Sitting of 23 August 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Divorce Court.
3° Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Exchequer Bonds or Bills (£2,000,000); Endowed Charities; Naval Discipline; Church Temporalities (Ireland) Acts Amendment; Union of Benefices.

OUR RELATIONS WITH PARAGUAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in what condition were our relations, diplomatic and otherwise, with the Republic of Paraguay, more especially in reference to the

  1723
  recent dispute respecting the imprisonment and subsequent liberation of an alleged British subject, named Canstatt, by the Paraguayan Government; also whether, in consequence of the re-admission of the State of Buenos Ayres into the Argentine Confederation, Her Majesty's Envoy will again reside in the City of Buenos Ayres, the commercial capital of the Confederation, instead of in the City of Parana, as at Present?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, it is quite true that our diplomatic relations with the Government of Paraguay were suspended in consequence of the arrest and imprisonment—as we contend, the unjust arrest and cruel imprisonment of Mr. Canstatt, a British subject. That unfortunate gentleman was detained a very considerable time in prison, but he was at last released. I believe his release was in part owing to a sort of intention manifested by one of the British cruisers in the river Plate to seize and detain a Paraguayan vessel at Buenos Ayres. That attempt did not succeed, and the Paraguayan vessel got safe back into Buenos Ayrean waters, but I am inclined to believe that attempt materially influenced the Paraguayan Government in ordering the release of Mr. Canstatt. Her Majesty's Government have since demanded satisfaction and compensation for the losses which that gentleman has sustained. That demand has not yet been complied with, and therefore our relations with Paraguay have not yet been renewed. I trust, however, that the Paraguayan Government will feel, upon further reflection, that it is due to their own character and the honour of their country to make the compensation we ask for. As to the other question it is well known that the Province of Buenos Ayres has separated from the Argentine Confederation, and our Mission was established at Parana. Lately communications have passed between the Government of the Province of Buenos Ayres and that of the Argentine Confederation, which may lead to the reunion of the Province with the Confederation. Until that is finally settled the British Mission will remain at Parana. Where it will be afterwards I cannot now say, as it depends upon the arrangements between the Province and the Confederation.

  EGYPT AND THE SUEZ CANAL COMPANY—QUESTION.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the
  1724
  Treasury, Whether he can give any information as to the statement which has appeared in the newspapers, that the Pasha of Egypt has enabled the Suez Canal Company to be constituted, by taking up shares to the amount of 95,000,000 f. (upwards of £3,500,000) which it had been found impossible to place, and thereby prevented the dissolution of the Company? He also wished to ask, whether any negotiations are pending in relation to the Suez Canal, and whether Mr. Cobden has any instructions to negotiate in Paris upon that subject. He further would ask the noble Lord whether the Pasha of Egypt, before contracting the late loan through Messrs. Lafitte, of Paris, has had the sanction of the Porte; and, if not, whether it be not an infraction of the Treaty of Settlement effected at the close of the Syrian War in 1840?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It is quite true, Sir, as my hon. Friend has said, that the Pasha of Egypt has been induced to take a large number of shares in the Suez Canal Company. That Company is, as I have often said, one of the greatest and most remarkable attempts at delusion that has been practised in modern times. It is a complete fallacy from beginning to end. A great many persons in France—small people—have been induced to take small shares under the notion that the concern would be a profitable matter. The progress of the works in Egypt, however, has been such as to show that, if not impracticable, it will require an expenditure of money, time, and labour quite beyond the reach of any private company. The projector of the scheme, M. Lesseps, found that a house at Trieste had repudiated a large number of shares which they had been induced to take, and he then thought that the Pasha of Egypt was a good person upon whom to fix the responsibility of accepting them. He accordingly induced the unfortunate Pasha to take 64,000 shares, amounting to about 32,000,000 f. M. Lesseps afterwards wished him to take a larger number of shares, but the unfortunate Pasha, who had been once hoodwinked, had now his eyes open; he refused to accept any more. M. Lesseps, however, wishing in his benevolence to do the Pasha a service which the Pasha himself was not sensible of, without the consent of the Pasha placed to his credit a large additional number of shares, amounting in value to about the sum mentioned by my hon. Friend. When the Pasha is

  1725
  called on for his money, I can only hope for his own sake that it will not he forthcoming. As to the other question, I have to say that the Pasha has contracted a loan with a house at Marseilles, hut the loan has been contracted by him in his private capacity. In fulfilment of his engagement with the Suez Canal Company he has mortgaged all his private property in Egypt to this house at Marseilles. That has not been done with the consent of the Turkish Government, and that consent was not necessary. There is nothing in the Convention to which my hon. Friend refers which militates against the right of the Pasha to deal with what he deems to be his private property. I am not aware of any negotiations that are going on upon this subject. There have been negotiations between the British and French Governments, and we have all along expressed our opinions upon this subject. The French Government has said that they will take no part in the affair. The French agents, who are not always sustained by their Government, have, I believe, locally taken an active part. There is no particular negotiation going on at present, and Mr. Cobdeti has received no instructions bearing upon this subject.
  MR. SPOONER: Is Mr. Cobden our Minister at Paris, as well as Earl Cowley?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Mr. Cobden is authorized, as Commissioner, in conjunction with Earl Cowley, to negotiate the points which remain to be settled in relation to the Commercial Treaty.
  Afterwards—
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he had just received a letter which somewhat modified the answer he had given to his hon. Friend (Mr. D. Seymour) on the subject of the Egyptian loan. It appeared from a despatch received from Alexandria that an agent had left Alexandria for Paris with a deed of loan for 28,000,000f., contracted not at Marseilles, but through Messrs Lafitte. The loan was to be secured on the Customs' duties of Alexandria. The Treaty of 1841 did not preclude the Egyptian Government from entering into such a Treaty, but at the same time it was proper to state that there was a previous loan by the Turkish Government which would have a prior claim upon the revenue of Egypt.

  SHIP CANAL ACROSS THE ISTHMUS OF DARIEN.—QUESTION.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he would beg to ask
  1726
  the First Lord of the Treasury, are there any political difficulties in the way of the project for the junction of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by a Ship Canal across the Isthmus of Darien, from Caledonia Bay to the Gulf of San Miguel; and is the Government prepared to co-operate with the Emperor of the French, who has offered to send a Vessel of War and a Staff of Engineers to survey the line, which His Majesty has declared to be perfectly feasible? VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, there is no political impediment whatever to the creation of a canal across the Isthmus of Darien. On the contrary, there was an agreement entered into between the British and American Governments to protect any canal that might be made at any part of that isthmus, particularly in reference to a notion entertained once of a canal in the neighbourhood of Nicaragua. Before 1852 an active enterprising Irish gentleman, Dr. Cullen, had very meritoriously by his own efforts surveyed that part of the isthmus, and he was of opinion that a canal might be cut there more easily than at any other part of the isthmus. The result was that in 1852 a company was established, and the English, American, and French Governments, being impressed with the conviction that the scheme would be an advantageous one in the interest of the world, a communication was made to the Emperor at Paris, and, at the end of 1853, England, France, and America united to assist in exploring that part of the isthmus in order to ascertain whether it would be practicable to cut a canal. That survey occupied the whole of 1854, and at the end of that time, Mr. Gisborne having gone out as engineer of the company, English and American engineer officers were sent to make a survey, and the result was that they were of opinion that the scheme was impracticable, as the Cordilleras extended like a back-bone along the isthmus, at a height ten times too great to admit of a ship canal being formed through them. However desirable, therefore, such a work might be, and however plausible such a scheme might appear when simply viewed upon the map, an actual examination of the ground resulted in the opinion that it was not a project which could practically be carried into effect. Dr. Cullen applied last autumn for for a renewed expedition, and both Governments were willing to grant the presence of a ship of war upon the coast, so far as was practicable, without interfering with their naval duties. Dr. Cullen then made

