the violation of any constitutional principle. There has been no such manifestation of public feeling in the present case, on the contrary, the public appear very apathetic respecting the claims of the Jews, and have probably looked little if at all into the question. It is true there have been several new Parliaments called since the Jewish claims were first brought under discussion, but I believe that in very few cases have they been noticed upon the hustings, where subjects interesting to the constituencies are commonly brought forward by the candidates for popular favour; and at the last general election undoubtedly the question exclusively considered by the constituencies was the continuance or non-continuance of the Palmerston Ministry. The Jews found no place in the popular mind. It is worthy also of remark with reference to the importance the House of Commons and the noble Earl attach to the increasing majorities by which the Jew Bills have been carried; that the opinions of the leading liberal Members of that House have been repeatedly expressed that the people of England are not adequately represented, and that a new Reform Bill is necessary.

  1151
  Such being their opinion, the majorities by which the Jew Bills have passed cannot justly be regarded as evidence "that the opinion of the country at large has been irrevocably pronounced in their favour." But, as the noble Earl has searched the records of Parliamentary history for examples of concession, he must allow me to remind him that there are to be found also encouraging precedents for upholding and persevering in the assertion of right principles against a temporary pressure from the House of Commons. Instances are not wanting where the Commons have been at variance upon important questions with this House, and have in the end recognized the soundness of your Lordships' decisions by the abandonment of measures which they had for some time appeared to insist upon. I will only particularize one which is remarkably analogous to the present case. I mean the celebrated "Appropriation Clause" in the Irish Tithe Bill. This measure was repeatedly sent up to your Lordships, and as frequently rejected by you; eventually it was rejected by the House of Commons itself, its original author, Lord John Russell, being, I believe, among those that voted against it. The same should be the end of the measure now before the House, the author of which is the same noble Lord.
  I will now, my Lords, briefly state to your Lordships the grounds of my objection to the Bill. The arguments mainly relied upon by its promoters are stated in the 2nd and 4th Reasons of the Commons which are substantially identical. They say that—
  "The exclusion of British subjects from seats in Parliament and offices in the State on the ground of their religious opinions is contrary to the general maxims of freedom of conscience."
  The abstract truth of this, my Lords, I think none will dispute, and when first the question arose of the claims of the Jews to sit in Parliament, it appeared to me, I confess, conclusive in their favour. It is unquestionably a principle of our free constitution that no British subject should, without very sufficient cause, be excluded from participating in its privileges, and at first sight it does not seem reasonable that exceptions should be made in the case of a Jew. This would account for a large amount of public support being given to the Bill, and it would be much more agreeable to me to be now, as I formerly was, in favour of it; but when in the last Session of Parliament it became my
  1152
  duty to record my vote upon the question, and therefore to examine more closely into its merits, it soon became apparent to me that the proposed concession was fraught with great danger to the future good government of the country and to its very liberties, and that therefore it ought not to be made. It will not be denied that the British constitution, which is the boast of Englishmen, and the envy and object of imitation with every nation struggling for freedom, has grown up and matured under the guardianship of a legislature exclusively Christian. The harmony, mildness, and sufficiency of our laws may be attributed mainly to the Christian principle that pervades them, and the Christian religion has been so intimately interwoven with the whole system of our legislation, that, to use the emphatic words of Blackstone, (no mean authority upon such a subject), "Christianity is part of the laws of England." Surely, then, those who regard Christianity as a system of imposture, are not rightly qualified to make laws for its maintenance. There has been from the earliest period of the monarchy an union of Church and State, and thereby a national acknowledgment of that Divine code of morality which the Gospel prescribes for the government, not of individuals only, but of nations, and for the good of all. Under its salutary influences it is, especially since the Reformation has more fully developed the doctrines and spirit of the Christian religion, that England at the present day affords to persons of every religious denomination residing under the protection of her laws an amount of liberty not enjoyed in any other country; but it is only by a Christian legislature that the Divine rule and precepts of the Gospel can be acknowledged in the work of legislation. It is true that this involves a principle of exclusiveness, while the great community of British subjects includes persons of a great variety of creeds, many of them the most conflicting; it is, however, upon that very account only the more important to provide that our legislation should be carried on upon acknowledged and fixed principles, and that the machinery of government should work harmoniously; and experience fully bears out the assertion that in no way can these objects be better secured, than they are under our present form of government—namely, a Protestant Sovereign and a Christian Parliament. Under these auspices the constant aim and general ten-

  1153
  dency of legislation has been to render the liberties of British subjects, civil and religious, as perfect as they can be. And let me remind your Lordships that it was to secure the permanence of such a form of government that, when Parliament was opened to persons of the Roman Catholic persuasion, restriction was placed upon them by the terms of an oath the most stringent that human ingenuity could devise, to abstain from doing aught, in a legislative capacity, to weaken or disturb the Protestant religion or Protestant Government of the country. This was proposed and supported by the most liberal statesmen of the day, and opposed by none; it was even assented to by the principal authorities of the Church of Rome resident in the United Kingdom, as the condition upon the Roman Catholic body was to be admissible to Parliament, and it was justified as necessary for the maintenance of Protestantism in the Church and in the spirit of the Government: and this policy you again affirm in this very Bill by providing that nothing therein contained should alter or affect the provisions of the Catholic Relief Bill. But if you admit the Jews, as now proposed to legislate on questions affecting the Established Church as well as the civil interests of the country, you cannot, without great injustice to the Roman Catholics, leave unrepealed a restriction upon their freedom of legislative action. It would be manifestly inconsistent to subject Christian members of the Legislature to restrictions, where the interests of Christianity were involved, which were not also imposed upon the Jews. Let the claims of the latter be admitted upon the principle contended for by the House of Commons in their fourth Reason against your Amendment—namely, that "the infliction of disabilities upon any class of Her Majesty's subjects solely on account of their conscientious adherence to their faith, savours of persecution; and you must admit, also, the Mahomedan, the Hindoo, heathens of every denomination (millions of whom at this moment are dependent upon the kind of government Parliament may impose upon the Indian empire), and the professed infidel, who is commonly quite as bigoted in his own peculiar views as the most superstitious votary of any false system of religion. Religious tests of every kind must be abolished as qualifications for access to the great Council of the Nation, for they could be of no possible value. Nor could you
  1154
  consistently any longer require the Sovereign to make profession of a particular form of religion: the King has as good an abstract right to hold and profess what religious opinions he pleases, as have the King's counsellors: so that, upon the principle contended for by the Commons, time future government and the guardianship of the rights of a people at present blest with the enjoyment of freedom beyond any other nation in the world, might fall into the hands of a Sovereign of any, or of no religion, and of a godless Parliament. The Jew must be free to assail Christianity and every religious observance connected with it—the, infidel must be at liberty to scoff at religion in every form—and the Roman Catholics—a body numerically more powerful, and from their organization and union under ecclesiastical rule, more formidable, must be free to lay themselves out for the restoration of the Pope's supremacy, so at variance with the independence and liberties of the nation. The House of Commons appears to have fallen into the error of regarding seats in Parliament and offices in the State as the inherent rights of British subjects intended for the individual benefit of the persons holding them. A participation in the government of this great country is, indeed, a great and distinguishing privilege; but it is still more to be regarded as a trust conferred for the benefit of the community, and experience has fully warranted the qualifications at present by law required in those to whom the reins of government are confided: hence the present limitation of the Crown to the reigning Royal Family being Protestants, and hence those tests imposed upon the advisers of the Crown in legislative matters by which to ensure their counsels being in harmony with these views which the Sovereign is, by the Coronation Oath, obliged to hold to. As a trust is also to be regarded the possession of the elective franchise, so that the citizens of London, so far from having any wrong to complain of under the existing law, are themselves wrongdoers, having fallen short of their duty to the country at large and to their unfranchised fellow citizens by sending as their representative to Parliament a person not qualified to act. The objection to the Jew is not that he is disloyal, not that he is incapable of exercising administrative duties: no such charge has or can be urged against him, but that he is net qualified to legislate for a Christian Church, nor can be

