Sir, I protest to this House that I heard distinctly the words pronounced, "I desire to be sworn on the Old Testament." ["Oh, oh!" and "Order!"] I was not mistaken in that phrase. Sir, from the time that this nation has been a Christian nation, and from the time that this Legislature has been a Christian Legislature, no man has ever—if I may use the word without offence—no man has ever presumed before to claim his seat here, unless he was prepared to take it under the solemn sanction of an oath in the name of our common Redeemer; if not upon that book which contains His revealed will and word, at least upon some outward symbol of our common redemption. Sir, I do not undervalue—God forbid that I should!—I do not undervalue the Old Testament, If the hon. individual who came to the table had asked to be sworn upon the I Bible, although with my knowledge of what his mind would be, I should, even; then, refuse his request. Now I feel doubly bound to do so, when by the terms of his proposition he asks me and the House to abrogate that second part of the book on which the Christian faith is fixed. But, Sir, we have not an Old Testament in our collection. The Old Testament is found in our courts of criminal jurisdiction; and if this was a court of criminal jurisdiction, and the hon. individual had come forward as a witness, the case would have been entirely different. But we all know in this House that the hon. individual who came to the table, came to claim his right to legislate here for the Church and religion of this still Christian country. Therefore I, for one, will never give my sanction to any mode by which he could be admitted.

rose to order. He begged to observe that there was no question before the House.

stated that the hon. Member for the University of Oxford was in possession of the House, and might conclude with a Motion.

Even if I was not in order, and if I intended to propose no Motion, there is business before the House which I think justifies me in addressing you, inasmuch as an individual approached the table, and has been requested to withdraw in consequence of a request he made; and until the House shall have decided upon the question of the acceptance or rejection of the request of that individual, or upon some other course to be taken under the circumstances, I apprehend, with all deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that I myself, or any other Member of this House, may address themselves to the subject as I have done. I could well wish that the majority of the House would rise with the same principles and objects which are so dear to my heart; but, whether the heart and mind of the majority of the House he with me or not, I will never shrink from declaring that, as all my life I have done, I will at least endeavour that in name and profession we shall be, and in our habits we shall he, what we profess to be—a Christian Legislature for a Christian country. If then it be necessary in form to conclude with a Motion, I would conclude with one like this—That it had been the practice of this country, ever since it had been a Christian country, to regard the Members of this Supreme Legislature, whether King, Lords, or Commons, as bound by Christian obligation and by none other, and that no man approaching this table should take part in our deliberations, or ought to be permitted to take such part, except under the sanction and obligation of Christian profession, whether by declaration on oath, or by touching some symbol connected with the Christian faith. If the hon. and learned Member for Oxford says it is necessary to put it as a question of principle that it is unnecessary for a person to make profession as a Christian, I will, if the House will permit, write down what 1 will propose as a Motion.

said, that the hon. Baronet seemed to have omitted to state that the Baron Rothschild had been chosen and elected by the city of London.

Sir, I propose to take the course which I apprehend will be consistent with the due dignity of this House, and with the magnitude and importance of the occasion, and the House will, I think, observe that it has in this case a judicial duty to perform, and that no feeling whatsoever of any party considerations ought to enter into the decision to which the House may come upon the present occasion. I propose, therefore, without expressing at present any opinion upon the subject before the House, to ask the House to adopt in this case a course similar to that which was adopted when Mr. O'Connell was elected for the county of Clare. Mr. O'Connell came to the table, and declined to take the oath which was then in usage in this House. After that, and an adjourned debate, it was moved by the late Sir R. Peel that Mr. O'Connell he heard at the bar of the House upon his claims; and I now propose to ask the House to follow a similar rule in the present case, and to adopt a Motion in exact conformity with what was done on that occasion. I propose to ask the House to leave out all the words after the first of the Motion proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, for the purpose of inserting in their place other words to that effect. I apprehend that that is the course which it would be consistent with the dignity of this House to take upon the present occasion. The question would then be upon what ground the Baron de Rothschild claimed the right to take the oaths upon the Old Testament; and after hearing his case upon that point, it would be fitting that the House should debate with a view to come to a conclusion as to what course it would be proper to take. These are the identical words of the late Sir Robert Peel's Motion, which was adopted by the House without any division, and Mr. O'Connell was heard.

said: I think it will be scarcely necessary for me to follow at any length the somewhat singular course of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, in moving his resolution by starting with an avowed declaration of his Christian principles—a declaration which I should have thought extremely unnecessary, because we may fairly assume that those principles are common to the whole House—instead of taking that view which I apprehend to be the constitutional view of the subject—namely, whether or not a gentleman who has been twice returned as a Member for the metropolis of our own country—one amongst the largest constituencies in the country, consisting of Christians as distinguished—I wish to make no invidious comparisons—but I would say, as distinguished as the hon. Baronet himself—I say the constitutional question, whether or not a person so returned and so elected, is or is not entitled to those privileges which, it must be admitted, are the common privileges of every British subject until the law be enacted debarring him from them. If the hon. Baronet had entered into that question, the address which he offered to the House might have been pertinent to the subject before the House; but as his whole argument proceeded on a principle with which I entirely agree, I hold myself excused from saying one word more on the arguments which he offered to the House. The hon. and learned Attorney General has met that hon. Baronet's resolution by an Amendment which seems to me not to meet the case before the House. If the claim had been of another nature—namely, to alter any portion of our existing law—then it might be right that Baron de Rothschild should have the assistance of counsel; but there is one important feature in this case which appears to have been overlooked, and that is, that the Baron has not, as in the case of Mr. O'Connell, required to be heard by counsel. In that case Mr. O'Connell requested to be heard. ["No!"] It will be found on the journals of the House. They state that Mr. O'Connell wished to be heard by counsel. [Sir G. CLERK: After the resolution.] I have the entry in my hand. Mr. Brougham moved that Mr. O'Connell be heard at the table, when Lord Duncannon said he was requested by the hon. Member for Clare to request that he might be heard at the bar. The question was adjourned until Monday, and after that the Motion to be heard by counsel was acceded to. Now, two of the three oaths to be taken, form no difficulty in the way of the hon. Member. He is prepared to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, in the way which no lawyer will venture to deny is the universal mode of administering an oath. I should like to see any lawyer rise and say that a Jew could be prevented taking an oath in the ordinary form, "So help mo God!" on the Old Testament. A Committee of the House has sat on this question, and has reported that Mr. Alderman Salomons, on filling the office of sheriff of the city of London had taken an oath of allegiance and supremacy in the same terms as they were taken by Members in this House. There is a special statute by which the words "on the true faith of a Christian" are inserted in the oath of abjuration; but there are no such expressions in the other two oaths. The oaths are three; they are not imposed by the same statutes. The oaths of allegiance and supremacy are imposed by different statutes from the oath of abjuration. The two former, as they now stand, were fixed by an Act, 1st of William and Mary, which required those oaths to be taken thereafter in the form prescribed in the Act, and repealed an Act of the 30th of Charles II., which originally imposed the two oaths, but re-enacted that the parties should take the oaths—namely, those administered to Members on taking their seats, under the same disabilities as" the oath of supremacy was directed by the Act of Charles II. to be taken under. Therefore, those two oaths are to be taken pursuant to the statute of William and Mary, wholly irrespective of the oath of abjuration, but under the penalties of the statute of Charles II. The House will find that if Baron Rothschild—