  1727
  an application, not unnatural in his position, for pecuniary assistance towards carrying out the project, but the Government did not feel that they were justified in acceding to that request.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  THIRD READING.
  On Question that the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill be read a third time,
TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH THE EAST.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he had a question to put to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to the convention which had been entered into by the late Government with the Government of Austria, providing for the establishment of a telegraphic line of communication between Ragusa and Corfu and between Corfu and Alexandria; and, though he addressed his question to the Secretary to the Treasury, he hoped he might also bespeak for it the attention of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, as the subject was one of the greatest importance to the interests of this country. By the convention to which he had referred, a line of telegraphic communication was to be established between Ragusa and Corfu and between Corfu and Alexandria. The cost of the undertaking was to be £500,000, and the convention provided that a guarantee should be given to the shareholders of the company promoting the line to the amount of 3 per cent on the outlay of £500,000, the sum of £15,000 being paid by this country and £15,000 by Austria. The consideration of this question came before the Government of this country some years ago, and on the accession of the Earl of Derby's Administration to office, they thought it desirable that the proposed line of communication should be carried out as soon as possible. They accordingly entered into a convention with the Austrian Government on the terms which he had just mentioned. They thought that for the small sum of £15,000 a year the greatest advantages would be secured to this country; that a direct and independent telegraphic communication would be secured with Alexandria and our Eastern possessions, so that they would no longer be dependent on the means of com-
  1728
  munication through Franco or through any portion of the Neapolitan territory. But beyond this they had important establishments in Malta, and for a communication with that place it was of the highest importance that this line should be established; because it was acknowledged by all who had any knowledge of the Mediterranean submarine communication that the only feasible line was between Ragusa, Corfu, and Alexandria, and then it remained only to establish a link between Malta and Corfu. He was satisfied that for this sum of £15,000, this country would secure for herself much greater advantages than would be derived from it by Austria. He was given to understand that the Austrian Government were anxious still to carry out this convention, but that they were anxious also there should be some modification of the terms. He would give no opinion on that point. He was only anxious that Her Majesty's Government should pay the most earnest attention to the subject, and that they should not be led away by any fancied objections to give up a scheme which he believed would confer the greatest advantages on the country. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, referring to the subject some evenings ago, spoke of the numerous failures that bad occurred in telegraphic enterprises, and particularly pointed out the case of the Atlantic telegraph; but, in reality, no comparison could be established between the two cases, because, in the present instance, the length of cable was very much shorter than in that of the Atlantic, the soundings were more favourable, and the contract had been entered into by the Austrian Government with English gentlemen of the highest eminence, who had already 4,000 miles of submarine telegraph under their control and in efficient working order. An objection had been raised to the scheme which he did not think entitled to much weight, and that was that it was not desirable in matters of this kind to enter into joint arrangements with the Government of another country. Supposing such an objection to have weight in other instances, it had none in the present, because, though Austria joined this country in the matter of the guarantee, it was settled that each Government was to be responsible for the payment of £15,000 only; so that, whether the £15,000 was paid by Austria or not, no additional charge would be made on this country. It was also provided by the convention that a separate wire was to be preserved for the ex-

  1729
  clusive use of the English Government, not only from Ragusa to Corfu, but from Corfu to Alexandria. It was quite possible for the Government to make arrangements for obtaining an exclusive wire from London to the first station in Austria, and it would, therefore, be easy by adopting the convention with the Austrian Government for Her Majesty's Government to obtain an exclusive wire all the way from London to Alexandria. This matter had passed through his hands when at the Foreign Office. It was one in which he had taken the greatest interest, and he trusted Her Majesty's Government would not allow so favourable an opportunity to pass of obtaining a means of communication which would be of the greatest importance to this country both commercially and politically. The matter was, indeed, of so much importance that he wished to bespeak the attention of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government to it, for he was confident that the noble Viscount would, on examination, see such vast advantages from the formation of this telegraph line that he would not allow the convention to be hastily put aside. He wished now to ask whether Her Majesty's Government had had under their consideration the modifications proposed by the Austrian Government in the convention signed last year, whether they had returned any answer to that proposal, and, if not, whether they had come to any decision as to the answer to be returned to the Austrian Government?
  MR. LAINGsaid, that with reference to the general policy of the convention that he was quite ready to admit that the importance of establishing an independent telegraphic communication with India was such that if it could be assumed that for £15,000 a year this link could be secured the arrangement made by the late Government would he very desirable. But the subject had assumed a very different aspect since the arrangement was originally made. The Austrian Government had within the last few days announced that they should require very considerable modifications in the convention. As soon as the consent of the Turkish Government to laying the cable at Alexandria had been obtained the contractors were summoned to Vienna, and negotiations with the Austrian Government were commmenced for carrying out the undertaking. It was represented that the terms of the original convention were so insufficient that it was hopeless to attempt to raise the capital. It
  1730
  was therefore proposed that, instead of a guarantee of £15,000 a year, limited to twenty-five years, the British Government should guarantee an absolute dividend of £15,000 a year paid to the shareholders, so that if the expenses should exceed the receipts the deficiency would he made up. Her Majesty's Government were therefore now asked to guarantee £15,000 a year, and to make up the deficiency between the actual expenses and the receipts. That was a very important modification. Another proposal was that the period of liability for the payment of the guarantee should be extended from twenty-five to fifty years. The proposal, therefore, was that the British Government should give an absolute guarantee of £15,000, which might be greater, for 50 years. That guarantee, it was further proposed, should come into operation on the different sections of the cable being laid down successfully, so as to work for ten days consecutively. When the convention was first negotiated it was thought that if once the contractors succeeded in laying down the wire in deep water the risk was at an end. But subsequent experience had greatly modified this opinion. The cables between Malta and Sardinia and. Malta and Corfu were laid with success and were worked for months, yet from unknown causes they had failed, and the communication had not been restored. Three attempts were also made by the contractors to establish a telegraphic wire between Candia and Alexandria, which had proved to be failures. It was clear, therefore, that the risk of failure was greater than when the convention was originally considered, and that the bargain with the Austrian Government would be much more hazardous and onerous for this country. The Government could not assume with certainty that the first operation of laying the cable would be successful, seeing that the wire would traverse the same line between Candia and Alexandria on which three failures had already been incurred. It was then doubtful whether if the first operation were successful the Government could rely upon the continuance of the communication. He was not able to say what determination would be arrived at by Her Majesty's Government, because the despatch of the Austrian Government had only been in their possession for a few days. The subject would be, however, maturely considered by the Government, who anxiously desired to carry out a communication with India as soon as a reason-

  1731
  able arrangement could be made for that purpose.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, he rose to call attention to the manner in which the Appropriation Bill was brought before the House. During that Session they had heard many discussions regarding the privileges of the House of Commons, and they had arrogated to themselves the supreme and entire right of legislation in all matters of finance. It therefore behoved them the more imperatively to take care that they should always follow a clear and intelligible course in all matters affecting the financial arrangements of the House. It was well known to every hon. Member that the Appropriation Bill was an enumeration of all the Votes which had passed during the Session in Committee of Supply. It was by that Act alone, legislative power was given to the Government to carry into effect what already had been voted; until that Act was passed there was no direct appropriation of the sums voted in Committee of Ways and Means. The Bill was, therefore, a most important one. Yet it was never brought forward in a way which enabled hon. Members to examine whether it assigned the Votes correctly to the different items for which the House had voted them. It appeared to him that there was a simple remedy for this. There would be no difficulty in the Government laying before the House a simple record of every Vote that had been passed in the course of the Session as soon as the last Vote was passed. Hon. Members could then compare the Appropriation Bill with that paper, and see whether the two documents agreed. At present there was no possibility of doing so. He thought, also, that the Appropriation Bill should contain a statement of the total amount of money voted in Committee of Supply, as that would enable hon. Members to see whether the sum total was exceeded by the various items or not. He understood from the Chairman of Committees that there would be no objection to such a course. It was quite possible, too, that when a Vote was reduced in the Committee, the reduction might not be made correctly. He wanted to know, moreover, why this Bill was not printed. He believed there was only one year in which it ever had been printed; it was the only Bill which was not printed, though it was in many respects the most important Bill of the Session.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his hon. Friend who had just
  1732
  spoken had done that which was very unusual in discussing the Appropriation Bill—namely, he had spoken strictly to the point. One of the objects which the hon. Member seemed to have, was to guard against any arithmetical error, and to place before hon. Members, generally, those data and that information without which they could not fulfil their duty. With respect to the former object, perhaps his hon. Friend was not aware of the course actually pursued. The Votes were watched and recorded at the Treasury, where accounts of the respective amounts were kept and the totals summed up. An independent account was also kept by the officers of the House, and when the results of the two accounts were the same it might be justly held that there was no error. With regard to the printing of the Bill, his hon. Friend was not strictly correct in saying that the Bill had only been printed once. The fact was, it was always printed, though not circulated, as it would be really a waste of money to print such a bulky Bill for general circulation. However he apprehended there would be no difficulty in striking oil a few copies, which might he in the Vote Office for any hon. Members who might call for them. With regard to the suggestion of printing a statement of the Votes at the close of Committee of Supply, such statement really was printed three times over, either literally or substantially, and he was doubtful about the necessity of printing them a fourth time. They were first printed in the Estimates, where, though they were liable to alteration, such alteration was not made in more than one instance out of fifty; they were also printed in the proceedings of the House from day to day, and in the Appropriation Bill. If, however, it was the opinion of the House that a fourth statement should be made at the close of Committee of Supply, there could be no objection to its being given. He certainly had begun to feel rather nervous when his hon. Friend first spoke of the privileges of Parliament, and the necessity of standing by the institutions of the country in the mode of conducting the business of the House, because he felt that his hon. Friend might perchance be about to allude to greater malversation of duty than that he had named. He thought, however, that the suggestions of the hon. Member were of a very suitable character.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the Bill had been printed four years ago, in consequence of his wishing to have a clear un-