  1155
  reasonably expected to regard with reverence those divine precepts of the Gospel which are sometimes referred to, and which our laws may not contradict. It is, no doubt, historically true that the words in the oath, which stand in the way of Baron Rothschild's taking his seat, were not intended for the express purpose of excluding Jews from Parliament; but it might, with equal truth, be said that when the sovereignty of the country was limited to a Protestant, no intention existed of thereby excluding a Jew from the throne; and for this reason, that at the periods at which those legislative measures were respectively enacted the possibility of the nation ever falling, in any degree, under Jewish government, was never even imagined. The nation was only intent up on guarding its liberties against the encroachments of the Papacy, and the disabilities are owing solely to the laws of the country having ignored the supposition of the country ever being under other than Christian Government. Looking back to Magna Charta the Barons of Runnymede in that, the first charter, of British liberty, notice the Jews only as money-lenders. History does not record their ever having taken arms in the country's defence, or ever having taken part in, or sought admission to the national councils, they have ever been and sought so to keep themselves in every country where they are found, a nation apart, aliens from all around them in blood, in religion, and in social interests. I believe, that the feeling among them generally is still the same, and certainly, but for the wishes and personal popularity of Baron Rothschild, backed by his enormous wealth and the great political weight of his family, we never should to this day have beard of the Jewish claims. I have not the honour of Baron Rothschild's acquaintance, but from all I have heard of him, I do not apprehend that if he should obtain his seat in Parliament his conduct would be other than that becoming a British legislator. He has chosen England as the place of his residence, he has creditably filled the offices of the magistracy, he is respected by all that know him, and has so won upon the esteem of his fellow citizens that, in order to promote his wishes, they have repeatedly elected him with the certainty that he could not take his scat in Parliament. A man so highly esteemed is not likely to do discredit to the choice of his constituents, or
  1156
  to be disposed to damage that free constitution under the protection of which he has preferred to live; but his admission, as a Jew, to the Councils of the nation would be subversive of the great and essential principle of the constitution which connects the maintenance of the Christian religion with the general government of the country. The Commons urge it as a motive for your Lordships' yielding your opinions that Members of both Houses of Parliament of great weight, though differing upon other matters, have concurred in their support of this Bill; but this argument may be met by the fact that other Members of equal weight, though differing upon other subjects, have united in opposing it. The majority of the Commons have so far the advantage that they have taken the popular side of the question: it would be pleasing to your Lordships also to do the same, if you could be as readily excused for seeking popularity; but you have a higher mission as hereditary legislators—it is more especially your duty to act as guardians of the constitution. The country at large, I believe, does not take much interest in the question before you: the majority would probably, on a first view of the question, be favorable to concession; but those who have given their attention to it—the more thinking and religious portion of the community—are strongly opposed to it. They look with respect to the stand you have made against it, and they confidently look to your maintaining those principles which your reasoning and votes have hitherto vindicated, and I venture to hope that you will not disappoint public expectation by countenancing the proposition now brought forward by my noble and gallant Friend of an untimely surrender.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I think it will conduce somewhat to the perspicacity, and perhaps to the brevity, as well as to the regularity of this debate, if we come to some understanding of what is the real point we are discussing; because it appears to me that we have got into a state of confusion as to the question before us, which may possibly lead, if not to some inconsistency, at least to inconvenience. My noble and gallant Friend who introduced the Amendment before the House stated that he did so without consulting any of those with whom he usually acts politically; and more especially he assured the House that he had had no communication with me with regard to the Amend-

  1157
  ment. My Lords, I can in the fullest possible manner confirm, so far as I am concerned, the statement of my noble and gallant Friend, for no one was more taken by surprise than I was when, on the last day on which your Lordships sat previous to the Whitsuntide recess, my noble and gallant Friend rose for the purpose of stating that he was about to move an Amendment, when the Commons' Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords' Amendment on the Oaths Bill came to be discussed in this House. In fact, so much was I taken by surprise, that on the Thursday following I wrote to my noble and gallant Friend, suggesting whether he did not think that we should be made acquainted, if not with the precise words, at least with the object of the Amendment. With whom my noble and gallant Friend may have taken counsel I know not; but that Amendment introduces a novel and important principle—one which I think, if it is intended to discuss it in your Lordships' House, should be discussed with full deliberation, after ample notice, and when more opportunity has been given for its consideration by your Lordships than can possibly be the case under the present circumstances, Your Lordships will recollect that it was only on the last day the House sat that my noble and gallant Friend gave notice of his intention to move any Amendment at all, and there are probably a very great number of noble Lords not present in the House who have not the slightest idea of the proposition now for the first time laid before you. Yet it is a proposition which, on constitutional grounds, is of such importance that every Member of your Lordships' House ought to have had time fullest opportunity of considering and making up his mind upon it. With regard to the Reasons that have been advanced by the House of Commons for calling on your Lordships not to insist upon the Amendments which you have made in the Oaths Bill, I can hardly think that any of your Lordships who have on various occasions listened, without being convinced, to the able arguments, to the evident sincerity, to the vigorous and fervid eloquence of my noble and learned Friend behind me (Lord Lyndhurst), on whose wonderful powers passing years themselves seem to have no effect whatever—I cannot think that those who have listened to my noble and learned Friend are likely to be materially influenced by the arguments set up, and the Reasons assigned by the House of Commons.
  1158
  Those who have not been enchanted, nay, not even attracted by the whole body of the case presented to your Lordships—accompanied by all the graces of muscle, flesh, and colour—exhibited by my noble and learned Friend behind me, will hardly he attracted by the dry bones and skeleton form which appears to us from the House of Commons. It is no disparagement to the House of Commons to say that the form which their Reasons have taken possesses nothing particularly attractive, or to say that I have been at a loss to find in those Reasons anything which can be urged upon your Lordships' consideration; for there is nothing in them which has not been stated over and over again, with all the arguments by which they could be enhanced, in the course of the debates which have taken place in reference to this subject. But there is one question, and a very important one, in the Amendment of my noble and gallant Friend which entirely meets the objection contained in the last proposition but one of the Commons. And, my Lords, if the result of this Bill as it now stands would be to impose any fresh disabilities upon persons of the Jewish persuasion beyond those which they now labour under, I am convinced that there is not a single Member of your Lordships' House who would not cordially accept that portion of the Amendment; for certainly an intention to impose such fresh disabilities was totally foreign to your Lordships' desire. But although my noble and gallant Friend has assumed, as stated in the Reasons offered by the Commons, not that the first and third clauses of the Bill do impose new restrictions, but that they are open to the construction that the new oath which the former of them contains would have to he taken, not only in all cases where the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, are now required, but also where the oaths of allegiance and supremacy are at present required, though without the Oath of Abjuration—the result of which construction, if the Bill should pass into law without the 4th clause, would be to impose fresh restrictions; and, although my noble and gallant Friend has stated his concurrence in that Reason assigned by the House of Commons, he has not instanced to your Lordships a single case in which, practically, that result would follow. I know that my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack has given his most earnest attention to this question, and I believe I am stating accurately his view—he will cor-

  1159
  rect me if I am wrong—when I say that he has arrived at the conclusion that no such result could by any mode of construction be the consequence of the Bill now before the House. I am confirmed in that opinion, not only by my confidence in the great acuteness and in the legal knowledge of my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, but still more by the omission of any such argument by my noble and learned Friend behind me (Lord Lyndhurst), who argued with all the powers of his great intellect against the omission of the 5th clause; and if he had thought that any such consequences would accrue, it would have been impossible that he would have omitted to lay before your Lordships so powerful an argument as that it would impose fresh restrictions which would operate adversely to the liberties of the Jews. But during the whole course of the discussion upon the omission of that clause, my noble and learned Friend—I will not say exhausted his great powers—but he entered on a course of argument which would have exhausted the powers of any other man in a single night, and he said nothing about any additional restrictions being imposed as a consequence of this Bill. If my noble and gallant Friend (the Earl of Lucan), or any of your Lordships can show that such additional restrictions would be imposed upon the Jews by the omission of the 5th clause, I am perfectly ready to concur in the adoption of the first part of my noble and gallant Friend's Amendment, which provides that whenever any of Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion be required to take the oath appointed by this Act, on any occasion other than an application to be admitted to sit and vote in either House of Parliament, the words "and I make this declaration on the true faith of a Christian," shall be omitted. That, my Lords, covers all possible cases in which additional restrictions can be said to have been created by this Bill. If it can be made to appear that any restrictions are so imposed, I, for one, shall be perfectly ready, and I believe the great majority of your Lordships will be ready, to accede to the insertion of those words of the Amendment of my noble and gallant Friend. What support he may have, or from what side he may expect to obtain it, is unnecessary for me to conjecture; for, singularly enough, in the whole course of this discussion, though we know the general view of the question taken by my noble
  1160
  and gallant Friend, I have failed to as certain what course is intended to be taken with regard to the Amendments under discussion, either by my noble and gallant Friend, or by the noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Stanhope). The noble Earl on the cross benches says that he objects to the principle assumed by my noble and gallant Friend; that he has altered, not with respect to the principle of the question, not with respect to the objections which he formerly entertained to the admission of the Jews to sit and vote in Parliament, but that his objection is to the expediency of the course taken by this House; and having made that declaration, and stated that he should vote against my noble and gallant Friend's Amendment, he finishes by saying that, with regard to the vote he shall give on the present question, he places himself entirely in the hands of my noble and learned Friend behind me (Lord Lyndhurst)—and says that he will vote just as my noble and learned Friend advises him—if he advises him to vote for the Motion he will do so, and if against it he will do so. Nothing could be more can did than the statement of the noble Earl on the cross benches, though I was rather sorry to see that his offer was not acceded to, for my noble and learned Friend preserved the most imperturbable gravity, the oracle remained dumb, and politely refused to give a word of advice; so that if we were this moment to go to a division, I should be utterly at a loss to know which way the noble Earl would vote, for he says that he has no preference one way or the other. I understand the noble Earl who has just sat down to maintain altogether the objections which he has formerly expressed to the admission of Jews to Parliament. That is clear enough. But, my Lords, there is a question which has not been materially touched upon by my noble and learned Friend behind me, namely, the difficulty between the two Houses of Parliament. With respect to that question, I should wish to say two or three words, but I can assure your Lordships that I am not about to re-argue the very vexed and wearisome questions which have been so often discussed in your Lordships' House. I will just state what, in addition to the 7th, 8th, and 9th Reasons, are the grounds upon which the House of Commons asks your Lordships to reconsider your decision. The first is,
  "Because the words 'on the true faith of a Christian were originally introduced in the oaths