rose to order. The hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford had made several allusions to the Baron de Rothschild. Now, he (Mr. Hope) apprehended that the only Barons known to the English constitution were Members of the House of Peers.

I will easily correct my mistake by calling the Baron hereafter the Member for the city of London. If the hon. Member for the city of London should take his seat without taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, which he has tendered himself to take, if he should be compelled by any resolution, of the House to seat himself without taking those oaths, the consequence would be that he would become at once a Popish recusant convert. But the oath of abjuration, which was originally imposed by the 13th William and Mary, had during the time between I the 1st and the 13th no existence. I affirm that no lawyer will assert that during that interval Baron de Rothschild could have I been excluded. The only oath a Jew could take up to that time was on the Old Testament; but the 13th William and Mary enacted the oath of abjuration, which was altered into the law as it now stands by the 6th Geo. III. Here are three oaths—supremacy, allegiance, and abjuration. The hon. Member for the city of London has tendered himself to take two of the oaths, as Mr. Alderman Salomons did. The House is aware that the administration of oaths was within the last century adjudicated upon by Lord Hardwicke; and the case was this. There was a form of commission in Chancery for the examination of witnesses. Time out of mind this commission had tendered oaths without difficulty, but at last a Hindoo came to be examined, and it was ruled that the practice should be regulated by the principles which rule all law. An application was made on behalf of the witness, that the words "corporal" and "upon the holy evangelists" should be left out, and, instead, the words "on a proper oath, in the most solemn manner" substituted. Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, upon this application, said—

"It depends upon what is admitted on the other side, that the defendant in the cross cause is of the Gentoo religion and an idolater. I have often wondered, as the dominions of Great Britain are so extensive, that there has never been any rule or method in cases of this sort. The general rule is, that all persons who believe a God are capable of an oath; and what is universally understood by an oath is that the person who takes it imprecates the vengeance of God upon him if the oath he takes is false. It was upon this principle that the Judges were inclined to admit the Jews, who believed a God, according to our notion of a God, to swear upon the Old Testament. And Lord Hale very justly observes, it is a wise rule in the kingdom of Spain that a heathen and idolater should be sworn upon what he thinks is the most sacred part of his religion. If a Jew should be indicted for perjury, and it is laid in the indictment that he swore tactis sacro-sanctis Dei evangeliis, yet, according to Hale, the word evangeliis in the indictment may be answered by the Old Testament, which is the evangelium of the Jews. In order to remove the difficulties in this case, I shall direct that these words upon 'the Holy Evangelists' may be left out. The next consideration is, what words must be inserted in their room? Now, on the part of the plaintiff in the cross bill, it is desired that I should appoint a solemn form for the oath; I think this very improper, because I may possibly direct a form that is contrary to the notions of religion entertained by the Gentoo people. I will, therefore, make this rule: that two or three of the commissioners may administer such oath, in the most solemn manner as, in their discretions, shall seem meet: and if the person, upon the usual oath being explained to him, shall consent to take it, and the commissioners approve of administering it (for he may perhaps be a Christian convert) the difficulty is removed, or if they should think proper to administer another oath, that then they shall certify to the court what was done by them, and that will be the proper time to controvert the validity of such an oath, and to take the opinion of the Judges upon it if the court should have any doubt. The words 'corporal oath' may stand for lifting up an arm or other bodily member. This will come up to the meaning of a corporal oath; but, upon the Attorney General suggesting that there might be no ceremonies in their form of taking oaths, these words were likewise left out, and the words 'most solemnly' to be inserted in their room."

Similar orders appear to have been made for the examination of witnesses, and in 1774 the whole matter came on to be argued on the return of the commissioners (which stated the mode of swearing to have been "by the witnesses touching with their hands the foot of the Brahmin or priest [with some other ceremonies], being the usual and most solemn form in which oaths are most usually administered to witnesses who profess the Gentoo religion") whether the answer and evidence so taken could be read. The discussion was very full, and Lord Chancellor Hardwicke was assisted by the Lord Chief Baron Parker, Lord Chief Justice Willes, and Lord Chief Justice Lee. The counsel who opposed the admission of the evidence, relied on the constant form of the commission and on the law of England requiring oaths to be on the Evangelists, and on indictments for perjury, being framed with those words, per se sacro evangelio voluntarie et corrupte commisit perjurium; on the other side, many instances were given of Jews being sworn on the Old Testament, and authorities cited as to the admissibility of all witnesses who believed in a Supreme Being. The Chief Baron appears to have laid down the rule, as stated in the Declaratory Act of 1 & 2 Vict., c. 105. He says—

"It is plain that by the policy of all countries oaths are to be administered to all persons according to their own opinion, and as it most affects their conscience, and laying the hand was originally borrowed from the Pagans. It is said by defendant's counsel, that no new oath can be, imposed without an Act of Parliament. My answer is 'This is no new oath.'"