  1733
  derstanding that the alteration in the Army and Navy Estimates were duly recorded. If his hon. Friend (Mr. Hankey) wished to ascertain the correctness of the accounts, he could compare the summary of Votes printed, after Vote No. 7, with the Appropriation Bill, making allowance for the alterations, and arrive at the result he wished in less than ten minutes.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that in consequence of what took place during the debate on the Estimates, he had moved for certain papers; and as a good deal of discussion had since taken place elsewhere as to the execution of the contract with the Indian Telegraph Company, he was anxious to know whether those papers he had moved for would be laid on the table during the Session.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there would be no difficulty in having them placed on the table before the end of the Session. He thought it very desirable that they should he, and that the Government should have the assistance of hon, Members in determining what might be their duty in reference to the subject. The late Committee on Telegraphic Contracts necessarily took a very limited view of the question, being appointed to consider not so much the provisions of the contracts as the manner in which they were made. If it was the opinion of the House that any of the provisions of those contracts ought to be a subject of investigation by a Committee, no objection, in his opinion, could be taken to a proceeding of that kind.
  Bill read 3° and passed.

ENDOWED CHARITIES BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. FREELANDsaid, that he wished to throw out a suggestion to his right hon. Friend the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe). He hoped that he would consider whether, through the medium of the Charity Commissioners, increased facilities could not be given for the sale or enfranchisement of charity lands. According to the last Returns on the subject in 1839, there were between 400,000 and 500,000 acres of land tied up in the hands of the trustees of diffrent charities. He thought that if a great portion of these lands could be sold or enfranchised, which might be done without detriment to the charities, it would promote agricultural and building operations and be attended with important public benefits.
  1734
  He had already spoken to his right hon. Friend on the subject, and would not trouble him now to give any answer, but should feel obliged if he could give the matter his attention during the recess.
  Bill read 3° and passed.

DIVORCE COURT BILL.

  SECOND READING.—ADJOURNED DEBATE. COMMITTEE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [20th August],
  "'That the Bill be now read a second time;' and which Amendment was, to leave out the words ' now read a second time,' in order to add the words 'laid aside'"
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  Notice taken that the Bill, as brought from the Lords, contained a provision that Her Majesty's Proctor shall be entitled to charge certain costs as part of the expense of his Office; and that, as such expense, by virtue of the Act 20 &c 21 Vict. c. 85, is to be defrayed out of Monies to be provided by Parliament, such provision was an infringement of the Privileges of this House.
  Whereupon MR. SPEAKER explained, that since 1854 provisions of this character had been admitted in Bills brought from The Lords; but that, as it appeared to him that such a practice was open to serious objections, that it was liable to misconstruction, and that it was calculated to break down the broad line of distinction between the duties, attributes, and powers of the two Houses, he had already intimated that any such provisions would hereafter be objected to by himself, on behalf of the House, and that he should advise the House not to receive them.
  Mr. SPEAKERfurther stated, that this Bill had been brought from The Lords on the 1st day of May last; that the intimation of his opinion had since been attended to, and all similar provisions had been omitted by The Lords from Bills sent to this House; and that, under these circumstances, the House would perhaps not think it necessary to insist upon its Privileges in this particular case.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I wish to call the attention of the House to the observations which you, Sir, made on the subject of this Bill, I think on Monday last. I am sure the House must feel

  1735
  greatly indebted to you for the vigilant attention which you have paid on all occasions to the maintenance of its rights and privileges; and I have no doubt that the House will concur with you, that the 5th Clause of this Bill is an infringement and a violation of rights and privileges which it is essential that we should preserve unimpaired. You then explained, Sir, that this was a practice which had arisen, and been continued for some years past, more with a view, as I imagine, to the mutual convenience of the two Houses than from any deliberate intention on the part of the House of Lords to infringe on the privileges of the Commons, but that, nevertheless, the practice was carried to an extreme in this instance, and that you, therefore, felt it your duty to bring it under the consideration of the House. It seems, however, that you did not confine your watchfulness to this particular Bill, but that, having remarked a practice which appeared to you contrary to the privileges of the House of Commons—namely, the practice of inserting in Bills sent down from the House of Lords money clauses and provisions, so that they appeared as enactments, whereas they ought only to have been suggested for the consideration of this House—having observed this, some six weeks since, you communicated with the House of Lords, and stated that you should feel it your duty to call the attention of this House to the practice, and suggest a course which would effectually prevent its recurrence. In consequence of that communication, the practice to which you referred has been discontinued, and in other Bills which have since come down—for the measure now before us has, from various causes, been in the possession of the House for a considerable time—your suggestions have been attended to, and the forms consistent with our rights and privileges have been duly observed. Under these circumstances, and considering the nature of this Bill, which is designed to improve a highly important court of judicature, I am inclined to think that the House will do well to adopt the recommendations which you suggested in the latter part of your very clear and able remarks—namely, that notwithstanding the informality contained in this Bill, inasmuch as the practice has been observed upon, and the House of Lords have acquiesced in the objection taken, and have abstained from pursuing the same course on recent occasions, we should waive the objection which
  1736
  might strictly be taken to the measure, and instead of laying it aside, should consent to the second reading. If that is the opinion of the House, I think it will be necessary that a special entry should be made on our Journals, in order to put on record the reasons why, in this case, we have agreed to a Bill containing on the face of it matter which, in a strict enforcement of our rules and rights, we should be bound to reject. Under these circumstances, Sir, I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAM: As an old Member of this House, deeply and sincerely attached to its privileges, which I hold to be indissolubly connected with the rights and liberties of the people, I may perhaps be pardoned if I join my noble Friend in thanking you, Sir, for the clear, deliberate, and admirable opinion pronounced by you from the chair in defence of those undoubted rights and privileges. I must confess that I should be very sorry if an opinion so sound, and at this juncture so necessary, were altogether inoperative; and my first impression, in conformity with the course suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hennessy) was that the Bill should be laid aside, and a new measure introduced and advanced at once through the various stages, so that no impediment might he offered to its passing in the present Session. But further deliberation has led me to the same conclusion as that stated by my noble Friend, and I now think with him that, considering the present state of the House, we should be unduly magnifying the step taken by the Lords, that we should be raising a doubt as to our privileges where no doubt ought to exist, and should be pursuing a course hardly consistent with our dignity if we took more serious notice of this matter. I think the course suggested by my noble Friend is by far the most dignified; but I am extremely glad that a special entry is to be made in the Journals. Sir, I do not altogether so much blame the House of Lords for what has happened. We have been somewhat negligent ourselves. For a long portion of the forty-five years I have sat in this House—Bills sent hence to the Lords and from the Lords to this House were engrossed. Any money clause suggested by the other House was afterwards written in black ink, and before the Bill was transmitted to this House the clause so written was struck out by the pen being drawn through it. Subsequently,