  1161
  to be taken by Members of Parliament with a view to bind certain Roman Catholics, and were not intended for the purpose of excluding persons of the Jewish persuasion."
  That fact has been admitted over and over again, and the answer to it as stereotyped as the fact. It is true the words were not introduced for that purpose, because at that time there was no necessity whatever for introducing any such words, as it was not contemplated by the Legislature that members of the Jewish persuasion should have seats in Parliament. It is only from a comparatively recent period that the Jews have been admitted to the enjoyment of minor privileges in this country, which I for one do not in the slightest degree grudge them; but, in point of fact, up to the present time, the Legislature has uniformly refused to accede to the introduction of members of that persuasion into either this or the other House of Parliament. The second and fourth of these reasons are,
  "Because the exclusion of British subjects from seats in Parliament and offices in the State, on the ground of their religious opinions, is contrary to the general maxims of freedom of conscience;"
  and
  "Because the infliction of disabilities upon any class of Her Majesty's subjects, solely on the ground of their conscientious adherence to their faith, savours of persecution, and is totally inconsistent with those principles of religious liberty which, in the case of more powerful communities, have been applied by Parliament with such happy effects."
  Now, again, the answer to that is, and it has been stated over and over again—that although all civil rights, all securities for property, are the birthright of the people of this country; but that the privilege of sitting in Parliament and filling public employments is not an inherent right to which every individual is entitled, but a right conferred by the Legislature, and with respect to which the Legislature has a perfect right to attach restrictions and conditions. As regards the second Reason—
  "Because the exclusion of British subjects from seats in Parliament and offices in the State, on the ground of their religious opinions, is contrary to the general maxims of freedom of conscience."
  It is at variance and inconsistent with the Bill itself, which on the sole ground of their religious opinions excludes the Jews from certain high offices of the State. It is not for me to reconcile these conflicting views of the majority of the House of
  1162
  Commons, that exclusion from offices of State on the ground of religious opinion is contrary to the general maxims of freedom of conscience; but nobody can deny that on the face of the Bill there is an exclusion from high offices of the State. Then, it is urged that the House of Commons have on several occasions in late years—
  "Passed Bills for removing the civil disabilities of the Jews, and, having of late years agreed to such Bills by constantly increasing majorities, are convinced that the opinion of their constituents and of the country at large has been irrevocably pronounced in favour of the removal of such disabilities."
  There is also another Reason stated, namely,
  "The rights of the electors of the United Kingdom have been peculiarly affected by a law which has been construed to prevent the admission to the House of Commons of persons who have been lawfully returned as Members of that House."
  I confess I must demur to the terms in which that Reason is couched, which, whether intended or not, clearly does convey the idea that it is a hardship, not upon the Jews, who are not able to sit in Parliament, but upon a Christian constituency who think fit to elect a Jew, but who are not at liberty to do so because he cannot sit and vote in the House. In answer to that, the same argument may be used as may be applied to all other disqualifications which have been imposed upon the constituencies in the election of the representatives. If a constituency chooses to elect an alien, a minor, or a man not possessing the proper qualification, you might just as well say that it is an interference with their rights, or that they have just cause of complaint, because a person whom they have elected, not being qualified to sit in the House of Commons, is debarred from doing so. I quite admit that there may be a point raised in favour of the admission of such a person if a majority of the assembly to which he is elected are of opinion that he is perfectly competent to be admitted—nay, more, that it is desirable he should be admitted. I admit that in such a case a constituency may consider itself hardly dealt with by the Legislature, and all the arguments in favour of the admission of Jews on that ground have been ably set forth in the lucid statement of my noble and learned Friend on the present occasion. Then it is urged that for a long term of years the House of

  1163
  Commons has, by constantly increasing majorities, shown itself in favour of admitting Jews. I am as sensible as any of your Lordships of the inconvenience—I will not say danger—that might result from continued differences between the two Houses of Parliament; and I do not hesitate to say that if, upon this question, without sacrifice of principle, I could conceive a possibility of coming to a reasonable compromise with the House of Commons, I would do so; but I must say that I was rather surprised by one of the arguments used by my noble Friend on the cross benches, who urged you not to press your resistance to the House of Commons, because, he says, it is quite enough to have one subject of difference at a time, and he sees another subject of difference coming up—looming in the distance; therefore, he suggests that it would be better to concede this before you begin to prepare for the other question. My Lords, I cannot but conceive that that is rather a dangerous doctrine. To what does it lead? It is in fact to say to the House of Commons "Persevere long enough, bring forward questions enough, on which to raise differences with the House of Lords, and that House will agree to the principle laid down, and get rid first of one and then another by concession." My Lords, we must never forget that the facilities for bringing forward new questions to be forced on a reluctant House of Lords will be increased just in proportion to the ease with which you yield to the first attempt of the House of Commons, and pass a Bill to which you object. If this were a mere question of policy or expediency, I do not hesitate to say, that after so long a time during which the question has been agitated, and after so determined an expression of the views of the House of Commons, it would be your Lordships' duty—and I believe you would feel it to be your duty—to waive your own opinion of the policy and expediency of the question, and to accept the views so often expressed by the other House. But in saying that I do not at all admit, with the noble Earl on the cross benches, that the increasing majorities of the House of Commons do of necessity indicate an increase of feeling on the part of the country. There have been during the last two years general elections throughout the country; but, by Lords, you will recollect that neither in one nor the other case was
  1164
  the vexed question, either of the admission or the non-admission of Jews into Parliament ever put forward as a prominent question on the hustings; nor was the attention of the country or of the constituencies ever specially or entirely directed to its consideration. The topics entertained at these elections turned upon quite different political considerations, and upon other questions of public interest and importance, and in the last case considerably and to a very great extent upon questions of personsal and private interest. The fact is, my Lords, that this question has been taken up and dealt with by the House of Commons, not as a religious, but as a political question; and as that particular party that sets itself up for the exclusive vindication of civil and religious liberty has chosen to tack on to the question of the admission of Jews into Parliament the magic words "civil and religious liberty," every man who belongs to that party thinks himself bound to support this Motion; and upon that, and not upon the merits of the question of the admission or non-admission of the Jews to the House of Commons, have the decision of the House of Commons turned, and these increasing majorities been obtained. My Lords, I wish I could say I thought that there was on this subject any very strong or decided political opinion, throughout the community. I believe, on the contrary, that the country is extremely apathetic on the question. No doubt, my Lords, there are a minority, a small number of very zealous persons, and more especially among the clergy, who are earnestly and anxiously sensitive on the question, and who think, and perhaps sincerely so, that it would be the destruction of this country if this principle were to be admitted. On the other hand there were some persons some half dozen gentlemen, who were anxious that they, as professing the Hebrew religion, should not be debarred from sitting in the House of Commons when once elected by the constituencies; but, my Lords, I do not believe myself, on the part of the Jewish body at large, that there is the slightest interest felt for the admission of such persons into the two Houses of Parliament. It is a very remarkable circumstance, my Lords, that from the Jews, as a body, neither to this House, nor to the other House, I will not say that there have not been any, but there have been no very considerable number of petitions, and no very great expression of opinion. No doubt there are several very

  1165
  estimable gentlemen—gentlemen who discharge all the duties of private and social life, and all the duties of their stations, and those functions they have been called upon by the law to perform, with infinite credit to themselves and advantage to society—gentlemen whose presence—apart from their political or other opinions, could be nothing but an ornament and advantage to the House of Commons—no doubt they and their personal friends are exceedingly anxious on this subject; but, my Lords, with these exceptions, and with regard to that portion of the religious community in this country who are very much interested in the matter in the other sense, I believe that the introduction or non-introduction of the Jews into Parliament is a matter I might almost say of supreme indifference. And now, my Lords, at the same time, as I have already stated, I am not at all indifferent to the inconvenience of a continued or long-protracted difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament on this topic. I wish, as I said before, that I could see my way to effectually removing it. I do not think, and I trust the House of Commons never will be so far forgetful of that which they owe the constitution of this country as to venture on the course of proceedings, which has been held out or suggested; I think myself their good sense would prevent them from acting on an unconstitutional and illegal proposition. Should they, however, adopt the course of, by a Resolution of their own, breaking through the law of the land, it will not be with this House that the House of Commons will have to deal. The House of Commons would in that case be brought into a most painful and dangerous collision with the courts of law of this country, and, my Lords, whatever the issue of that collision might be, the consequences would be most vital and injurious to the country. Therefore, my Lords, in persisting in a continued resistance on this question—of longer or of less duration—whether, in fact, you are prepared firmly to maintain your opposition on the ground of principle to the proposition, or whether you incline to any modification, or to make any arrangement with the House of Commons—of this, my Lords, I am firmly persuaded that the House of Commons will never do themselves and the country such an injury as to take a course so unconstitutional and so impolitic. Then, my Lords, the question arises, is there any solution of this ques-
  1166
  tion to be found. My Lords, my noble and gallant Friend brings forward an Amendment, which although it is open to very grave and serious objection, I should not advise your Lordships absolutely and hastily, or without full and fair consideration, to pass by; but again, upon the other hand, I do advise your Lordships not hastily and without full consideration of the consequences, or looking at it only as an Amendment to the Bill sent up from the House of Commons, to decide a question of the deepest and most vital importance, not only as regards its immediate results, but with regard to the great principles embodied in and calculated to become developed by those results. My Lords, it has been stated, and the noble and learned Lord at the table interrupted the noble and gallant Earl who introduced this question, by stating that the course of proceeding by Resolution was not unconstitutional, provided the Resolution was founded on a previous Act of Parliament; and, my Lords, I am not prepared altogether to differ with the enunciation of the principles so laid down by my noble and learned Friend. At the same time, my Lords, I think that, before you adopt such a proposition, you ought to weigh very seriously and very carefully the precedent you would establish on the subject. It may be, my Lords, and I think that it is a very obvious and very plausible solution of the difficulty, and I do not say that I am prepared to reject it without fuller consideration, because the question is perfectly novel, and I should like to have more time for weighing a proposition of so much importance. The question, my Lords, is, whether this House shall pass an Amendment on this Bill which will give the House of Commons the power of doing that by Resolution which confessedly they have had no power of doing hitherto. But it involves a still further question—it involves a question as to whether it may be expedient to leave to this or to the other House of Parliament this course of proceeding by Resolution, and which might terminate in their coming to two opposite conclusions as regards the admission of their Members. My Lords, there is something plausible in saying—and I do not say that there is not something sound, and I do not say it should not be the basis of some compromise between the two Houses—that, by regulations to be introduced into the Act of Parliament, each House may lay down, within certain limits, restrictions and regulations