Lord Chief Justice Willes, after stating that Maddox's History of the Exchequer clears it up beyond all contradiction that Jews were constantly sworn, and from the 19 Car. 1 to the present time have never been refused, says, "The nature of an oath is not at all altered by Christianity, but only made more solemn, from the sanction of rewards and punishments being more openly declared." In another passage he says, "The form of oaths varies in countries according to different laws and constitutions, but the substance is the same in all." Lord Chief Justice Lee gave an opinion to the same effect. Lord Chancellor Hardwicke decided in favour of the admission of the evidence, and stated his opinion as follows:—

"The next question will be, whether the depositions ought to be read, which depends upon two things: first, whether it is a proper obligatory oath: secondly, whether, on the special circumstances in this case, such evidence can be admitted according to the law of England. The general learning upon this head has been fully enlarged upon by the Lord Chief Justice. The first author I shall mention is Bishop Sanderson, De Juris-juramenti Obligatione. Jurisjuramentum, saith he, est affirmatio religiosa. All that is necessary to an oath is an appeal to the Supreme Being, as thinking him the rewarder of truth and the avenger of falsehood. Vide the same author, pages 5 and 18. This is not contradicted by any writer that I know of hut Lord Coke, who has taken upon him to insert the word Christian, and is the only writer that has grafted this word into an oath."

Therefore when the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford took upon himself to say that the oath had never yet been administered to any person except a Christian—[Sir E. H. INGLIS: I said in the Legislature.] He cared not how it was; but when the hon. Baronet took upon himself to say that he erred in good company, for he erred in company with Lord Coke, whose error was to be accounted for only by his peculiar feelings towards the Jews, all of whom he declared to be aliens, because they were subject to a foreign prince, to wit, the Devil. But no other legal authority has acquiesced in the view of Lord Coke. The hon. Baronet says that what we demand has never been done in the British Legislature; hut I apprehend that what we are going on is this. Here is a British subject having the qualification of a Member of Parliament with reference to property, who has been elected by his fellow citizens, against whom a petition of disqualification was presented but subsequently abandoned; and this gentleman claims the privilege, and, let me add, the duty, of representing fellow citizens in this House. There is nothing to exclude him from the House if he takes the oath pre scribed by Act of Parliament. The only question is whether the oath he refuses to take differs essentially from the other. I call on the House to show bow they differ. I apprehend that the oath might he administered under the common or statute-law, without the excluding passage. I apprehend that wherever an oath is enacted, there is no question about a Jew taking it on the Old Testament, and yet we do not see any where, even in a Railway Act, that it is laid down that he should be sworn on the Old Testament. The course to be taken is prescribed in the case of the Quakers, because they take no oaths at all; but in other cases, it is assumed that it should be administered in the way most binding on the conscience. But, in order to prevent any dispute, there has been passed a declaratory Act, which finally settles the question, 1 and 2 Vic, c. 105, called Lord Penman's Act. It runs thus:—

"Be it declared and enacted by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that in all cases in which an oath may lawfully be and shall have been administered to any person either as a juryman or a witness, or a deponent in any proceeding, civil or criminal, in any court of law or equity in the United Kingdom, or on any occasion whatever—"

"Whatever;" does not that apply to an oath to be taken before that House?—

"such person is bound by the oath administered, provided the same shall have been administered in such form and with such ceremonies as such person may declare to be binding; and every such person, in case of wilful false swearing, may be convicted of the crime of perjury in the same manner as if the oath had been administered in the form and with the ceremonies most commonly adopted."

I say, then, that all the Legislature requires by an oath is, that the party should he bound; and if he were bound, then the hon. Member for the city of London has a right to come here and demand his seat. If my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had not moved his Amendment, it was my intention to have moved the following resolution:—"The hon. Lionel Nathan Baron de Rothschild having presented himself at the table of this House in order to take the oath required by law to be taken by Members before admission to their seats, and before the oath of allegiance being tendered to him having required that the same should be administered to him on the Old Testament, which he declares to be the mode of administration binding on his conscience, the clerk be desired to administer the said oath of allegiance accordingly." This I think the hon. Member for the city of London is entitled to. I admit that we should proceed gravely in this matter, and I wish so to treat it, and not in any way as a party question. But, Sir, I say it is not for the credit of this House, or the credit of the law officers of the Crown, to treat a matter of clear law like the present as a disputable point. There may be serious questions perhaps in regard to the third oath—the oath of abjuration—but we have not arrived at that yet; the oath of allegiance stands first, and that the Baron de Rothschild is ready to take, and I say, that by law, he has a right to do so. The electors who have returned him have also a right to demand it. I would ask the House this question—Mr. Alderman Salomons has been sworn on the same oath to the office of sheriff—he was appointed Sheriff of London, and has taken the oath on entering upon the duties of that office in the same way as the Baron de Rothschild claims to take it now—suppose he had been refused, what would have been the result? Not only would the city of London have lost his services, but he himself would have been liable to heavy penalties for not serving. The city of London had a right to call upon him to take the oaths, and he did so; and in like manner the city of London had a right to say to Baron de Rothschild, "You have been elected by us as our representative—you must go to the House of Commons and offer to take the oaths required on admission to that House—we will not impose anything upon you that may be opposed to your conscience, but you must go and show that you are ready to enter upon the duties you have undertaken at your election; and unless there be some law or statute to prevent you, we insist upon your doing so." I regret to say that for the reasons I have stated I shall he obliged to vote not only against the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, hut also against the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General.