  1737
  printing was substituted for writing; and instead of the clause being written and struck out it was sent down printed in italics in black ink. We afterwards adopted the practice of printing in black ink, and then the House of Lords at the same time printed these money clauses in red ink; but the use of red ink and black ink by the other House became somewhat confused, and in course of time money clauses came down printed in black ink. Until now the vigilance of this House in regard to its privileges has not been aroused; and the result of our inadvertence and of concessions which we have made, in order to facilitate business in the case of private Bills, is that the present race of Peers have been led to believe that they have powers in respect of money Bills greater than the undoubted privileges of this House at all justify. The time has now arrived when we must check any such assumption, and I think that the course which you, Sir, have adopted for the last six weeks, and the objection which you have urged, and which the Lords have recognized, will act as an effectual check upon the practice we complain of. I rejoice that such a step has been taken; I thank you for the attention and the vigilance which you have exhibited. I am sure the defence of our privileges cannot be in safer hands, and I am equally sure that the House will not fail to support you in any steps which may be necessary to secure those privileges unimpaired.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, that the constitutional judgment which Mr. Speaker had pronounced would hereafter be the landmark for defining the privileges of the House on that great question. The contravention by usage of the broad distinctions between the attributes and powers of the two Houses had been sufficiently established by the speeches of the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet. But there could not be a question in the mind of any one who calmly reviewed this case, and looked to the great principles which ought to decide the matter, that although it was perfectly true this was a Bill amending a former Bill, yet a new office—that of Her Majesty's Proctor—was created by it, and a new burden cast upon the people. Beyond all question the Bill was strictly within the decision pronounced from the Chair, but if the House was satisfied with a strong protest being entered, he trusted that protest would remain on their Journal and prevent this being made into anything like a precedent, because what was a pre-
  1738
  cedent to-day, became law to-morrow. Nothing could be more dangerous than to afford any ground for precedent under the circumstances of the collision which had taken place between the two Houses, upon a question beside which this question sank into insignificance. He hoped a strong protest would now be entered, and he felt convinced that under the guardianship of Mr. Speaker, as the depository of that House's honour and privileges, their honour would never be sullied or their privileges encroached.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought that after what had passed, with which all were familiar, and after Mr. Speaker had called attention to the subject, it was impossible not to fully approve the course which was now taken and the endeavour which was made to put a stop to these practices, which had of recent years grown up in the House of Lords. At the same time he wished to point out that in the public convenience the practice had originated, and for the public convenience the practice had gone on. In that was their justification for allowing the practice to grow up and continue. In the discharge of their legislative functions the House of Lords had necessarily to consider the duties which officers appointed by statute would have to perform, and there was scarcely a Bill connected with the administration of justice—a subject which was considered to be the peculiar province of the House of Lords—which did not involve that consideration. The old practice was to say nothing in the Bill which came from the Lords as to the mode in which the officers should be paid. The financial part of the question was not raised, and it was left to the Executive to propose, in Committee in the Commons, the insertion of clauses which involved any charge upon the people. It was not so convenient a practice for the House of Commons as the practice which had grown up of having such clauses printed in Bills from the Lords in black or red ink, and thus submitted at once to the judgment of hon. Members. Although in theory those clauses were not supposed to be contained in the Bill, when there were red ink clauses the practice in Committee of the House of Commons was to take no notice of them, and to leave them to be brought up as new clauses at the end of the Bill. In point of fact the only result of having those red ink clauses printed in the Bill was to give Members of the House of Commons full

  1739
  notice from the first printing of the Bill what were the charges proposed, and what the mode of dealing with them. He was ready to admit that after what had passed it was necessary to take the course which at the suggestion of Mr. Speaker was now taken; but he ventured to think that the practice now put a stop to was of considerable advantage, and he only lamented that the course which the Lords had thought proper to take this Session on a far more important matter than this had forced on the consideration of the Commons their privileges in other respects, and driven them now and for many years to come to the necessity of a minute observance of those privileges, even where the public convenience suffered by that observance.
  MR. MALINSsaid, it appeared very distinctly that there was no danger of any collision between the two Houses, because upon a communication from Mr. Speaker the House of Lords had readily acquiesced in his suggestion, and upon this point he should not have spoken, as he believed it had been effectually disposed of by the noble Lord, the right hon. Baronet, his hon. and learned Friend, and the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock; but the noble Lord said that this Bill had been very long in possession of the House, and he thought they had great reason to complain that it had been lying on their table ever since the 1st of May, and had not been proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for second reading until the previous Monday or Friday.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he considered that the House might expect from him an apology for addressing it on such a topic, in opposition to the opinions which had been expressed by the First Lord of the Treasury and the right hon. Member for Carlisle; but the reasons given were not satisfactory to him, and it was a question upon which, in these times, every Member, however humble, was not only entitled, but bound, to form an opinion for himself. Here was a breach of privilege; and how did the noble Lord propose to meet it? By merely entering a protest on the Journals. Why, such a proceeding was a recognition of the fact, and not a repudiation of it. In all other cases where an offence was committed practical remedies were resorted to, but it seemed that a new rule was to be adopted with respect to that House, and that the only remedy remaining for the defence of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons was a verbal pro-
  1740
  test. He did not think that was satisfactory. The very fact of accepting the encroachment under protest would itself become a precedent as to the mode in which like encroachments should be dealt with. Apart from that view, which appeared to him to be a substantial objection to the course proposed, he could not but avow an entire want of confidence in those who ought to be the leaders of that House and the protectors of their privileges. Of course, he referred to the great event of the Session—the retention of the Paper Tax against the wish of that House and the pledged faith of the Government. Although the present question was in itself utterly insignificant in comparison with that existing outrage of the constitution of the country, he could not on that account refrain from raising his voice against the toleration even in the smallest degree of an encroachment upon the privileges of the House.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would explain that which seemed to be misunderstood. He proposed to read the Bill a second time on the ground that it was sent down to that House a long time ago; that since that the violation of their privileges had been remarked upon, and that in consequence of the representation which Mr. Speaker had made to the House of Lords of the informality of the practice it had been discontinued. The entry on the Journal would not be a protest against the practice, which was discontinued, but simply an explanation of the reason why the Bill was read a second time.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he took a deep interest in everything that affected the rights and interests of the House, and he felt constrained to say that, although under other circumstances he might he content with the protest proposed to be made, he could not under those that did exist feel convinced that that protest would suffice to meet the necessities of the case. They lived in very strange times. None of them would have believed, some time since, that an attack would be made by the House of Lords upon the most precious birthright of Englishmen. At that moment they were taxed by the sole authority of the House of Lords, and against the consent of the House of Commons. A tax was levied upon the sole authority of an irresponsible branch of the Legislature, and, with every disposition to be conciliatory, and every desire to agree to the proposition of the noble Lord, he felt that other measures

  1741
  should be taken to mark the sense of the House in reference to the invasion of their rights on a former occasion. If hon. Members concurred with him, he would be disposed to move the House that the Bill be laid aside independent of its intrinsic merits, not solely on account of the aggression upon the privileges of the House, but in order to show that they viewed with disgust the pusillanimous conduct adopted by a majority of the House on a former occasion.
  MR. MELLORsaid, he also was deeply sensible of the necessity of their protecting the rights and privileges of the House; but be could not imagine a more insignificant matter upon which to raise the question. The course taken by the other House was not intended as an aggression; and the practice had been discontinued. He approved of the practical result arrived at by the House on a former occasion. If the noble Lord had proposed action on a fiscal question on which the people were divided in opinion, that House would not have been supported by public opinion; and if such step had been taken it would have resulted rather disadvantageously than beneficial to their privileges.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, that, whatever opinion he might entertain respecting the course that should have been pursued on a former occasion, when an aggression was committed by the Lords on the privileges of the House, and when it was intended to be an aggression, he felt they would be descending very low if they took upon themselves to meet with a strong measure that which was never intended to be an aggression. It was explained that so far from intending an aggression the House of Lords had pursued, in regard to this Bill, the course invariably pursued for a great number of years without objection, because the course had tended to the convenience of the business carried on by both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, he trusted the lion. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) would not take the sense of the House upon a point which was really not one that could settle the great question at issue between the Lords and Commons as to the privileges of the latter.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that after the course adopted by the House in reference to the gigantic encroachment on its rights on a former occasion, it would be like straining at a gnat after swallowing a camel, if they took action on a mere question of detail like the present. He there-
  1742
  fore concurred in the recommendation of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. John Locke), that the House should not divide on the question before them.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he had pointed out the irregularities both to Mr. Speaker and to the Government as early as the month of May last. Her Majesty's Ministers had taken no notice of his suggestions, and if he were to look only to the conduct of the Government he certainly would not withdraw his Motion; but there were more cheering symptoms. He believed the decision of Mr. Speaker would sufficiently guard their privileges, and after the observations of the right lion. Member for Carlisle and the lion, and learned Member for Marylebone, he thought he should best consult the feelings of the House by withdrawing his Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: In putting to the House the Motion that this Amendment be withdrawn I wish to correct a misconception of the right bon. Member for Kilmarnock, who imagines that the effect of what has taken place will be to put an end to clauses in red ink coming down from the House of Lords, which he thinks is for general convenience. The result of what has taken place will not be to put an end to the practice, but to confine it within proper limits, and to take care that the creation of expenses, and the appointment of officers with salaries to he defrayed by moneys to be voted by Parliament, should not come down from the House of Lords as enactments, but merely as suggestions. With regard to the observations of the right hon. Member for Carlisle, that the vigilance of the officers of this House had in some degree been laid asleep, it is right to the officer of the House whose duty it is to attend particularly to this point to say, not only that there is no more vigilant officer of this House, but that his vigilance had not been laid asleep in this matter—that he had accurately observed what had taken place, but that he thought that, under the decision of 1854, it was not his duty to bring it especially under attention.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
  MR. MALINSsaid, that when the Divorce Court was originally established many lion. Members, and a great majority of the public out of doors, were of opinion that the additional facilities given for the dissolution of marriage, would open the door to loose practice to an alarming extent. The argument which his hon. and learned Friend