  1167
  upon the strength of which Members may be introduced into either House, each laying down a rule with regard to its own House, and the one not interfering with the other; but then, my Lords, I think that these limits must be very carefully and very closely defined; and however closely and however carefully defined, we cannot shut our eyes to the danger of the precedent that would be introduced by enabling each House to legislate for itself by Resolutions which it might one day pass, and which another day it might rescind, and which might consequently cause it to be constantly altering its policy, organization, and construction. My Lords, my noble and gallant Friend, in his Amendment, goes to a very great extent; because I could have understood far better my noble and gallant Friend's Amendment if he had proposed to provide that it shall be competent for either House, if they shall see fit in the case of any person—for I do not see how it can be fairly restricted to the Jews if you once adopt the principle—who has been duly elected, presenting himself at the table, professing himself willing to take the prescribed oaths, but declaring that the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" would not be binding upon his conscience—and that they should, on such a representation, be empowered to omit the words "on the true faith of a Christian," and to allow a substantive oath to be taken in the form which would be binding on the conscience of the parties. Though I do not pledge myself, my Lords, in support of that opinion, I think that there is much to be said in favour of it, and that it is a plausible and sound argument to be introduced; and if it were possible to come to a conclusion, it would at last, I hope, remove a very painful subject of difference and collision between the two Houses. But my noble and gallant Friend's Amendment goes much further with reference to the words "on the true faith of a Christian," and proposes to make it competent for either House to modify or alter such oath in such manner as may seem fit to either House. Now, my Lords, that is a much more extensive principle. I am not prepared hastily, and at this moment, to adopt even the modified proposition. While I shall undoubtedly vote against the latter part of my noble and learned Friend's Amendment, I shall be quite ready to support the first part of it if it be really thought necessary; but I desire to reserve to myself, and to those with whom I act, full
  1168
  leisure for mature consideration on a future occasion, and for the purpose of considering, deliberately and carefully, whether any compromise can be entered into, or such a principle adopted, as would have the effect of removing a most unfortunate and, I am afraid, a permanent difference of opinion between the two Houses of the Legislature. I regret that I am compelled now to vote against the latter portion of my noble and gallant Friend's Amendment; but, not having seen any reason to chage the views I expressed upon former occasions, and not feeling myself justified in calling upon your Lordships to sacrifice your deliberate convictions and to allow the constitution of this as well as the other House to be altered at will in this manner, I am with reluctance bound to take that course, and to ask your Lordships to insist upon the Amendment you have introduced into the Bill which was sent to us by the House of Commons.
  EARL STANHOPEexplained that he had not stated, as attributed to him by the noble Earl, that there was only one subject of difference arising out of this question between the House of Lords and Commons.
  EARL GREYsaid, he felt disappointed at the course which the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) proposed to take; but at the same time he derived some consolation from one portion of his speech, in which he shadowed forth a mode of arriving at a compromise upon this long-vexed subject. For himself, he (Earl Grey) was so anxious that the question should be settled that he would concur in any compromise, and he would suggest to the noble Earl that, having adopted the views he had expressed, it would be very inconvenient to proceed to an immediate vote upon the Amendment of the noble and gallant Earl, or upon the question of insisting upon their Amendments. He conceived there would be manifest inconvenience in deciding upon those important points by a single vote. If they were to legislate in that manner, then it would, he concurred with the noble Earl, be better to proceed by means of a distinct and separate Bill, upon which they would have an opportunity of arriving at a deliberate judgment. It would, however, he thought, be highly inconvenient that their Lordships should in the meantime come to a premature decision upon the Amendment of the noble and gallant Earl opposite, or should send down the measure under discussion to the House of Commons

  1169
  with any material alteration. That being the case, he would suggest that the best course for the adoption of the House would be that the consideration of the Reasons given by the other House of Parliament for disagreeing from their Lordships' Amendments in the Bill should be postponed for a fortnight, and that before the expiration of that time the expediency of introducing a Bill founded upon the principle of the Amendment of the noble Earl opposite should be duly weighed; and he should, in the hope that their Lordships would concur with him in approving that course, move that the further consideration of the Reasons of the House of Commons for disagreeing from their Lordships' Amendments be deferred for a fortnight.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that while he was prepared to admit it was desirable that such a question as that which this House was engaged in discussing should, if brought forward at all, be introduced in the shape of a separate Bill, yet that he deemed the proper course for their Lordships to take upon the present occasion would be to insist on the Amendments which they had made in the measure under their notice, and to send it back again in that shape to the House of Commons, which would thus be afforded an opportunity of suspending its further progress until it had been ascertained what steps could be taken with reference to the introduction of that separate Bill to which the noble Earl opposite alluded. Although, therefore, he was perfectly ready to defer those minor considerations connected with the subject until their Lordships should have more leisure to discuss them, yet he was not prepared to waive their Lordships' right to insist on their Amendments, inasmuch as if they were not insisted upon the Bill admitting Jews to a seat in the Legislature would in effect have passed both Houses of Parliament, and subsequent proceedings in reference to the question would be rendered useless. If, upon the other hand, their Lordships were to insist upon the Amendments and the Bill were sent back to the House of Commons, they would then have an opportunity of judging whether that House looked upon the question of the admission of the Jews to Parliament to be so intimately bound up with the measure as to justify them in rejecting it altogether.
  EARL GREYsaid, he thought the most conciliatory course to adopt, and that which was best calculated to effect the compro-
  1170
  mise which the noble Earl was anxious to see brought about, would be not to insist upon their Lordships' Amendments—but to allow them to lie over—not for three months, or for any period that would be tantamount to indicating an acquiescence in the Reasons of the House of Commons—but for a fortnight, at the end of which time their Lordships would be in a position to determine whether a separate Bill should or should not be introduced. If such a Bill should be brought in, then the right course to take with respect to the measure before them would, he thought, be to set it aside altogether, and not to send it back to the House of Commons in a shape which could not fail to be objectionable to them, and which could serve no purpose save that of creating a feeling of irritation which it was desirable as far as possible to avoid.
  The noble EARL then moved "That the further Debate be adjourned to this Day Fortnight."
  THE EARL OF ELLESMEREwas understood to express his concurrence in the wish that the further consideration of the question should be postponed, and to suggest the introduction of a measure by which, in his opinion, a compromise on the point at issue might be effected. That measure would simply contain a clause enabling Jews to take a seat in the House of Commons, and another which should provide that no one but a person professing Christianity should be entitled to sit in their Lordships' House.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he merely rose to urge upon the Government to accept the course proposed by the noble Earl near him, but with this exception, that he would not contemplate the entire abandonment of the Bill. It should be recollected that it was not a Bill merely providing for the admission of Jews into Parliament, but one revising their whole system of oaths, respecting the revision of which there was a universal concurrence of opinion. Looking at the entire question and the spirit that had been evinced by both sides of the House, he thought the question was, whether some compromise would not be desirable, in order to avoid those serious collisions on the question that had occurred between both Houses, and the still more possibly serious danger of a collision between one house of the Legislature and the courts of law. Let the further consideration of the question be postponed for longer than a fortnight if

  1171
  required, and he had no doubt that a Bill might be introduced, and the opinion of the House taken, that would lead to a satisfactory adjustment of existing differences of opinion.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had in some measure a personal interest in preventing the probable collision between the House of Commons and the courts of law which it was contended was likely to result from the rejection of the measure before their Lordships; and that, although he should not under those circumstances shrink for a moment from the discharge of his duty, yet he could not help regarding, without the utmost apprehension, the consequences to the public peace which might flow from such a collision. He should, therefore, earnestly appeal to the noble Earl at the head of the Government to assent to the proposed postponement of the question. It had been said that this was a question to be considered with a view to peace and harmony, and if the present opportunity were neglected it might never arise again; and if the Bill was sent down as it was before to the Commons, and they refused to agree to their terms, and if their Lordships continued to insist, seeing the spirit and temper by which the Commons were actuated, there would be commenced a series of intemperate measures on their Amendments, and no one could tell what would be the consequences. He was not surprised at its being asserted that a Resolution of the Houses of Parliament against the law of the land would be a nullity, and that it would be disregarded; but if there should be a Resolution sanctioned by Act of Parliament it would be perfectly constitutional. He would give no opinion on the Amendment of the noble and gallant Earl, but would conclude by saying, in relation to the entire subject, "now is the time for salvation," and he hoped their Lordships would agree to some compromise.
  LORD LYNDHURSTentirely agreed with the proposal of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey). He begged leave to add, that upon so very difficult and, he would even say, dangerous a question, every step ought to be taken in a spirit of conciliation. He thought they ought to adjourn the discussion for a fortnight, in order to give a full opportunity to carry into effect the object of the noble Earl.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, there was another reason why he joined heartily in the appeal of his noble Friend opposite,
  1172
  and that was the power which the House of Commons had, according to the constitution, without in the slightest degree coming into collision with this House or the courts of law, of regulating their own procedure respecting the right of persons to serve on Committees before taking the oaths at the table. Such a power had been exercised in this case, for Baron Rothschild had, by a large majority of the House, and upon the recommendation of a high law officer of the Crown, been appointed a member of the very Committee which had carried on the Conferences between the two Houses. If some solution of the question, therefore, were not now arrived at, the consequence would be, that not merely Jews, but all other persons against whose sitting in Parliament the Legislature had provided—the Catholics without taking the protective oaths—might sit and vote upon Committees of the House, how important soever. He hoped that, meeting the conciliatory disposition of their Lordships, the other House would do what it was his deliberate opinion they ought to do—render it impossible for any person who had not taken the oaths to serve on Committees. Such a conclusion would, he thought, be all the more facilitated by an adjournment.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDdenied that the Amendment of the noble Earl would produce harmony between the two branches of the Legislature. One of two things would ensue. Either the other House of Parliament would have the power to expunge the words "on the true faith of a Christian," or it would not. If it had that power, the Jews would be admitted to the House of Commons, while, if their Lordships retained their opinions, they would be excluded from this House. Would this be harmony? He implored their Lordships to consider that they were now asked to tamper with the constitution of this country. He implored the noble Earl at the head of the Government to stand firm in his resistance to the Amendment. Any such proposal ought to be brought forward in the shape of a Bill, so that there might be ample time to consider it; but at present the House had been taken completely by surprise by the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I have never trespassed on your Lordships' time upon this question, although I have invariably given my vote in accordance with strong opinions which I still entertain. From the moment the