said, that considering this question to be one intimately affecting both the privileges of the House of Commons and the constitution of the country, and considering the position of the hon. Member who had offered himself at the table, and the constituency that he claimed to represent, it was impossible to overrate the importance of the subject. He could not too strongly express his concurrence in the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, that, proceeding as they were in the case, judicially, it was essential to the dignity and character of the House that they should act with due deliberation; and, further, he thought it would be wise on this occasion, as nearly as they could, to follow in the steps of those who had preceded them, and to take the course which they had taken in circumstances of a similar character. To a great extent he should be prepared, if called on to come to a vote at that moment, to assent to much that had been said by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General; hut in referring to the instance which had been alluded to, he had omitted to refer to one very important step taken upon that occasion, and which he thought upon this occasion was even more necessary than then. It was at that time well known that Mr. O'Connell was about to tender himself at the table of the House, and it was equally well known that he was about to take objection to a particular oath, and therefore the question was not new; but, in the present case, he believed that up to twelve o'clock last night it was totally unknown to the great majority of that House that it was the intention of Baron de Rothschild to appear at the table to-day; and, for his own part certainly, until a very few hours from that time, he had not heard that they should be called upon to come to a decision upon this question. He had not had the honour of belonging to the Committee to whose report the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford had alluded. He certainly had read the report at the time it was issued; but since the noble Lord at the head of the Government had introduced his Bill, he had dismissed the subject from his mind. But when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford distinguished between the question of taking that oath which included the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," and that of taking the oath of allegiance merely, and claimed that now the only question before the House was, whether the hon. Member for the city of London was entitled to he sworn upon the Old Testament, he must say that he thought it was impossible to consider the question satisfactorily without referring to the whole of the difficulties of the case. He had upon all occasions supported airy measure for the admission of Jews into Parliament; hut when this matter was mentioned early in the Session, he ventured to caution the House against taking any indirect mode of proceeding. He was sure that that House would not consent to be taken either by storm or surprise; and he was certain that the hon. Gentleman who had come to be sworn at that table would be the last man, either in that House or elsewhere, to endeavour by any indirect mode to obtain what he sought in an open and honourable manner. Under these circumstances, reference must be had to what had been done on a former occasion. He found that the late Sir Robert Peel—whose absence upon that occasion, as he feared on many future occasions, they should have over and over again to lament—he who above all Members was jealous of the privileges of that House, and who was most learned in the history and principle of those privileges—feeling that occasion to he a grave one, and one demanding deliberation, immediately on the discussion arising, proposed that it should be adjourned to a future day for the purpose of consideration. That was unanimously agreed to by the House. Upon Friday Mr. O'Connell presented himself, and on the Motion of Sir Robert Peel the discussion was adjourned till the following Monday, and then it was that the Motion was made which had been alluded to by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and which was unanimously assented to by the House. He thought, considering the little notice that the House had had—and that, as regarded a great portion of that House, at all events, they had not an opportunity of becoming acquainted with arguments into which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford, as chairman of the Committee, had been enabled to enter, it would be wise on the part of the House to follow the precedent in Mr. O'Connell's case. He begged to move, therefore, that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday next, at twelve o'clock.

Mr. Speaker, I own I think when an hon. Gentleman in this House asks that this debate should be adjourned, and considering the circumstances which can be stated and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just stated, namely, that up to last night no one expected that Baron de Rothschild would claim his seat, that that proposition is so reasonable, and so conformable to the usages and character of this House, that I think time ought to be taken for deliberation. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is exactly following the precedent in Mr. O'Connell's case, because he will find that when Mr. O'Connell claimed to take his seat in this House, it was proposed, I think by Mr. Brougham, that he should be heard at the table in support of his claim. The late Sir Robert Peel doubted whether that was the course which ought to be pursued, and asked time to deliberate and consider that question. On Monday Sir Robert Peel proposed, that instead of Mr. O'Connell's being heard at the table, he should be heard at the bar, as being more conformable to precedent, and more required by the justice of the ease; and having come to that conclusion, the House willingly agreed to that amendment of the Motion, and that resolution was adopted. That precedent now exists, and it is one which I think we may safely follow. But the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford says, he cannot adopt the resolution of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, because Baron de Rothschild has not asked to be heard in support of his claim, and that such a resolution ought not to be carried unless some claim is made. Now, Sir, in the cases that have happened-—in the ease of Mr. Archdall, as well as that of Mr. O'Connell, who claimed their seats without taking the oaths which are prescribed for Members who take their seats in this House, they stated why they wished to be exempted from taking such oaths, or from taking certain oaths in the manner prescribed. I think, therefore, it would be well for the House to give Baron de Rothschild an opportunity of doing that which Mr. Archdall did by letter, and Mr. O'Connell by speech, and which he would be at liberty to do if he thought fit. If Baron de Rothschild chooses to say that he has made his claim, and does not wish to urge any reasons in support of it, of course the House is then in a situation to come to a decision upon it. Baron de Rothschild is perfectly at liberty to say that he does not wish to be heard by himself, or his counsel, or his agent, but is ready to leave the question entirely in the hands of the House. We do not, therefore, prejudice him in the least degree by saying that, before the House comes to a decision upon this grave and important question, we are willing to hear any reasons which he has to allege in favour of his being sworn on the Old Testament, instead of in the manner in which; a Member of this House is usually sworn. However, as I have said, I think that this proposition to be sworn on the Old Testament being one which, however it may be familiar to courts of justice, has not been made before in this House, it is fit that the House should take due time for deliberation, and that, whether Baron de Rothschild choose to he heard by himself, his counsel, or his agent, or whether the House proceeds to a decision on the ease as it now stands, on the report of the Committee, some days for deliberation are due to the gravity and importance of the question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Buteshire says, he has not attended sufficiently to the report of the Committee, which is on the table of the House, to be able at present to state the view that he takes of it. Now, if that be true of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is as likely as any Member of this House to attend to questions affecting the constitution and laws of this country, how much more must it be the case of many other hon. Members, who cannot have duly attended to the very important information which is contained in the report of that Committee? I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will carefully read that report, which is full of the most interesting matter, stated without any argument on one side or the other, but in such a way as to enable Members to make up their minds on the practical question before them, and that we may on some day next week come to a discussion of the subject. I should rather wish that the convenience of the hon. Member himself who claims a seat in this House should be consulted with respect to the day to be named. If there is any day next week on which it would be more convenient for him than another that the discussion should come on, that day ought to be fixed; and I think that the House cannot attempt too gravely or too deliberately to interfere in the question now before it. Let them consider that this is not a question merely of the general principle which should guide this House, but that it is a question of the law and constitution of this country, and that in deciding this question they will determine a most important precedent. I do hope, therefore, that every care will be given to the consideration of the subject. I, like my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney Genera], do not propose to say a single word at present upon the merits of the question, but I really do hope that this House, though they must come to a division of opinion in the end with respect to the rights which the hon. Member for the city of London may claim, and with respect to the decision which they ought to come to, will endeavour in the preliminary stage to come to a decision, without any difference of opinion, that this question should not be hastily or partially considered, but should be dealt with with all the caution, care, and deliberation which it is desirable that questions of this nature should receive.