  1743
  the Attorney General opposed to this apprehension, and by which mainly he secured the passing of the Bill, was that the decision of all cases of dissolution of marriage would he confined to the full Court—consisting of three Judges; of whom the Judge Ordinary would be one; the other two being selected from the Lord Chancellor, or the Chiefs of the three Courts of Common Law. It was then understood that, as a safeguard against collusion, the presence of three Judges should be required in all cases of dissolution of marriage. In Committee, however, he (Mr. Malins) suggested that it would be found very difficult in practice to constitute a court within the proposed limits; and, in accordance with his suggestion, the area of the court was enlarged, and three of the senior Puisne Judges were made members of it. He thought that the expectations of his hon. and learned Friend, of the House, and of the country, had been surpassed by the results of the Bill. It was stated, in the debate on the Bill, that from 1715 to 1760 the applications for the dissolution of marriage were, on the average, one in a year. Prom 1760 to 1800 they were three in the year; and from 1800 to 1852, they dropped to two in the year. But it appeared by the returns, that, whereas all the petitions presented for a divorce for twenty-three years, beginning with 1833 and down to 1857, were 238, or about ten in the year, there were, from the 1st of January, 1858, to the 31st of December in the same year, no less than 236 petitions presented for dissolution of marriage; and, in addition, 84 petitions for judicial separation; making a total of 320 applications in one year. It was found before last year very difficult to get two Judges to assist the Judge in Ordinary; it was found almost impossible to get the Lord Chancellor to sit; the only Lord Chancellor who had sat at all was Lord Chelmsford, and that only for two or three days. The Chief Justices had been scarcely able to sit at all; and the consequence was that Government last year made every Common Law Judge a member of the Court. But now it appeared, so overwhelming was the business, that even with the Court so constituted, it was impossible to obtain the necessary attendance. Now, under those circumstances, what was it that common sense pointed out as absolutely necessary? The principle of the original Bill being that no marriage should ever be dissolved, except after the most minute investigation, so that there could be no collusion, no
  1744
  fraud, what was proposed by the Bill, whoso second reading was then asked, after it had lain on the table from the 1st of May? They were asked to commit all these questions, not to three Judges, but to one; so that Sir Cresswell Cresswell might have all the power which Parliament, in 1857, conferred upon a court consisting of three. Could there be a Bill of higher importance, or raising questions of more grave consideration? They had already read, in the public prints, when a full Court was constituted—and a great scandal it was, which lessened them in their own estimation, and that of other nations—the names of five or six couples, who, in a sitting of a few hours, had their marriages dissolved. Indeed, eight or nine couples had had their marriages dissolved in one sitting: and the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Marylebone (Mr. B. James), had stated that in some six hours eighteen or nineteen marriages had been dissolved. [Mr. E. JAMES; Undefended cases.] Undefended cases? But did not that open the door for collusion and fraud, the very thing which they had to guard against; for, if once they made marriage dissoluble in that way, they would have all persons who wished to get rid of one another coming to the Court. He did not think that any one who took part in the debates on the Bill, ever imagined that ten or twenty marriages would have been dissolved in six hours. In looking over a publication of Mr. M'Queen, containing much valuable information, he was struck by the statement that, upon the average, cases of dissolution of marriage occupied much less time than applications for judicial separation, and that statement he had heard confirmed by gentlemen experienced in the business of the court. And why was that? Because parties were much more willing to have their marriages dissolved, and therefore there was no opposition; but when it came to a question of judicial separation, then, and then only, there was opposition. Now, could it be right that a Bill of this overwhelming importance, which had been on the table nearly four months, should be brought on at such a time? How many cases were pending in the Court for dissolution of marriage? Between 290 and 300. That was an appalling state of facts, and one which made it of the highest importance to take every precaution against an abuse of the law. It was now proposed to leave the Judge Ordinary alone to dispose of the business which Parliament had

  1745
  hitherto decided should not be dealt with by less than three Judges. He believed the country generally did not approve the law of divorce, and that its operation had been prejudicial to society, and it would be still more injurious if it were not administered with the greatest care and jealousy. He regretted the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present, because, though he had changed many opinions since 1857, he believed his opinion on this subject remained unchanged. So far from committing the business of this Court to the Judge Ordinary alone, the proper course would be to constitute a Court of three Judges, or two, at all events, so that all cases might be deliberately and minutely examined. The Judges ought to have abundance of time, and be such men as, by their habits and experience, would be fitted to decide such important questions. He would prefer a court of three Judges, including a common law, a civil law, and an equity Judge. It was most impolitic to leave the important business of this Court to be transacted by one Judge only, with nobody to consult on difficult questions. It was the general impression of those who practised in the Divorce Court that divorces were in many instances procured by collusion and fraud; but if it was well known that there was an efficient tribunal to try and sift every case that came before it, fraud and collusion would not be attempted. There was great reason to complain that the Bill had been proposed on what was virtually the last day of the Session. The best course would be to leave matters as they were until next Session. They were now at the end of August; in five months more Parliament would again assemble. September and October would be vacation months, so that only in November, December, and January, could anything be done in the Court. His hon. and learned Friend, by allowing the Bill to remain four months on the table after it had come down from the House of Lords, had given the best proof that he did not consider it of pressing necessity. If the Bill went into Committee, he should move a clause limiting its operation to one year; meanwhile, he moved that it be read a second time that day month.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day month."
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that this was a Bill to facilitate the working of
  1746
  an Act the results of which he held to be most pernicious. He believed that the effect of the Bill that created the Divorce Court had been to shake the morality of the country, and greatly to diminish the sacredness of the tic of marriage. It could not be doubted that there was a fearful amount of collusion in the court, and the Bill which established it ought to be called a Bill for enabling wives to change their husbands and husbands to change their wives, and the court an Encumbered Estates Court for the transfer of women, he was told not long since that a case was about to be brought before the Court which has been so carefully prepared that it was impossible to detect collusion. An agreement had been come to between the parties that the marriage should be dissolved for adultery. A single witness was to be produced who would depose to circumstances which would, it was thought, induce the Court to pronounce for a divorce. The parties were perfectly certain that they would succeed in dissolving the marriage tie, the husband wishing to marry another woman, and the wife wishing to marry another man. He had not been told the names of the parties, so that he was unable to say whether they had succeeded in their object, but he had no doubt they had obtained what they desired. It was said, and with truth, that cases of action for crim. con. used to exercise a bad influence on the public mind and morals. But the Court of Divorce caused ten times more scandal. Hon. Members must have observed on coming down to the House the crowds of persons who blocked up the entrance of the court. It was often difficult to obtain admission for the crowds who went, as to a theatre, to hear the exposures of domestic disgrace. He would admit that the press exercised a sound and proper discretion by not publishing all the details of these cases, but still they must taint the minds of those who went to hear them. People actually went to this court to gain experience, and to learn how to manage their own cases. He had heard of instances in which husbands and wives who wished to dissolve the marriage tie frequented the court to see how it could best be done; so that the court was not only a Court of Divorce, but also a school of divorce. Another objection he had to the Bill was that it gave such enormous power to a single judge. A Court of three, or even two, Judges would be much more salutary. A single Judge might sometimes