  1173
  Government was formed, my noble Friend behind me gave his colleagues full permission to vote as they pleased upon this subject. It is therefore not a Cabinet question, and I am as entitled to give my free and honest opinion upon it as if I were an independent Member of this House. Now, I have just said, that I have not altered my opinion with respect to the main point at issue. I object, as I always have objected, to change the constitution and admit the Jews into Parliament, I will not trouble your Lordships with the reasons on which this opinion is grounded—they have been much better explained by others; but I am bound to confess that I have for some time thought we were approaching one of those important and solemn Moments in our political history, when the principle for which we have so long battled is not all we must consider, but that we must look, however low that ground may be, to the facts of the case, and to the circumstances of the time. It is impossible not to feel persuaded that sooner or later—and rather soon than late—this question will be settled by the admission of Jews to Parliament. That is my conviction, although I have not changed my mind as to the principle involved and the merits of the discussion. What course, then, is it my duty as an independent Member of Parliament to take? I desire that the contest which has been carried on for so long a time between the two Houses should close in a manner satisfactory to both. I wish the noble Earl (the Earl of Lucan) had given us more time to consider the question he has raised; but I have heard his proposal to-night with anything but a feeling of opposition. I do not say that I am prepared to vote for it this evening, because I think it is placed before us in a very crude form; but I think his Amendment contains elements of a compromise between the two Houses. While, however, I entertain this view and feel that the circumstances of the time oblige us to look forward to a compromise as something almost inevitable, I cannot help saying, for the sake of my own opinions, and those of many noble Friends with whom I have heretofore had the honour of acting, that we ought to have some more security than appears to be given by the Amendment. I think it is the duty of the House of Lords, having lately so positively declared their opinions by the largest majority which, I believe, has ever been given here on this question, to maintain, and let the country understand plainly that they maintain, their
  1174
  opinions as to the principle at issue; while at the same time they are not unwilling to come to any reasonable compromise with the House of Commons which may not offend their conscientious convictions. I think I see the element of such a compromise in the Amendment—or in something like it—of my noble and gallant Friend. I think the most straightforward course to adopt, and that most consistent with the dignity and duty of this House, would be to proceed with the question as we at first expected to proceed with it, and that the House seould decide whether it will or will not adhere to the Amendments. When we have decided that point we, on this side of the House, are at least safe so far as our wishes and political intentions are concerned; but that does not prevent us from seeing a reasonable compromise proposed either from the opposite side or from this side of the House—I care not which—in the shape of a Bill which we may entertain as soon as it may suit your Lordships' convenience. For these reasons—believing the course I have suggested would be the most safe, most straightforward, and most honest we can follow—I hope the noble Earl opposite will not press his Motion for the adjournment, and that your Lordships will decide whether you will or will not adhere to the Amendments you sent down to the House of Commons. I only express my own individual opinion, but it is my hope and my earnest expectation that some noble Lord, when he has considered fully and maturely the best mode of compromise, may bring the subject before us in the shape of a Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have only to say that I have felt considerable gratification, in common, I believe, with a large majority of your Lordships, at the conciliatory tone of the two noble Earls opposite in treating this subject. All that now remains for the House to consider is, I think, whether it would be better to adjourn the debate until we have had an opportunity of coming to some arrangement with regard to this very important and critical question, or whether we should at once proceed to give a decided opinion upon the Bill, sending it back to the House of Commons in a shape in which they would not accede it. I must say I think the latter course would diminish all the grace of our proceeding, and at the same time might materially risk the object we desire to accomplish. I cordially concur with the noble Lord

  1175
  opposite in his desire to effect some satisfactory arrangement on this subject; and if you send back two Bills to the House of Commons—negativing that which you disapprove in the present measure, but along with it a Bill embodying the views which you support—you will then pursue a course that will strengthen your position. If, however, you strike a hostile blow now, be assured that the House of Commons will, in their turn, think they strengthen their position, not by compromise, but by pursuing a similarly hostile course. With the view of merely coming to a conclusion satisfactory to the House as well as to the public I appeal to the noble Earl not to force us to a division on this occasion.
  THE EARL OF POWISalso recommended an adjournment of the debate. It was of the greatest importance that nothing should occur to mar the compromise at which he hoped they might arrive. It was of the greatest importance that they should, if possible, be unanimous, and that on a religious question of this kind, any measure to which they might agree should have the assent of the right rev. Bench. If the debate was adjourned for a fortnight they would see in what mode the proposed enactments with respect to the Jews were to be carried out; while if they had a division on the question of the adjournment, it would tend very much to embarrass the question and to prevent their coming to an harmonious discussion.
  THE EARL OF LUCANwas understood to express his readiness to withdraw his Amendment, and his hope that a Bill embodying its objects would be introduced by some noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I wish I could altogether acquiesce in the proposition of the noble Earl (Earl Grey) for the adjournment of this question for a fortnight. I think, however, that an acquiescence in such adjournment might be liable to great misconstruction and misconception. My opinion is that, in the first instance, we ought, as Members of this House, to declare our adherence to our own views with regard to the merits of the proposition before us, leaving it subsequently to this and the other House of Parliament to consider whether, consistently with the maintenance of those opinions and principles, it would be possible to introduce any other measure. I think if we were to postpone the consideration of the whole question for a fortnight we should leave it in much more difficulty and embarrass-
  1176
  ment than that in which it is at present involved; whereas, if me now insist upon our Amendments, striking out of the Bill all that relates to the oath proposed to be taken by the Jews, and then leave either House of Parliament perfectly free to introduce a separate measure with regard to the Jews, or to non-Christians—which would extend beyond the Jews—we should entirely separate the two qustions and adhere to our own opinions with respect to the present Bill. If we send the present Bill down to the House of Commons it will be perfectly competent to them to hang it up until they see what further measures may be taken, and what is the result of any Bill that may be—I do not say will be—introduced in this or the other House. On the best consideration I have been able to give to the question—one which has come upon us rather by surprise—I think we should be sacrificing the principles and opinions of this House if we did not insist upon the Amendments we have made, at the same time intimating that we shall be ready to give attentive and dispassionate consideration to any Bill which may hereafter be introduced on the subject.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 68; Not-Contents 80: Majority 12.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  THE EARL OF LUCANsaid, that as it appeared to be the general feeling of the House that it would be better, in reference to the object of his Amendment, to proceed by way of specific Bill, he begged to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Powis, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Newcastle, D.

  Spencer, E.

  Norfolk, D.

  Stanhope, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Wicklow, E.

  Zetland, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Camden, M.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Townshend, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Airlie, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Sydney, V.

  Belmore, E.

  Torrington, V.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Derry and Raphoe, Bp.

  Chichester, E.

  London, Bp.

  Clarendon, E.

  Essex, E.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Audley, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Belper, L.

  Granville, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Grey, E.

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

  Lucan, E.

  Munster, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  1177

  Calthorpe, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Campbell, L.

  Overstone, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Panmure, L.

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

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

  Cranworth, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  De Tabley, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Ebury, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Lyndhurst, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Macaulay, L.

  Truro, L.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo)

  Vivian, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Achbp.

  Lifford, V.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bangor, Rp.

  Cashel, &c., Bp.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Manchester, D. [Teller.]

  Ripon, Bp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Rochester, Bp.

  Northumberland, D.

  Abinger, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Bagot, L.

  Bateman L.

  Abercorn, M.

  Berner's, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Boston, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Middleton).

  Winchester, M.

  Amherst, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.

  Bantry, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Clifton, L. (E. Durnley.)

  Cadogan, E.

  Cardigan, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Colchester, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Derby, E.

  Desart, E.

  Crewe, L.

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

  Crofton, L.

  De Ros L.

  Dinevor, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Feversham, L.

  Erne, E.

  Grantley, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Kilmaine, L.

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

  Harrington, E.

  Ilchester, E.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Mayo, E.

  Raglan L.

  Nelson, E.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Romney, F.

  Scarsdale, L.

  Talbot, E.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Verulam, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Sondes, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

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

  De Vesci, V.

  Templemore, L.

  Dungannon, V.

  Tenterden, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Walsingham, L.

  Hill, V.

  Wynford, L.