should feel it his duty to join with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the city of Oxford in voting against both propositions. He admitted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded the noble Lord in the debate could not have known until a late hour yesterday that the subject would be brought under consideration to-day; but while he admitted that, it was right to say that he and others who had taken an active part in bringing the question forward had no desire to take the House by surprise, and that the noble Lord had done no more than justice to Baron de Rothschild in exonerating him from any such intention. But he must be allowed to remind the noble Lord and the House of the position in which the city of London was placed. The noble Lord had promised to take up the question, and over and over again he had stated, during the present Session, that he did intend to persevere with the measure which he had introduced; and it was only a few nights ago, when explaining what were the measures the Government proposed to abandon, and what they intended to proceed with, during the present Session, that he declared most emphatically that it was their intention to take the opinion of the House of Commons upon the question, whether, by the mode proposed by that Bill, the hon. Member for the city of London, the noble Lord's Colleague, should be permitted to take his seat or no? It was competent for the noble Lord to have raised that question, either by a Resolution or a Bill; and he (Sir B. Hall) believed that, so late as Saturday last, it was the opinion of those gentlemen who took an active part in the election for the city of London that the noble Lord did intend to bring forward a Motion of the kind at no very remote period. But, within forty three hours of that time, namely, on Monday last, the noble Lord had come forward and stated that he did not intend to proceed with any measure on the subject during the present Session. As soon as the electors of London saw that announcement in the newspapers of Tuesday, they sent round a circular calling on those who take an interest in the representation of the city of London to meet together to consider the course to be pursued in consequence. A meeting of the electors of the city of London accordingly took place on the previous day, at which it was determined that, as the noble Lord had abandoned his expressed intention of bringing forward the subject for the consideration of the Legislature—[Lord J. RUSSELL: No!]—for the present Session, that the citizens of London would no longer be trifled with, but would desire their Member to go down to the House of Commons, and present himself at the table for the purpose of having the question raised and decided. Under these circumstances, no notice could be given, and no blame attached either to the Baron de Rothschild or to the citizens of London. If any one was to blame in the matter, it was the noble Lord, who had postponed the question indefinitely, and not the citizens of London. The precedent which had been referred to had not been stated altogether correctly. In 1829, when Mr. O'Connell presented himself, he refused to take the oath; but they would not give to Baron de Rothschild the opportunity of taking the oath; and although a positive Act, which had been passed recently, and which had been quoted by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the city of Oxford, though they had that Act before them, it having been presented in the report of the Committee—notwithstanding that Act, and its clear and unmistakeable meaning, they said they would take time to consider the meaning of it, and refused to give any decision on the question at issue. Had his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and others who took the same course, really any doubt as to the meaning of that Act; or was not the proposition made for the purpose of delay? For what were the words of the Act? They were, "on any occasion whatever." To this the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford answered, "But this is the first time a gentleman professing the same opinions as the Baron de Rothschild entertains has presented himself for admission to this House." He (Sir B. Hall) could not see how that reason applied more in the case of the Baron de Rothschild, than it applied in the case of Mr. O'Connell, when the Emancipation Act passed, and he presented himself at the table to be sworn. He could see no difference between the two cases in that particular which should prevent the Baron de Rothschild being placed in the same position as Mr. O'Connell was placed in. Now, let him call attention to what took place in the House of Lords when sitting judicially. There, when any Jew was sworn, was he not sworn on the Old Testament? And he could sec no reason, if they allowed an oath to be taken by a witness in the House of Lords, why the same oath should not be taken by a person of the same religion 'when returned as a Member to the House of Commons. He submitted that the course they ought to pursue was, to allow the hon. Gentleman to be sworn on the Old Testament, in the way prescribed by the Act of Parliament before them. Then the question might be raised if he declined to go through the whole of the oath, but stopped short at certain words—then the Motion submitted by Sir Robert Peel in 1829 might fairly be brought forward for consideration. But what was the course pursued in that case? Then there was no delay. Mr. Brougham proposed that Mr. O'Connell should be heard at the table; and in the course of the debate which ensued, Sir Robert Peel moved an adjournment until the following Monday, and then—(and the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford was quite right when he said that Lord Duncannon asked that the Member for Clare might be heard in support of his claim)—then Sir Robert Peel moved that the hon. Member for Clare'—mark, not the individual, Mr. O'Connell, but the Member for Clare—might be heard by himself, counsel, or agent, at the bar, in support of his claim, to take his seat without subscribing to the oath of supremacy; and that Motion was carried. Was there any delay there? None; for, after a few words from Mr. Brougham, his proposition was withdrawn, and when he sat down the Speaker put the question, which was unanimously carried in the affirmative, and Mr. O'Connell was immediately called to the bar. Here there was no delay. True, there was an adjournment of the debate, but not on the proposition whether Mr. O'Connell should be heard, but whether he should be heard at the table or at the bar of the House. That was the question discussed; and as soon as it was determined that he should be heard at the bar, there was no delay such as was proposed in the present case, but the question was at once put and carried, and Mr. O'Connell was called in. Under all the circumstances, having a plain Act of Parliament before them, which, he contended, was so clear and concise that there could be no doubt as to its construction, he should give his vote against both propositions.