  1747
  be tempted to do arbitrary things, while if he had one or two coadjutors they would check and control him. At first the Legislature directed that divorces should not be granted save by three Judges, two of whom were to be the chiefs of their respective Courts. That provision was afterwards relaxed, but the Legislature still adhered to the principle that three Judges should sit to grant divorces. Parliament was now told that these serious and delicate cases were to be decided upon by a single Judge. As he feared the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend would be defeated, and as he did not intend to take part in any further proceedings with regard to the Bill, he wished to make a suggestion to the hon. and learned Attorney General. The 5th Clause empowered the Court, in cases where only one party appeared, to require counsel to be appointed to argue on the other side. That was a very good provision, but it did not go far enough. It ought to be applied not only to undefended cases, but to all cases. At Rome there was a permanent officer, a sort of Attorney General, who was called "Defender of Marriages," and whose duty it was, in all cases where application was made for a declaration of nullity of marriage, to defend the marriage. Every point in favour of the marriage was thus brought before the Court, which was spared the necessity of deciding on ex parte evidence, and all risk of collusion was prevented. In the same way, in peerage cases in our own country, the Attorney General had to resist the case of every claimant: so the Divorce Court ought to be empowered in every case to appoint Counsel to oppose the divorce He protested against the Divorce Court altogether, but if it was to be continued steps should be taken to have every application opposed in the way he had mentioned.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir George Bowyer) had mistaken the question before the House, and his speech was a mere repetition of the arguments he used against the original measure. If there had been a Motion to repeal altogether the original Act, he could have understood his arguments. But the question before them was simply whether they should leave the system as it was, or whether they should adopt a measure to facilitate and expedite the transaction of business in that Court. The hon. and learned Member for Walling-ford (Mr. Malins) had drawn a contrast
  1748
  unfavourable to the present system, between the year 1760, when only two divorces were granted, and 1860, when there were 290 applications waiting to be disposed of. That argument only showed that in 1760 there was a most scandalous denial of justice to a class of very unfortunate persons. The hon. and learned Member also said he was shocked at the number of undefended cases. The reason why certain cases were undefended was simply because they were indefensible. A wife, perhaps, bad deserted her husband and children, and was living in open adultery with her paramour. The adultery was proved to the satisfaction of the Court, and what more was required? Before the ordinary tribunals of the country, undefended cases were of everyday occurrence. The hon. and learned Member entertained a strong dislike to a single Judge. [Mr. MALINS: Not generally, but in this particular case.] But a single Judge was allowed to sit in equity, in Nisi Prius, and in the criminal courts, and to try cases which affected the property, the character, the liberty, and even the lives of Englishmen. He believed it advantageous to have a single Judge, where he was an able and eminent man, because divided responsibility sometimes tempted a man to be careless. To show the hardship at present inflicted on unfortunate suitors, he would mention one out of a hundred cases. A gentleman of property at Cheltenham had filed a petition for a divorce as far back as July, 1859. His wife had left him, and was now living in open prostitution with her man-servant in the neighbourhood of that town. Four of her eight children were staying with her; and she was able to maintain herself and paramour out of the £3,000 which her husband had settled on her when they were married. That case would probably not be tried till July, 1861, as there were ninety before it on the list. Two years would, therefore, elapse before that gentleman could obtain relief, and during that time his wife would be left in possession of her settlement, and witnesses might be tampered with and got out of the way. He believed the Divorce Court had conferred a great benefit on the public, and relieved a vast amount of domestic misery. The cases of collusion were not half so abundant as his hon. and learned Friend imagined. It was a common mistake to suppose that there had been collusion when the adulterer married the adulteress. It was not collusion when a man, having se-

  1749
  duced a married woman, made the only amends in his power, and married her after she had been divorced. The collusion to be prevented lay between the husband and the wife. In his opinion one Judge was quite as able to detect collusion as three, and it was absurd to have three Judges sitting to make formal decrees in cases where there was no more ground for defence than for a felon taken in the act. He had heard no arguments against the Bill. The arguments which had been used were arguments against the original Divorce Act. He should vote for the second reading, but in Committee he should propose Amendments. He thought the two clauses in reference to the Queen's Proctor objectionable, and he trusted the Government would insert a clause giving the Judge Ordinary power to call on ex-Chancellors and ex-Judges who were receiving largo pensions from the country to assist him when necessary.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he had supported the original Divorce Act from the conviction that it was exceedingly hard that a poor man should be prevented by the expense of proceeding from obtaining a divorce while to a rich man the expense was nothing. But strongly as he felt the injustice done to the poor man he would not have supported the original Divorce Act had not the Attorney General's speech convinced him that by the Bill (then under consideration), the court would be so constituted, that they might as safely entrust the power of divorce to that Court as to the House of Lords; but the effect of the present Bill if passed into a law would destroy the safeguards upon which the Attorney General had so powerfully dwelt, and upon which he (Mr. Spooner) had relied. But the results which have followed the passing of that Bill, and the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wallingford had convinced him that the alterations proposed by the Bill now before the House would be very dangerous. He should therefore vote against the Bill.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he would remind the House that the Commission which sat to inquire into the subject of divorce had reported that it was of vital importance that no single Judge should have the power of dissolving marriage. The Bill which was brought in in 1857 by the hon. and learned Attorney General, and passed, not only contained a provision to secure that object, but it was recommended to the House as being unexceptionable in its procedure. The question
  1750
  before them was not one merely of procedure, but affected the powers of the court. What was the action of the Divorce Court. Its existence had occasioned so great a pressure of business that the Judge Ordinary had requested the Lord Chancellor to prepare a Bill to afford greater facilities for granting a divorce. That was proposed to be done by enabling a single Judge to dissolve marriage. He asked the attention of the House to the fact that the question of adultery which came before the Divorce Court was not one of law but of fact, and there was this great difference in the constitution of that court from all other courts, that the Judge had, to some extent, to perform the functions of a jury, and to decide upon questions of fact. It was upon that account that Parliament had felt it important to secure the presence of more than one Judge upon the bench. They had seen fully realized the statement which the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer made in opposing the Divorce Act, that it would lead to great complications, and to a state of things which they would ultimately regret. The right hon. Gentleman had said very truly that the moment they attempted to dissolve marriage by the judgment of a Court for the purpose of allowing the adulterer to marry, they were attempting to do by Act of Parliament that which they were told they should not do by Holy Writ. The Divorce Act degraded and disgraced the women of the country, and violated the precepts of Holy Writ. He could not consent to anything which would facilitate the action of such a Court, and probably in a future Session a Committee would have to be appointed to inquire into its operation. He could not understand how there should be a great pressure for the Bill in the long vacation, when there seemed to be no hurry about it at the time the Court was sitting. Under the Motion which he had withdrawn he did not desire to lead the House into a discussion of the merits of the Bill; but he was opposed to the clauses to which the decision of Mr. Speaker referred, irrespective of the circumstances under which they appeared in the Bill. He objected to making any charge on the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of facilitating divorce. He objected to spending any more public money on the Court, and he objected to giving powers to the Queen's Proctor which Parliament had refused to give to the Attorney General.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it