  LORD LYNDHURST: My Lords, I rise to move that your Lordships do not insist on your Amendments to the Oaths Bill, and I will state very shortly the rea-
  1178
  sons on which I rest that Motion. It must be quite obvious to any noble Lord who adverts to the course which has been taken on this Bill, that the House of Commons never could, consistently with its own conduct, adopt your Lordships' Amendment omitting the fifth clause of the Bill; because the effect of that Amendment is to place the Jews in a situation much more unfavourable than that in which they stand at present. If this fifth clause be struck out of the Bill, and the Bill should so pass into law, that would be effected which never hitherto has been done and has never been attempted to be done—namely, the exclusion of persons of the Jewish religion by a direct act of legislation, intentionally directed against them, from the right to sit and vote in Parliament; whereas at present they are supposed to be excluded—I say, deliberately, supposed to be excluded, for the question has never been finally decided, but is still depending before your Lordships House as a court of appeal,—by a misapplication, as the other House contends, and I also contend, of an enactment which was never intended to be directed against persons of the Jewish religion, but which was intended for a different purpose, and directed against a different class of persons. It is quite obvious, therefore, that the House of Commons never could assent to your Lordships' Amendments. The question that it is by a misapplication of an enactment that persons of the Jewish religion are excluded from Parliament has been repeatedly discussed, and I do not now intend to revive the discussion; but I cannot forbear adverting to the very terms of the Act of Parliament which is made use of for the purpose of excluding those persons from Parliament. The Act is the 1st of George 1., c. 13; and by that Act and by the oaths therein set forth the Jews are excluded from the right to sit and vote in either House of Parliament. But your Lordships will find in that very Act a most extraordinary clause, which is to this effect,—that any two justices of the peace may summon any persons they think proper before them for the purpose of administering the Oath of Abjuration; and if the person so summoned neglect or refuse to attend, then a return is to be made to quarter sessions, and judgment will be pronounced on the person so refusing or neglecting to attend. But what is that judgment? They are to be adjudged as "Popish recusants convict;" so that a

  1179
  person of the Jewish religion might under that Act be adjudged to be a Christian of the Roman Catholic persuasion, and a bigoted Christian of that persuasion. Can it be contended for a moment that the Act of Parliament was intended to apply to persons of the Jewish persuasion? It is a monstrous and absurd position. Let me go further, and direct your Lordships' attention to the manner in which this Jew, who is converted into a Christian and a Catholic of the most obstinate character, is to be relieved from the penalties to which be is subject. He is to be relieved by attending regularly divine service in the church of the parish in which he lives. So that this Jew is in the first instance converted into a Christian, then into a Roman Catholic of the most obstinate character, and then into a Protestant. Is it possible that any reasonable man can contend that the Act was intended to apply to persons of the Jewish religion? The proposition is too monstrous. I will now make a few observations for the purpose of showing that members of the Jewish religion will, if this Bill passes into law without the fifth clause, be placed in a worse position than that in which they now stand. The construction put by many persons on the first clause (I am not now saying whether it is the right construction or not) is this, that if the new oath, as stated in the first clause, is to be substituted for the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, which are now "respectively required to be taken and subscribed," the effect of the word "respectively," used in the clause and repeated in the third clause, would be that the new oath is not only to be substituted for the old oaths when they are required to be taken conjointly, but is to be substituted for the oaths on occasions when they are separately administered. So that the oath in this Bill must be substituted for the Oath of Allegiance and also for the Oath of Supremacy; and where a party was formerly bound to take only the Oath of Allegiance he will now be bound to take the oath set forth in this Bill. What will be the consequence of such a construction of the Bill? There are many persons holding offices for which they are required only to take the Oath of Allegiance. In order to be admitted to practise as a solicitor or attorney a person need take the Oath of Allegiance only-; and many Jews, having no objection to take the Oath of Allegiance, practise as solicitors and attorneys. But if this new oath is to be substituted for the
  1180
  Oath of Allegiance, Jews would be debarred from practising in those capacities. I do not say myself that this is a certain construction of the Bill; but it is a construction concurred in by many grave and learned persons; and what injury would be inflicted on persons of the Jewish persuasion by making it doubtful whether they could practise as solicitors and attorneys, or hold offices for which the taking the Oath of Allegiance is alone necessary? Your Lordships will therefore see how impossible it is for the House of Commons to agree to your Lordships' Amendment omitting the fifth clause, if the effect of it is to render the situation of the Jewish people much worse than it is at present. The House of Commons would stultify itself by adopting an Amendment of such a nature. If this Bill is not passed into a law—for it must inevitably be lost if we insist upon our Amendments—where shall we stand? We must revert to the present Oath of Abjuration. Who is there that does not feel the strongest repugnance to taking that oath? Every Member of this and of the other House of Parliament, every candidate for public office, must take this oath. Invoking the Deity in the most solemn manner—speaking in the presence of Almighty God—I declare upon my conscience that no descendant of the Pretender—knowing that there is no such person in existence, or by possibility can ever come into existence—has any right or title to the Crown of these realms. What a solemn mockery! Under the same sanction I abjure and renounce the opinions of non-existing persons; and, thirdly, I declare this according to the ordinary meaning of the words, without qualification or mental reservation, invoking my character as a Christian to the truth of what I have said. What a scandalous proceeding is this! and we are told by the third Commandment not to take unnecessary oaths! I do not say that the party who is compelled by the Legislature to take such an oath is guilty of a sin, but I do say that your Lordships in maintaining the oath when you have the power to abolish it place yourselves in a very grave position. Let us consider the state of this question at the present moment. A gentleman of the Jewish religion is capable of being elected to the House of Commons, and in fact Baron Rothschild has been returned to three successive Parliaments. He is a Member of the House, he has a right to vote in the choice of a Speaker, and he has, I believe,

  1181
  exercised that right. He is capable of sitting on Committees of the House of Commons; nay, even of acting as chairman. The most important questions of a constitutional and administrative nature may come before such Committees. Baron Rothschild may decide those questions by his casting vote as chairman, and thus exercise great influence upon the Government of the country. But the important functions which he has a right to discharge do not end here. He may come up to this House for the purpose of managing a Conference, and may argue the most important questions with the Members of your Lordships' House; and he may present petitions from his constituents and others. All these important duties may now be performed by a Member of the Jewish persuasion. Well, Baron Rothschild says he is willing to take the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, either separately or conjointly, in the manner most binding upon his conscience. "No," we say, "you shall not do that; we insist upon your taking the oaths in a form that is not binding upon your conscience—in a form that you cannot accept, because it is inconsistent with the principles of your religion." How is it possible for us to persevere in such a monstrous absurdity? For twenty years and in five different Parliaments the House of Commons has pressed upon us a change of the oaths; but we have invariably rejected the Bills sent up to us for that purpose. How long is this state of things to continue? Where is it to terminate? I feel much anxiety upon that point, and many noble Lords have communicated to me, what has been confirmed to-night, that there is a general desire among your Lordships to put an end to the existing state of things. I beg to state with all submission, deference, and respect to your Lordships, that when you differ continuously from the other House of Parliament with respect to any great measure—particularly where that measure affects the constituencies of the country, where it relates to popular rights, where it is connected with the principles of religious liberty—you must take care that you rest your opposition upon solid grounds, upon grounds which are impregnable, and that reason, argument, and justice are strongly with you. Can your Lordships say as much on the present occasion? Do you think the arguments against the Jews are so strong and overwhelming, and the justice of the case so manifestly in your
  1182
  favour, that you are safe in persevering in the course you have adopted? Something has been said as to popular opinion. In dealing with a question of this kind we ought not only to be satisfied that reason and authority are with us, but to feel that we are backed by public opinion—meaning not the opinion of the rabble, but the sound understanding and intellect of informed persons, and how are we to ascertain this state of public opinion? The only constitutional mode of ascertaining the state of public opinion is to look at the representatives of the people in the other House of Parliament. The Members of the House of Commons speak the voice of their constituencies, and the constituencies sympathize with the rest of their neighbours. I do not rely upon a single Parliament, which may have been elected under some particular excitement, but when I find Parliament after Parliament, and in this case five successive Parliaments, pushing forward measures of this kind by increasing majorities, I say that you could not have a better test of what public opinion is than what I have now stated. But it may be said that we cannot depart from our course without compromising our dig-pity. If we are to stickle upon our dignity, and the other House is to do the same, legislation must come to a standstill. True dignity must have as its companions reason and prudence—above all, prudence. What is the view foreigners sometimes take of our legislative body? They say we are three independent Powers, and must be in continual conflict with each other, all our proceedings ending in confusion. The argument is fair and plausible; but how are these evils obviated? Why, by our training. We are trained to conciliation, to the necessity of forbearance, to entertain mutual respect for each other; and it is in consequence of acting upon these principles that the machinery works well to a beneficial and happy result. I beg to impress these principles and opinions strongly upon your Lordships. I will not, because it has already been done, direct your Lordships' attention to the particular Reasons assigned by the other House of Parliament for disagreeing with our Amendments. Two of those Reasons have already received considerable discussion. Of the seven remaining Reasons five are statements of facts—facts of the utmost importance, of a very grave character, bearing strongly upon this question, and forcibly pressing