said, that the precedent of the Clare election was not at all applicable to the present case. In that case, Mr. Brougham moved, "That Mr. O'Connell be called back, and heard at the table." The late Sir Robert Peel moved, as an Amendment, that the debate be adjourned till the following Monday, giving as his reason that he wished time to consult precedents, to enable the House to decide whether Mr. O'Connell should be heard at the bar or at the table. A further question arose at a later period of the debate, and Sir Robert Peel was asked, "Do you mean to look for precedents whether Mr. O'Connell be heard at all?" and his answer was, that he did not; but merely whether, as in the cases of Sir H. Mounson and Lord Fanshawe, he should be heard at the table or at the bar. His reason for objecting to his being heard at the table was, that by a strict construction of the statute, Mr. O'Connell would expose himself to a statutory penalty for having spoken in the House without taking the oaths. The adjournment accordingly took place till Monday, it having been arranged that it should then take precedence of everything else, and that it should be finished in one night. Lord Duncannon had previously stated that he was instructed by the hon. Member for Clare to state that he claimed the pri- vilege of being heard before the House in support of his claims. Now, what he wished to press upon the attention of the noble and right hon. Personages who were in favour of obstruction and delay on this occasion was this, that the only reason urged by the late Sir Robert Peel for delay in the case of Mr. O'Connell was, that he wished for time to consult precedents whether he should be heard at the table or at the bar. That was a new case; no similar instance had occurred since the time of William III., and in those circumstances it was right and proper that there should be delay to allow time for consideration; but, in the present case, the House had before them the ascertained fact that a Member claiming his seat had a right to be heard at the bar; and hence there was not the same reason for delay as in the case just referred to. The notable reason advanced by the noble Lord at the head of the Government for delay was, that hon. Members might have an opportunity of reading diligently in the interval a document which it seemed they had hitherto neglected altogether. But what right had they to have neglected the perusal of that report so long? It was not many days since there was on the orders of that House a Bill for discussion which it was impossible for hon. Members to have discussed unless they had attentively studied every passage in that report. It was only on Monday last that that Bill was withdrawn by the noble Lord; and, surely, if hon. Members had previously informed themselves of the precedents of the case before them, as they must have done, unless they had grievously neglected their duty, they could not have forgotten them in so brief an interval. But the truth was, that it was found inconvenient to come to a decision on the merits of the case, and accordingly the hon. and learned Attorney General had moved that Baron de Rothschild be heard by himself, his counsel, or agents—against what? Against a single preliminary objection. Weil, when they got over that, there would then come the more important objection with respect to the words "on the true faith of a Christian;" and another indefinite adjournment would be moved to enable Baron de Rothschild to be heard against that. The Ministerial dinner must not be postponed. It was perfectly notorious that the leading Members of the two hereditary factions of the country did last night come to an understanding that they would obstruct the present claim so as to occasion its postponement till another Session. He considered that the Government were guilty of a grievous neglect of duty. Here was one of the finest opportunities ever offered to repair the blunders which had disgraced the whole of the scheme of policy which had been pursued by the advocates of the Jewish claims from the beginning of the present Parliament till now, and that opportunity it was now proposed to decline. He objected to all delay. He did not care what offence was taken on either side of the House, for he felt that it was a duty to press it. Not even the right hon. and learned Member for Buteshire had stated that there was the slightest doubt that an oath which could be taken from a Jew at all, must be taken upon the Old Testament. As to searching for precedents, he would remind them of the Committee moved for by Sir Robert Peel. What need for more witnesses, when they had the evidence already? If a Jew presented himself, it was their duty to swear him. As they asked for some authority, however, he would give them one. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford had stated that from the earliest times, a relic, a cross, a book, or some other symbol of Christianity, had been a necessary appendage to the oaths taken by Members of Parliament. On this subject there was a curious authority still extant, although it was not mentioned in the report of the Committee which sat on the subject this Session. At (lie very time when Parliaments first began, a Parliamentum Judaicum, as it was called, was summoned by King Henry III. They accordingly met and voted a certain proportion of the general supplies which were voted by all the Parliaments summoned in that year, the proportion granted by the Jews being 20,000 marks. The peculiarity of that Parliament was that it consisted entirely of Jews. He would call their attention to the fact that oaths were administered to witnesses at the bar of the House of Lords in the mode most suited to the consciences of the witnesses, and he instanced the case of the female Hindoo who had the oaths administered to her in a divorce case before the House of Lords a few years ago, in the name of Bhudha, accompanied by the breaking of a saucer and the imprecation that she wished her soul might be broken in a similar manner if she did not tell the truth. He cared not what might be the consequence to himself personally, but he must say that he thought it was the bounden duty of those who advocated the claims of the Jews to insist upon the debate proceeding at the present moment. He submitted to the House whether there could be a doubt on the question, and whether it was not clear that Baron de Rothschild had a right to take the oaths. Suppose Baron de Rothschild had been called to the bar as a witness, could they administer to him any oath but that on the Old Testament, which he was now ready to take as a Member? Considering, then, the insignificance of the objection, the conduct of the Government, the lateness of the Session, and the consequence of delay, he was prepared to give his vote against the Motion for an adjournment, and every other Motion for adjournment or postponement of the proceedings necessary for a final decision of this all-important question.

said, he could answer for it that until twelve o'clock last night it was known by very few Members on the Opposition side of the House that this question would come on that day. He wished to call attention to the effect which the decision now sought would have when considered with reference to the conduct previously pursued by the House with reference to this subject, Baron de Rothschild had come there without notice, demanding that a question should be decided at once, which for two Sessions they had been debating, which had been debated in the House of Lords two Sessions, and with reference to which Her Majesty's Ministers had again introduced a Bill, and then withdrew it, after an announcement by the Prime Minister that it was only withdrawn with a view to its introduction next Session. What was it then that Baron de Rothschild and his friends now asked the House to do? They came down to the House without notice, and asked them to declare that they had been wasting the time of the House for the last two Sessions in debating a question which had already been settled by a previous Act. They asked them, in other words, to condemn their own proceedings as ridiculous, and to declare that the House of Lords had been betrayed into a course equally anomalous. He thought the attempt made to force on this discussion at the present moment was contemptuous towards the House. Did the parties making it repudiate the noble Lord at the head of the Government as the representative of the city of London? By adopting their present course, they condemned, in effect, the noble Lord for having introduced what they considered an unnecessary Bill, and for having sacrificed the claims of the; constituency by withdrawing it at this period of the Session with a view to its early introduction next year. The hurry with which the present proceeding was acted upon, indicated the weakness of the cause. He confessed he had been surprised to hear a Roman Catholic Member of that House, on a question affecting its Christian character, making use of the quotation—"What need we any further witness?" That was an unlucky quotation. He was truly surprised, too, to hear the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford interrupt the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, when he was saying that this had always been a Christian country, and that the Legislature and the constitution also had been, and were still, Christian. He had till that day scarcely expected to see hon. Members who professed liberal opinions, and a veneration for the right of discussion in that House, attempting to preclude a free discussion of this question, by an attempt to take the House by surprise on so grave a subject; it proved that they felt an inward consciousness that when the question was raised on due notice they could not meet the arguments adduced against it. He hoped the I noble Lord at the head of the Government would adhere to his determination—a determination guaranteed by his declaration that he would not proceed with the Bill he had introduced upon this subject this Session—guaranteed by his honour when he declared that he postponed that: Bill for another Session; and he (Mr. Newdegate) must say, that those who called themselves the supporters of the noble Lord, and who would drive him into the adoption of a different course, neither respected their own honour nor his. The country was totally unprepared to hear that Parliament had been wasting its; time for two Sessions on the Jew Bill. When the object of it had been accomplished by a previous Act as asserted by the hon. Member for Oxford, that Act was merely declaratory, and declared that every person was to take the oaths required of him in the manner most binding on his conscience. What was that manner? The House did not know what manner Baron de Rothschild would consider most binding on his conscience. They did not know what manner of taking oaths was most binding on the consciences of the Jewish people. The question simply was, whether the House would, at the bidding of a foreign baron, a rich man, the chosen of the constituency of London, stultify the whole of their past proceedings on the subject, that they might bow down before so august a personage? He could not believe that the majority of the House could be made to think such conduct consistent with the dignity of the House, and he therefore trusted the question would be postponed until it could be fairly and dispassionately argued. Then he should be prepared to meet the positions of the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford, and to show that if Mr. Alderman Salomons had not taken all the oaths required by law, every act of his as an alderman and in his office of sheriff, was invalid: he hoped therefore this illegal precedent would not be allowed to influence the House.