  1751
  was due to the House that he should revert to the complaint which had been made of the long delay in bringing forward the Bill. He had felt that delay most acutely, as he had felt it also in regard to other measures. No one could say that the delay was anything but inevitable. Let those hon. Members who had been in the House night after night until two or three o'clock in the morning retrace in their recollections the occupation of the different Government nights, and lay their fingers on any one night when it would have been possible for him to bring the Bill on before twelve o'clock at night. Had he attempted to bring it on after that time it would have been said at once that the subject was of too much importance to be discussed in the small hours of the morning, and he would have been exposed to much indignant remark for attempting to take any such course. The House, however, had been no sufferer, for nothing could have been added to the arguments which had been brought forward against the Bill. It had been unjustly and inaccurately described as a Bill to dispense with the full Court, and to concentrate all its authority in the hands of one Judge. It was undoubtedly to dispense with the necessity of having three Judges on all occasions, and to leave it to the discretion of the Judge Ordinary to call in the assistance of two other Judges whenever he might deem it requisite. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) said the Court was constituted originally with three Judges in order more effectually to prevent the possibility of collusion and connivance; but he had failed to show how three Judges could better detect collusion or connivance than one? The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last seemed to forget entirely that that which dissolved marriage was adultery uncondoned, and unattended by collusion or connivance. The fact of adultery was established by the verdict of a jury presided over by a single Judge, and when the record of trial came before the full Court then dissolution of marriage was either pronounced or refused. This Bill, while it dispensed with the idle obligation of always having a full Court of three Judges in the most ordinary cases, left it to the Judge Ordinary to require the assistance of two other Judges whenever there was any question of doubt or difficulty involved. There were also provisions in the Bill for the detection of collusion and con
  1752
  nivance which would enable the Judge to direct a preliminary inquiry into the circumstances of a case whenever he deemed it right. The House must recollect that it was the adultery which dissolved the marriage; what was wanted to be ascertained with sufficient certainty was the fact of the actual commission of that crime. There were cases in which for the more effectual attainment of that object there ought to be a preliminary inquiry, and the kind of assistance given to the Court by this Bill was that which experience showed to be most desirable. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would not run away with the idea that there was any foundation for the assertion that the cases of collusion were numerous. he had made it his business to watch the Court from the commencement, and from the best information which he could obtain he did not believe that there had been more than four or five cases in which there was any certainty or even reasonable probability of the existence of collusion. Under the old system there was a great deal more ascertained collusion and connivance than in the new Court. Those hon. Members who lamented over the cases which had come before the Court as if they were a reproach to the Court ought rather to lament over the immorality of the country. It was a remark of Sir William Scott that "it was most essential that every person living in a community should know the real state of that community," and surely hon. Gentlemen did not suppose that because these cases were not brought forward when there was no remedy for them attainable by all there was on that account a greater amount of morality in the country. It was, however, unnecessary to go into the merits of the question, because the House had already pronounced judgment on them, and the general opinion of the country had also been pronounced in favour of the justice, necessity, and propriety of establishing the new tribunal. The Bill had been introduced on the basis of a letter which was addressed to the Lord Chancellor by the Lord Chief Justice of England, pointing out the impossibility of the ordinary Judges discharging these additional duties, and at the same time, pointing out that the experience of the Judges was that in nineteen cases out of twenty it was perfectly unnecessary for them to attend. That letter was confirmed by the experience of the Judge Ordinary. It had been well said in the course of the debate that it was idle to

  1753
  complain of these powers being continued to a single Judge when the graver issues of life and death were left to a single uncontrolled Judge. The Court of Criminal Appeal which had been established could only be approached at the discretion of the Judge presiding at the trial, who had it in his power to reserve a point or not. Acting on that analogy, the Bill threw on the Judge Ordinary the responsibility of summoning the assistance of two other Judges whenever he might think it necessary, but in ordinary cases, the facts having already been determined before a jury, it would be idle to require their presence merely to play the part of the "mute persons" of the drama. No doubt the procedure of the Court was capable of improvement. It might lead to the easier detection of collusion and connivance if, instead of the petition being a mere allegation of the fact of adultery, it were required that the circumstances and the acts relied on as the ground of complaint should be stated in it. It would be, however, for the wisdom of the presiding Judge and the other authorities to consider that suggestion according to their experience; but he was perfectly certain that the number of Judges would not facilitate the detection of collusion. The provisions of the Bill would do much more to attain that desirable object, and be therefore hoped that the House would now read it a second time.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, the danger of collusion was in cases where the wife had the doubtful boon given to her of obtaining a divorce, and that both the hon. and learned Attorney General and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. James) had left that danger entirely out of their consideration.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day month."
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 11: Majority 32.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved that the House do at once go into Committee on the Bill.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Court may, where One Party only appears, require Counsel to be appointed to argue on the other Side).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALproposed Amendments empowering the Court, in every application for a dissolution of marriage, to direct the necessary papers to be sent to the Queen's Proctor, who, under the direction of the Attorney General, should instruct counsel to argue any question which arose in relation to such divorce.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he saw no objection to the Amendments.
  MR. M'MAHONremarked, that the Court would be involved in difficulty by the proposition. If decisions were given when only one side was heard, the judgment was taken to be ex parte; but if the Attorney General directed a question to be argued the decision would be regarded as an authoritative judgment.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESthought the proposition was a wise safeguard.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were the remaining clauses.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he thought the subject was of too much importance to settle finally at the end of a Session and in so thin a House. In order, therefore, that there might be an opportunity afforded for further consideration of the question, he proposed a clause declaring that the Act should continue in force until the 31st July, 1861, and no longer.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not for a moment admit that the House, as at that moment constituted, was inadequate to the proper consideration of the measure. He thought, however, it would be right to have the results of the altered arrangements with respect to the Court before Parliament. It would be twelve months before they could ascertain the effects of the measure. If, then, the hon. and learned Gentleman would alter his clause so as to make the period for the existence of the Act the 31st July, 1862, he should assent to it.
  MR. MALINSexpressed his willingness to adopt the suggestion.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had been taken by surprise by the Bill being brought into Committee so soon after it had been read a second time, and he, therefore, was not prepared with a clause he had intended to propose. Before the constitution of the Divorce Court all questions of divorce were disposed of in the House of Lords, and gave employment to the ex-Lord Chancellors. As they were now receiving pensions without giving any adequate return, he thought they ought to sit in the Divorce

  1755
  Court and give assistance when required, in the same way as they used to do in the House of Lords. By that means the present large arrears of business would soon be disposed of, and the recurrence of a similar state of things would he prevented. Such would have been the effect of the clause he had intended to propose; but he trusted, as he was unable now to pursue that course, the hon. and learned Attorney General himself would add such a clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought it was only necessary to state, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, that with the exception of that venerable Peer, Lord Lyndhurst, whose advanced age would afford ample reason for the exception, every ex-Lord Chancellor had sat in the House of Lords deciding appeals five days out of every week since the 1st February last. He thought this would be admitted by the House to be an adequate return for the pensions they received.
  MR. MALINSsaid, considering the number of eases, and the difficult questions dealt with by the ex-Lord Chancellors in the House of Lords, it must be admitted that they not only did plenty of work, but they worked like slaves.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that on the part of the lay impropriator of the tithes of Great St. Helens, he wished to correct a misstatement which had been made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), in reference to the amount of the tithes. It had been stated that the tithes had been purchased for the sum of £3,000—that the income was £1,700 a year, and that some of the tithes had been raised from 15 s. to as much as £10 10s. Now he held in his hand a statement of the gentleman to whom reference had been made, from which it appeared that he had held the property for thirty-five years; and the income, instead of being between £1,600 and £1,700, was only £350. He was entitled to charge 2s. 9d. in the pound for tithes, but he had never charged more than Is,; and although he was a member of the legal profession, he never had a lawsuit with any one in reference to his rights. He was quite sure the hon. Member for Bath had made the statement under a misappre-
  1756
  hension as to the facts, and would be glad to remove the erroneous impression which had been created.
  MR. TITEsaid, he had spoken of two parishes, and it was in the other parish where the litigation existed, and wheer the income was as stated. It was not denied that the gentleman had purchased the rectory for a very small sum.
  MR. MALINS: At a public auction, for, in reality, the sum of £6,500.
  MR. TITEsaid, the rector was paid only £20 per annum by the lay Impropriator, and he had himself, when churchwarden, gone round the parish to raise a sum for him for additional remuneration, lie had merely stated the income of £1,000 per annum, and the facts as they were believed in the parish, but he begged it to be distinctly understood that he had also spoken of the forbearance of the gentleman to whom reference had been made by the hon. and learned Member. He was, however, glad to hear the correction now made, and would take care that the matter was explained where it was more important than in that House.
  Bill read 3° and passed.

MINES REGULATION AND INSPECTION BILL.