  1183
  the adoption of this measure. None of these facts can by possibility be disputed; they are decisive in their effect, and in their result. But, my Lords, there are two of these Reasons in point of principle to which my noble Friend near me has adverted. The second Reason is, that to exclude persons from seats in the Legislature, and from offices, on account of their religious opinions, is contrary to the great principles of freedom of conscience. I think "freedom of conscience" are the words used. At all events, that is the substance of the Reason. Now, there are some persons who seem to think that if you tolerate those who differ from you in religion, you do all that can be required. But that is a very narrow view of the subject. It is not the view which I have ever taken, or to which the persons who have advocated the great principles of religious liberty have ever acceded. What I said on a former evening, and what I now repeat, is, that you ought not to exclude persons from offices or from seats in the Legislature on account of their religious opinions, unless those opinions are such as to render them incapable of properly performing the duties incident to the positions to which they aspire, That is the great principle to which I adhere, and the truth which I am persuaded cannot be questioned. The fifth of the Commons' Reasons is, to the effect that to exclude persons from seats in the Legislature or from office, on account of their religious opinions, savours of persecution. My Lords, I adopt that statement. Try it by this test:—If you impose a pecuniary fine on account of religious opinions, every man allows that that is religious persecution; but what is the imposition of a fine in comparison with excluding a man from all the advantages of high position, of office, of opportunities of distinguishing himself, and of pursuing the great objects of lawful ambition? and if a pecuniary fine is to be considered, and fairly considered, a breach of religious freedom, and an instance of religious persecution, far more so are those exclusions to which I have just adverted. I read a few years ago a speech delivered in the other House of Parliament twenty years ago by a learned Friend of mine, in which this argument is stated with a felicity of illustration and a force of argument characteristic of his great genius. He (Lord Macaulay) is now a Member of your Lordships' House, and has been present during this debate. Whether he is now in the
  1184
  House I cannot say, but if he is I am sure that we should all rejoice to receive on this occasion the first fruits of his advancement, founded on such great, such extraordinary talents. I will not go into the general argument; but when I hear it said, as I have done lately, that those who support this measure are persons of revolutionary principles and character—French revolutionists, as it is called—my answer is simply this—"Look at the list of eminent individuals, distinguished statesmen, men of high character and great constitutional principles, who have for twenty years advocated this cause;" and when I further hear it stated, as it was upon the same occasion and by the same individual, that those who supported this measure must be considered as destitute of religious principle, as persons indifferent to religion, I make precisely the same answer, and appeal, in answer to these allegations, to those pious, religious, and highly moral individuals; and I may add also, to those most Christian members of the right rev. Bench by whom this Bill has been supported. My Lords, I do not regret these charges. They appear to be the last struggles of a desperate and expiring cause, and as such I hail them with pleasure. For these reasons, which I have perhaps stated at too much length, I shall move that we do not insist upon our Amendments, I must, however, observe, which I have omitted to do, that the Amendments to which my Motion refers are twofold—the Amendment which strikes out the fifth, and that which strikes out the eighth and last clause. Now, the latter of these Amendments is of a singular character, because, owing to the clause, no person of the Jewish religion could hold any of the high offices which are mentioned in it; that section is now struck out by my noble Friend; and what is the result? That members of the Jewish persuasion may be lawfully and constitutionally placed in almost every one of those high offices. One of them is that of Commissioner of the Great Seal. A Commissioner of the Great Seal may sit upon the woolsack where my noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) is now sitting; and thus an eminent lawyer may, as such a Commissioner, occupy that seat. So inconsistent is the course of the Amendments which have been adopted by your Lordships. Another extraordinary fact is, that although by these Amendments you place the members of the Jewish persuasion in a worse situation than

  1185
  that in which they now stand, you have declared this to be "a Bill for the relief of persons professing the Jewish religion," not condescending to go through the Bill for the purpose of rendering all its parts reconcilable. For these reasons, therefore, I move that this House do not insist upon the Amendments to the Bill which has been sent up by the Commons.
  Moved, Not to insist on the Amendments made by this House to which the Commons disagree.
  LORD DE ROSasked whether on any great emergencies the Jews had ever appeared in arms for the defence of this country? Why, when England was menaced with invasion, did not the Jews imitate the example of the lawyers and other professions and establish volunteer or fencible corps among themselves? Why were they not to be found in Her Majesty's ships and in her army? The fact was that the Jew always looked upon himself as an alien in the country in which he dwelt, and that was a good reason why he should not be admitted to Parliament.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, having proposed the Amendments with which the Commons have disagreed, your Lordships will naturally expect that I should offer a few observations in answer to the Reasons advanced by that House to induce your Lordships not to insist upon them. I most deeply regret that I am directly opposed to my noble and learned Friend who has supported the Reasons of the Commons with that weight and eloquence with which he always commands the attention of your Lordships, and I certainly must join to that of my noble Friend at the head of the Government my praise of the wonderful intellect the exhibition of which your Lordships have heard with so much admiration and delight, and which is now setting in unclouded brightness, almost excelling the splendour of its noontide. When I heard that the Commons had appointed managers to confer with your Lordships upon the Amendments which you have made in the Bill, I certainly entertained very considerable apprehension that the Reasons which would be assigned by them, being the result of political tact, of professional acuteness, and of personal interest, would be so forcible that it would be quite impossible for your Lordships to resist them. I speak of "personal interest" having been concerned in framing these Reasons, because, as has been already communicated to your Lordships,
  1186
  the Commons thought proper to appoint as one of the managers of the Conference with your Lordships the gentleman who is most immediately interested in the result of these discussions. If the Commons meant this as a piece of practical pleasantry, I am sure your Lordships will not grudge them any harmless amusement they may have derived from it; but if they intended to make an impression on your Lordships, and produce a startling effect, I must say that your Lordships have received it with provoking composure. When I heard of the united wisdom of those who had been selected by a majority of the House of Commons to manage this Conference having been deliberately preparing Reasons why they should not agree to your Lordships' Amendments, I anticipated that they would have ascended to the height of this great argument, and I hardly expected that the Reasons they would put forward would have been so deficient both in grammatical accuracy and in logical sequence. The Commons begin by stating that they "disagree to the Amendments made by the Lords to the Oaths Bill (those Amendments being the omission of Clauses 5 and 8) for the following reasons;" but they don't begin with any reason at all. On the contrary, they commence with a fact. They say,
  "Because the words 'on the true faith of a Christian,' were originally introduced into the oaths to be taken by Members of Parliament with a view to bind certain Roman Catholics, and were not intended for the purpose of excluding persons of the Jewish persuasion."
  We have conceded that over and over again: we admit there was no intention whatever of excluding the Jew from Parliament by the use of these words in the oath. But while that concession is accepted by the advocates of the Jews, they do not take the consequence with it,—that by the insertion of these words in the oath which all Members of Parliament are compelled to take there was a legislative declaration that every Member of Parliament should be a Christian. When that fact is stated, and put forth as a reason, the Commons can hardly mean to say that because the Act was not originally intended to exclude the Jews, therefore, the Jews ought to be admitted. Then we come to the second reason, namely:—
  "Because the exclusion of British subjects from seats in Parliament and officers of the State, on the ground of their religious opinions, is contrary to the general maxims of freedom of conscience."

  1187
  Now, with great deference to the Commons, I do not quite understand that paragraph. I cannot understand what is meant by the expression "contrary to the general maxims of freedom of conscience." How, I would ask, does the exclusion of persons from Parliament or from office violate conscience? It may hold out temptations to persons to conceal their religious opinions or profess those which they do not entertain; but that is not a violation of "freedom of conscience." I apprehend your Lordships will not feel any great sympathy with persons who entertained such ideas respecting "freedom of conscience," and it is really extraordinary that after careful deliberation the managers of this Conference should have fallen into the inconsistency pointed out by my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), and that they should actually have sent you up a Bill in which they have excluded the Jews from certain offices, that exclusion entirely resting on the ground of their religious opinions. As to the omissions of the 8th clause, my noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) says, the consequence of that will be that gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion might hold high offices and even sit on the woolsack as Lord Chancellor or Commissioner of the Great Seal—my noble and learned Friend being aware that those offices necessarily involved the taking the Oath of Abjuration, which Oath of Abjuration excludes the Jews from Parliament as well as from these offices. Well, then, the Commons go on to say:—
  "3. Because no charge of disloyalty or unfitness for public employment and a fair share of legislative power has been alleged, or can be alleged, against the Jewish community."
  I don't know what hidden mystery there may be in the word "fair." No one has ever supposed that the advocates of the Jews wished them to have an unfair share of legislative power. The argument involved in this Reason is, that any person who is not disloyal or unfit—I suppose meaning mentally unfit—for public employment is entitled to what is called "a fair share of legislative power." That has been already answered by my noble Friend at the head of the Government. All persons in a free country are entitled to all civil rights, but they are not entitled to a share of political rights, except on such conditions as the Legislature which confers that power may attach to its exercise; and therefore, the argument is illogical and ill-founded that because the Jews are loyal
  1188
  and not unfit for employment they are therefore entitled to it. The fourth Reason, as has been well remarked by my noble Friend, might very well form part of the second and the two be read together; but the expression is a little singular.
  "Because the infliction of disabilities upon any class of her Majesty's subjects solely on the ground of their conscientious adherence to their faith savours of persecution, and is totally inconsistent with those principles of religious liberty which, in the case of more powerful communities, have been applied by Parliament with such happy effects."
  I am prepared to go a little further, and will say that the infliction of disabilities upon any class of Her Majesty's subjects solely on the ground of their conscientious adherence to their faith is persecution. But the word "solely" in that clause is a somewhat emphatic word. If I were to say to a Jew, "in consequence of my abhorrence of your religion, I will exclude you from all civil and religious rights," that would most undoubtedly be persecution, because it would be "solely" on the ground of his adherence to his faith. But if I were to say to a Jew, "Your religious opinions are hostile to the constitution—the Parliament is a Christian Parliament—the admission of a person of the Jewish persuasion would be an invasion of the principle," that would not be an exclusion of Jews "solely" upon the ground of his adherence to his faith; it would be an exclusion on the ground of self-protection and self-defence; and there is no reason that can be urged, or has ever been heard, why Parliament should not protect itself in that way against the intrusion of persons hostile to the principles on which it is founded. The clause states that it "is totally inconsistent with those principles of religious liberty which in the case of more powerful communities have been applied by Parliament with such happy effects." I know only one instance in which Parliament has interfered with a powerful community with reference to its power to sit in Parliament, and that is in the case of the Roman Catholics. What is the meaning of the words "more powerful communities," I am therefore unable to say. I now cone to the ground on which the Commons place the most reliance.
  "Because the Commons having already on ten previous occasions and in five Parliaments passed Bills for removing the civil disabilities of the Jews, and having of late years agreed to such Bills by constantly increasing majorities, are