said, he should not have presumed to offer himself to their notice so early in the debate had he not been one of those Members who rejoiced in representing a large constituency. Baron de Rothschild had been called an "individual," but he would call him one of the Members for the city of London; and when they were told of the undue hurry of the present proceeding, and when they were called upon in judicial accents proceeding from the Treasury benches to proceed with deliberation, he would put it to the House and the country whether this question, which had now been debated for three Sessions, and which had been affirmed by large majorities of that House—whether they were going to fight a sham battle, and postpone the great question of civil and religious liberty, because it might not be convenient to the Government, and might not be agreeable to their friends on the protectionist benches opposite to debate it? He, for one, would be a party to no such proceeding. They had debated this question in three successive Sessions, and, if there was any inconvenience now, the noble Lord at the head of the Government was to blame. That noble Lord had had the conduct of the question; and he (Mr. Osborne) must say that the conduct of the noble Lord with regard to this Bill did not do him that honour which other acts of his life had conferred. The noble Lord had postponed the question of religious liberty, because the Jews were a small body: he would not have done so had they been sufficiently numerous to alarm the safety of his Cabinet, or to endanger his seat. He would not have been content to let the Bill pass on the fag end of the Session, and then to propose an adjournment of the question. This was not a question with him (Mr. Osborne) of either precedent or black letter; neither was it one upon which any nisi prius arguments—considered out of place in the debate on foreign policy—need be used. It simply came to this—that the citizens of London were not prepared to sit contented while the House was adjourning from day to day on a question on which they had every information, and which they had already affirmed. What had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal was perfectly true, however it might be denied, that hon. Members were acquainted last night with the fact that the Baron would that day present himself at the table for admission. The way the question had been treated was unworthy the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, who went out of his way to apply an expression to the Baron which had once been applied by Curranto afishwoman—namely, that "she was an individual." It was part of the system all along pursued, to throw odium on Baron de Rothschild; and when the Baron came to the table that day, to take his oath, an understanding had been previously come to between the Government and hon. Members opposite, that the question should be postponed to next week. [Mr. J. S. WORTLEY: Nothing of the kind.] He did not allude to the right hon. and learned Member for Buteshire. He wished, however, to know whether the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst had not been communicated with, and whether some arrangement had not been made with him?

I assure you I made no arrangement.

would ask whether the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst meant to state that he had made no arrangement with the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, to delay this question until Monday next? Did he mean to say that he had entered into no communication or arrangement of that kind? [A pause.] Then he (Mr. Osborne) contended that he was warranted in asserting that there had been an arrangement; and he hoped the House would not affirm an arrangement so entered into. But it had been said in the course of the debate, that this was no party question. He affirmed that it was a party question. It was the greatest party question of the age. It was the question of prejudice against progress—the question of intolerance and bigotry against civil and religious liberty; and he hoped that if there was any liberal party in the House—if there was any liberal feeling—if they were not to be a drag on the wheels of an equivocating Government for ever, they would speak out boldly and affirm the principle which they had already affirmed in two preceding Parliaments. He would now address himself to the arguments on the question. It had been endeavoured to be said by those who were clever in ransacking Hansard, that the same course was pursued by the House in Mr. O'Connell's case. There was, however, a material difference. Mr. O'Connell refused to take the oath of supremacy, and he applied to Lord Duncannon to be heard by counsel at the bar. Baron de Rothschild did not refuse to take the oath, and he did not apply to be heard by counsel at the bar. This question, therefore, rested not on precedent, but on legislative enactment; and, if the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench were authorised to administer oaths to Jews, he called upon the Speaker to answer the question whether he did not consider himself empowered to administer the oath to Baron de Rothschild in the same manner as the Judges administered it to Jewish witnesses? That was a material question to be answered. It was a question, not of precedent, but of legislative enactment. But, independent of the Speaker's answer, whatever it might be—[A laugh.] Yes, whatever it might be, because there was a power out of that House independent of their smiling faces or their prejudices—he called upon those Members who possessed consistency to come forward upon this question, to oppose the Government, and, if necessary or need be, on such a question to throw out that Government, and to stand by the resolution already more than once affirmed, that Baron de Rothschild had a right to take his seat in that House.

The hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex has put a question to me which I have no difficulty in answering. The question now at issue does not depend upon any opinion of mine. It is a question for the decision of the House itself. An hon. Member has appeared at the table and claimed to be sworn on the Old Testament. Now, that is a perfectly novel mode of taking the oath; and it would not be right for me to permit any Member to be sworn in that way unless I had the authority of the House for so doing, because I act only under their authority.

did not mean to say a word about the propriety or impropriety of allowing the hon. Member for London to be sworn in the form in which he had claimed to have the oaths administered. He would address himself simply to the point, whether it was fitting that the House should have time to deliberate before coining to a decision? The hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down, following the example of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, had stated that there was no analogy between the case of Mr. O'Connell and the present case. It had been stated that the hon. Member for London was willing to take two of the oaths if he was allowed to be sworn on the Old Testament. Now his (Mr. Goulburn's) opinion was, that the oaths ought to be tendered all together. With respect to Mr. O'Connell, so far from his having refused to take the oaths that were tendered to him, he stated that he was ready to take the oaths of allegiance and abjuration, but not the oath of supremacy. It had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal that the only ground upon which the late Sir Robert Peel had asked for delay, was that time might be given to consider whether Mr. O'Connell should be heard at the table or at the bar of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not read correctly what had passed on that occasion. [The right hon. Gentleman here read extracts from the speeches of Sir Robert Peel on that occasion to show that his reason for asking delay was to consider, not whether he should be heard at the table merely, but whether he should be heard at all.] He had no doubt that the House would consent, as in the case of Mr. O'Connell, to adjourn the discussion of this question, in order to enable those Members who had not until that morning heard that the subject was to be introduced to prepare themselves for its consideration.