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose to propose an Amendment upon one of the Lords' Amendments, which had seriously altered the Bill as sent from the House of Commons. The Commons provided that a child on entering a mine should be able to read and write, and also made an arrangement by which the child should be enabled to keep up that knowledge. The Lords, however, had altered the enactment in the original Bill, and had provided, with respect to children under twelve years of age, that it should not be absolutely necessary that they should have any education before entering the mines, and that upon entering, if not able to read and write, they should have twenty hours' schooling in a month. Such a provision was perfectly illusory, for, at any rate, care ought to be taken that the instruction should be diffused equally through the month. He proposed, therefore, to leave out the words "twenty hours" in the Lords' Amendment, and to insert "three hours a day for two days in each week."
  MR. CLIVEsaid, he concurred in the Amendment proposed by the hon. Mem-

  1757
  ber for the Tower Hamlets. The House of Commons had carefully considered the clauses of the Bill during sixteen hours, and the whole of their work was undone by the House of Lords in sixteen minutes; and the result was not beneficial or judicious with respect to the mining interest. It also conflicted with the evidence in the reports of the inspectors, and with the experience of the working of the system of education which had been proposed in some of the Scotch mines, where it had been adopted with the best success. By the Amendment of the Lords a child not educated was to be educated by the mine-owner, but the mine-owner was not bound to keep up the education of a child who entered his mine educated. The provision appeared absurd. With regard to other Amendments of the Lords, he asked the House to agree to them, simply because he had no other alternative, and because the mining population considered the Bill an improvement on the last Act.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he hoped the Amendment would he agreed to, as it had come down from the Lords.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he was glad the Government had expressed their regret at the injury sustained by the Bill in the other House. He regretted the exclusion of iron-stone mines, and expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would appoint a Commission during the recess to inquire into that matter.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISregretted that the education clauses had not been retained as they were passed by that House after due consideration. The Bill had undergone a material change for the worse in the other House. Perhaps it would be better to leave the Bill as it had come from the Lords, but he was willing to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, though it was one of very slight importance. It would be the duty of the Home Department to keep its eye fixed upon the operation of the Bill, and if the securities taken for the education of the children employed in mines should be found not sufficient the Home Secretary for the time being would doubtless call the attention of Parliament to the subject. The question of iron-stone and other mineral mines unconnected with coal measures was one that would require investigation. He would not pledge himself as to the precise time or mode of inquiry, but the sub-
  1758
  ject would receive the consideration of the Government during the recess.
  Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed." Sir GEORGE LEWIS, MR. CLIVE, Mr. AYRTON, and Mr. KINNAIRD:—
  To withdraw immediately. Three to be the quorum.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Lords Amendments considered; several agreed to; several amended, and agreed to; and several disagreed to.
  Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed." Mr. CARDWELL, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for Ireland, The JUDGE ADVOCATE, and Mr. CLIVE.
  To withdraw immediately. Three to be the quorum.

FORTIFICATIONS.—ADDRESS MOVED.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he rose to move—
"That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct to be carried into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the National Defences, in paragraphs 156 and 158 of the report to Her Majesty for the construction of a fortified work on Shooter's-hill calculated for a garrison of 1,500 men, to assist in the protection of Woolwich Dockyard and Arsenal, and as an important element in the means of defence for the Metropolis; also praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that a Royal Commission be appointed to examine and report to Her Majesty on the lines of march available to an invading army advancing against London, on the obstacles or positions which may be occupied or prepared to obstruct or defeat an enemy on these lines of advance, and on the points d'appui or support of the national forces in their operations or manœuvres in the vicinity and for the defence of the Metropolis of the empire."
He rose under very considerable disadvantage to bring forward this important subject; but, as he intended to be as brief as possible, he hoped that he would be permitted to make his Motion. As the noble Lord at the head of the Government was aware, it was no fault of his that the question came on at that particular moment. The first part of his proposition referred to the fortified work on Shooter's-hill, which was recommended by the Royal Commissioners. That recommendation however, the Government had entirely omitted from

1759
their scheme; and it was now his wish, as his own opinion fully coincided with that of the Royal Commission, to induce the Government to reconsider their decision. His second proposition was for an inquiry into the lines of march available to an invading army advancing against London, and the measures to be taken for defeating an enemy on those lines. Although no express recommendation was made by the Commissioners on that point, yet on examining their report it would be found that the institution of such an inquiry would be in accordance with their views, and he trusted the Government would recognize the expediency of appointing a Royal Commission for that purpose. The National Defence Commission had evidently felt themselves precluded from entering upon such an investigation. The original instruction they received from the Government contemplated a comprehensive inquiry into the general question of our national defences; but subsequently a letter was addressed to them by the Secretary of State for War, directing them to confine their attention to the arsenals only. It was a pity that that restriction had been imposed upon them, and although the Commissioners were obliged to act upon it, they nevertheless adverted to it in more than one part of their report. He conceived that the establishment of a fortified work on Shooter's-hill, which the Commissioners strongly recommended, was a matter of great importance to the safety of the country, and especially of the Metropolis. It was rather remarkable that while the Commissioners had suggested the execution of extensive works in all our other arsenals, and the Government had, with certain very judicious modifications, adopted those suggestions, on the other hand, the adoption of this further recommendation of the Commission, which also related to a most important arsenal and dockyard, had been postponed, by the Government sine die. As Parliament was about to separate for probably five or six months, he was therefore anxious to draw the earnest attention of the Government to the inexpediency of leaving Shooter's-hill and Woolwich wholly without defences. What he now proposed would not necessarily involve any additional outlay of public money. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Sir Frederick Smith) and himself had expressed their opinion that some of the proposals of the Commissioners were unduly expensive.
Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members not being present,
House adjourned at Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—1a Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Exchequer Bonds or Bills (£2,000,000); Militia Pay; Roman Catholic Charities.
2a East India Loan; Spirit Duties.
3a Excise Duties.

CONJUGAL RIGHTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  COMMONS' AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that notwithstanding his great disinclination at

  1721
  all times to oppose Amendments which the Commons might propose in Bills sent down to them, he deemed it his duty to advise their Lordships to disagree with the alleged Amendments in this Bill. Those Amendments consisted in altogether omitting two clauses from the Bill, which constituted the life and substance of the measure. One was, that a divorce, à vinculo matrimonii, pronounced by a Court in Scotland should have force and validity all over the dominions of Her Majesty. At present, if a marriage was celebrated in England, and the divorce took place in Scotland, the divorce had full operation in Scotland, but none in England; and the parties still remained husband and wife on one side of the Tweed, though they were separated on the other. On the north side the Tweed, they might lawfully marry again, and their children would be legitimate in Scotland; in England the second marriage would be bigamy, and their children bastards. That was an anomaly most inconvenient, most mischievous, and most disreputable to the law of the United Kingdom. The clause to which he referred, provided that when a sentence of divorce was duly pronounced, proper caution being taken to guard against collusion or fraud, it should be operative all over the world. To introduce that enactment, there was a previous clause which protected the Scotch Courts against collusion and fraud. At present the Scotch Courts took cognizance of cases of divorce, if the parties had been resident in Scotland forty days. This induced people to go to Scotland from other countries, and he was sorry to say from England, collusively to obtain a divorce to which they were not entitled in England. Again, the Scotch Courts claimed a right of jurisdiction which was called ratione originis. If a Scotchman born went into another country and abandoned his native land, and acquired a domicile elsewhere, the Scotch Courts said they had a jurisdiction with respect to him to enforce the law of divorce, although he remained domiciled in a foreign country, ratione originis. That seemed to him to be very unreasonable, and contrary to all principle; because the law of divorce ought to be administered in the tribunals of the country where the parties were domiciled, and where they were known. But the existing state of things necessarily led to uncertainty, and even to fraud. If a Scotchman had left his own country and acquired a domicile elsewhere, he had only to return to Scotland to recover his domicile there,
  1722
  and then he was entitled to a divorce, as though he had never crossed the Tweed. Again, it was said that, ratione delicti, the Scotch Courts ought to have jurisdiction in cases of divorce, although the parties were not domiciled in Scotland. If adultery were to be prosecuted as a crime, it ought to be prosecuted in the country where it was committed; but a suit for divorce was a mere civil proceeding, and the remedy should be given only to those who were domiciled in the country. He might add, that the two clauses in question were approved by all the law Lords; and that Lord Brougham had authorized him to state that he still retained the opinions which he had expressed to their Lordships. These clauses had, nevertheless, been rejected by the Commons—he believed without any discussion—but he was not without hope that if their Lordships sent the Bill back to the Commons, with their reasons for dissenting to the rejection of the clauses, the Commons might, on further consideration, consent to restore them.
  Then, on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, some of the Commons' Amendments agreed to, and some disagreed to: and a Committee appointed to prepare Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to certain of the said Amendments: the Committee to meet immediately: Report from the Committee of Reasons read, and agreed to: and a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with the Amendments and Reasons.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a Quarter before Five o'clock.