  1189
  convinced that the opinion of their constituents and of the country at large has been irrevocably pronounced in favour of the removal of such disabilities."
  I think there is a considerable amount of fallacy lurking in that argument. Let us bring the question to the test and see whether it is a fair conclusion from the nature of the proposition, that because the Commons "have already on ten previous occasions passed Bills for removing the civil disabilities of the Jews," therefore "the opinion of their constituents and of the country at large has been irrevocably pronounced in favour of the removal of such disabilities." I am afraid that if this test is always to be applied when a Bill of the Commons is rejected by your Lordships, it will become a precedent which will be very much followed and abused. Take for instance the case of church rates. I know perfectly well that in many large towns the public feeling is in favour of the abolition of church rates; but I also know that the great majority of the country is against that abolition. Bills on that subject have been sent up over and over again by the Commons. Probably they passed that House by increasing majorities, and the Commons might say that was a convincing proof that the "irrevocable" judgment of the country is in favour of the measure; and if your Lordships give way on the present occasion, that argument may be urged with still greater force than it now possesses. I will take another question on which your Lordships will soon hear—the painful and distressing question of legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister. That measure has passed the Commons by considerable majorities, and may it not be argued, if this precedent should be established, that public opinion is "irrevocably" in its favour. I consider the conclusion of the Commons a most illogical one. I can understand perfectly well how a majority of the House believing that the principles of civil and religious liberty are involved in the question, without very nicely defining the term, might be disposed to give in their adhesion. But I do not believe there is any opinion in the country in favour of the measure. On the contrary, I believe that a feeling of great apathy and indifference exists, and that if there is any repugnance it is one of an inert and languid kind. The question has never been submitted to the constituencies, and I believe that if it were brought under their consideration, it would be found that the great majority of the
  1190
  country are against the admission of the Jews to Parliament. If we are to judge by the petitions which are sometimes accepted as an indication of public feeling, we find that one side may be counted by hundreds and the other by thousands. The next argument urged by the House of Commons, is—
  "Because such Bills have been supported by many of the most eminent Members of both Houses of Parliament, who while differing upon other political questions, have concurred in the justice and expediency of measures for the relief of the Jews,"
  The argument was a most extraordinary one. If the House is to be pressed by the weight of authority, I may venture to call your Lordships' attention to a great number of eminent men who have been consistent in their opposition to the Jewish claims, and who have not heard anything to induce them to change their opinions. But surely the House ought not to be pressed with the authority of great names. It ought to deal with arguments; and I am astonished that the Commons should have thought proper deliberately to place this amongst their Reasons and present it as ground for inducing their Lordships to give way. The seventh Reason assigned by the Commons is—
  "Because the rights of the electors of the United Kingdom have been peculiarly affected by a law which has been construed to prevent the admission to the House of Commons of persons who have been lawfully returned as Members of that House."
  I have read that Reason over and over again, and cannot understand whether the objection is to the law or to the construction of the law. If to the latter, I may appeal to a noble and learned Friend near me, one of the Judges, who decided that the words, "upon the true faith of a Christian" are a substantial and essential part of the oath, and cannot be dispensed with. If they mean to object to the law, they admit the law to exist; and then I want to know what they mean by talking about "the rights of the electors;" because electors can have no rights which are in contravention of the law. They may, perhaps, say that electors are restricted in their rights; but to speak of the rights of electors in a Reason in which they point out the law as the ground of exclusion, is an inconsistency which I could hardly have expected from a grave body selected to represent the wisdom of the House of Commons. I now come to the eighth and ninth Reasons, and here I will encounter

  1191
  my noble and learned Friend on his own ground. It is true we agree entirely on the ninth Reason, supposing the effect of the omission of the two clauses should be to prevent the Jews from holding those offices to which they might otherwise be entitled. My noble and learned Friend has directed your Lordships' attention to the 1st Geo. III., c. 13, stating that it was absurd to suppose that it would apply to the Jews, because the oath was to be administered by two justices of the peace; and persons who refused to take the oath were to be treated as Popish recusants. I am not going to justify all the provisions of an old Act of Parliament, but if the Jew is required to take the Oath of Abjuration, which he clearly is, before he can be admitted to Parliament or be qualified for certain offices, undoubtedly that Act of Parliament applies to the Jew as to every other person who desires to sit in Parliament or to hold those offices. My noble and learned Friend adopts the Reasons of the Commons:—
  "Because the first and third clauses of the Bill are open to the construction that the new oath which the former of them contains should be taken, not only in all cases where the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration are now required, but also where the oaths of allegiance and supremacy are at present required, though without the oath of abjuration; the result of which construction, if the Bill should pass into law without the fifth clause, would be to exclude the Jews from practising as solicitors and barristers, and from offices under the Crown, to which employments and offices they are now admitted. Because such result would be contrary to the intention of the two Houses of Parliament, appearing from the sixth clause and from the title of the Bill under consideration."
  I am anxious to hear from my noble and learned Friend what are the offices under the Crown which required only the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy to be taken, and not the Oath of Abjuration.
  LORD LYNDHURST: The Oath of Allegiance only is required to be taken under the 6 & 7 Vict. by parties accepting office, but they are afterwards obliged to take all the oaths, including the Oath of Abjuration. They are exempt from the penalty of taking the three oaths by the operation of the Act of Indemnity. A magistrate of the Jewish persuasion does not take the oaths at all.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORobserved, that by the Act of George I., attorneys, solicitors, and barristers were compelled to take the three oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, before they were entitled to practice.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, they were compelled to take the Oath of Allegiance on accepting office, but it was not necessary for them to take the other oaths until three months afterwards.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They are only required to take the Oath of Allegiance, and it is only when they are required to take the Oath of Abjuration that they need the protection of the new oath which is sought to be provided, and he must say—with all deference to my noble and learned Friend—that the House of Commons was a little careless in saying in their eighth Reason that the passing of the Bill without the fifth clause would prevent a Jew from practising as a barrister or solicitor. The Reasons are not founded on fact; and although I have endeavoured to ascertain whether there are any offices under the Crown which require the Oath of Allegiance without the Oath of Abjuration, I have not been able to find any such. In deference to my noble and learned Friend and the managers of the Conference on the part of the House of Commons I have thought it my duty to go seriatim through the various Reasons which they have assigned for disagreeing to your Lordships' Amendments; and I must say I felt considerably relieved when I found that those which they have brought forward are the best which after careful deliberation their united wisdom could adduce. It is evident that no stronger arguments can be urged in support of their views, and I now very confidently submit that the arguments which have been laid before you furnish no good grounds why you should depart from that conclusion at which you but the other night arrived by a large majority.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he should not enter into the various arguments which had been addressed to their Lordships by the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken; but in abstaining from doing so, lie must not be supposed to be of opinion that those arguments might not be easily answered. His object in rising was simply to appeal to his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) to consider whether it was desirable that he should put their Lordships to the trouble of dividing upon the present occasion. The question of Jewish emancipation had that evening made an immense advance in their Lordships' House, and he for one was sufficiently sanguine to think that it was virtually settled. It was nevertheless clear, notwith-

  1193
  standing that such a satisfactory state of things had been brought about, that the advocates of the cause of the Jews were not so strong as to be in a position to carry that evening the proposition of his noble and learned Friend. He trusted, however, that, taking into account the very conciliatory declaration which had been made by two leading members of the Government in that House, his noble and learned Friend would perceive the expediency—particularly if he himself would undertake to use the weight of his authority in endeavouring to frame some such measure, in conjunction with the noble Earl opposite, as had been hinted at in the course of the discussion, and which would settle for ever the embarrassing question with which they were dealing—of not proceeding to a division. Should the noble and learned Lord not assent to the adoption of that course, he should certainly vote with him.
  LORD BROUGHAMmade a similar appeal to the noble and learned Lord, and expressed a hope that everything in the proceedings of that evening should be forgotten, except that which was favourable, to conciliation.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, he had no hesitation in at once adopting the suggestion which had been thrown out by the noble Earl opposite. He had no wish to put the House to the trouble of dividing, and was equally anxious, with his noble and learned Friend, that the spirit of conciliation should survive these proceedings, and that everything should pass off as smoothly as possible, thus affording the best introduction to that future measure to which allusion had been made.
  On Question, whether to insist?
  Resolved in the affirmative; and a Committee appointed to prepare Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insisting on their Amendments to the said Bill, to which the Commons disagree.

  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER'S SPEECH AT SLOUGH.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I beg leave to give notice that I propose to call your Lordships' attention to-morrow to a speech which was recently delivered elsewhere by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and especially to certain statements made by that right hon. Gentleman affecting the department over which I had the honour to preside, and impugning a statement of mine which was quoted by a noble Friend of mine
  1194
  in "another place." I intended to have brought the subject under your Lordships' notice this evening, but in the present state of the House I think it better to defer doing so until to-morrow.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I am much obliged to my noble Friend for having given us due notice of his intention, for I shall have an opportunity of reading before tomorrow evening my right hon. Friend's speech.
  House adjourned at a Quarter to Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.