said, the question in the first instance before the House was the oath of allegiance, passing by for the time the two other oaths required to be taken by Members. As one of the constituency of London who had yesterday advised the course here adopted by Baron de Rothschild, he begged to express his opinion that the most convenient proceeding now would be to assent, without a division, to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Buteshire. As to the Amendment of the hon. and learned the Attorney General, he should, when it came on, enter his protest against it, considering that no one, except at the desire of Baron de Rothschild himself, or of his constituents, had any right whatever to claim that the Baron should be heard by counsel. Whether such an application should be made at any future point of the proceedings, was a matter to be determined by the Baron and those who acted with him. He was not himself personally acquainted with Baron de Rothschild, but he was prepared to repudiate, on the part of the Baron and of his friends, any such trick as taking the House by surprise. The imputation, in fact, was simply an absurdity. The Baron and his constituents had waited patiently, year after year, for justice; but after the statement of the noble Lord last Monday, no other course was left to them than the course now adopted. The Baron and his constituents felt that they had got the law and that they had the constitution on their side, and they trusted that they should also have the House of Commons.

said, that before the House determined upon adjourning the debate, it was extremely desirable that it should come to some clear understanding of the nature of the discussion that was to be taken when the debate should be resumed. He gathered from the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth that the friends of Baron de Rothschild proposed first to discuss what might be considered the preliminary question of the refusal of the Baron to be sworn on the Gospels, taking other matters subsequently; whereas it appeared to him that all the considerations involved in this very important question should be taken together. Baron de Rothschild had come to the table of the House and desired to be sworn on the Old Testament. No question was put to him why he desired to be sworn on the Old Testament rather than on the New. Everybody perfectly well knew the Baron to be of the Jewish persuasion; but the question was not put to him that ought to have been put—"Why do you require to be sworn on the Old Testament and not on the New?" No doubt the Baron would have replied, "Because I am of the Jewish persuasion, and that form of oath is the only form which I deem binding on my conscience." That answer being given, the case would have stood thus: every one knew that no Gentleman could sit and vote in that House unless he had taken the three oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration; and, inasmuch as the oath of abjuration contained the words "on the true faith of a Christian," when the answer he had stated had been given at the table by Baron de Rothschild, the House would at once have known that he could not take the abjuration oath, and that, consequently, he could not take his seat in that House. It appeared to him, he would repeat, most important that the question should be taken as a whole, and not in a mutilated and partial shape. It was the object, equally with all parties, he would assume, to have the matter placed fairly on a distinct footing; whereas, if the discussion was to be taken first upon the oath of allegiance, and then upon the oath of supremacy, and then upon the oath of abjuration, an advantage would be gained by the friends of Baron de Rothschild, in an indirect manner, which he was sure they did not seek, an advantage answering no practical or permanent purpose, in this way—that the Baron having been permitted to take the oath of allegiance and the oath of supremacy upon the Old Testament, it might be said by the Baron's friends, "You have permitted him to take two of the oaths upon the Old Testament, how can you reasonably deny him permission to take the oath of abjuration, omitting for him that portion of the oath which prevents a Jew from taking it?

said, the supporters of Baron de Rothschild had every desire to discuss the proposition of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, and for that purpose were ready to assent to the Motion for adjourning the debate; but they decidedly objected to the Motion of the hon. and learned Attorney General, which called upon Baron de Rothschild to appear by counsel in support of a case which he and his friends believed to be already perfectly clear. If the hon. and learned Attorney General would withdraw his Amendment, the debate might be adjourned without any opposition on the part of Baron de Rothschild's supporters. He did not understand why the House had not in this case followed the precedent of Archdall's case. When Mr. Archdall, elected for Chipping Wycombe, refused to be sworn upon conscientious grounds, he was asked successively—"Will you take the first oath, and the second, and the third?" and when he refused he was asked, "Why will you not take it?" The same question ought in fairness to have been put to Baron de Rothschild. This subject ought to have been brought forward in the very first week of the Session, and not only brought forward but carried to a conclusion; instead of which the Bill that had been introduced by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, had been made use of merely as a medium for evading the question. Whenever the noble Lord had been reminded of the measure, he had always said, "Oh, I'll go on with it;" and so the matter stood till Monday last, when the noble Lord said, "It's too late to go on with it this Session; we'll reintroduce the matter next Session." When the noble Lord really wanted to push a measure, he knew very well how to proceed, as in the case of the Mercantile Marine Bill, which, in the teeth of the whole shipping interest of London and other ports, he had forced on by making the House sit upon it six almost consecutive mornings.

said, that the Attorney General did not propose to make Baron de Rothschild employ counsel if he did not so desire. All that his hon. and learned Friend propounded was that it would be fair to enable Baron de Rothschild, if he so pleased, to declare, either by himself or by his counsel or agent, what were the views and reasons which induced him to demand to be sworn on the Old Testament. He could not see how any hardship could be inflicted upon Baron de Rothschild by this proposition. If it should appear on Monday that Baron de Rothschild declined to avail himself of the facility thus suggested, the Attorney General would withdraw his Motion, and the House could then proceed to discuss the general question.

asked why Baron de Rothschild, who was in the House, should not at once have the question put to him at the bar?

thought that, as in the case of Mr Archdall, Baron de Rothschild might be asked successively, whether he would take the three oaths; and if he refused to take any, why he refused?

said, he had just placed himself in communication with Baron de Rothschild, and the Baron had authorised him to state to the House that in reference to his demand to be sworn upon the Old Testament, he had no wish to be heard by counsel.

denied that upon such a question as this any person was entitled to be heard by counsel at their bar. It was a question to be decided wholly according to the law and custom of Parliament. Suppose any person elected to that House refused to take the oath of allegiance, and demanded to be heard by counsel in support of his refusal; would the House hear counsel in such a matter? Why then in this?

said, that as Baron de Rothschild did not desire to be heard by counsel, he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment; but the Motion he sought to amend being before the House, he could not by the forms of the House withdraw the Amendment. If the debate was adjourned, he should be ready on Monday to withdrawn the Amendment.

thought the ground now so cleared that they were likely, for that day at least, to arrive at a satisfactory result. He had not, in common with many other Members, anticipated that this matter would come on at the morning sitting; but he understood that previous to his arrival at the House Baron de Rothschild had put in a preliminary objection to being sworn upon the Evangelists. Upon this preliminary objection the House must decide for itself; and Baron de Rothschild was entitled to have the decision of the House upon it. It appeared that Baron de Rothschild did not desire to he heard by counsel upon this preliminary point, and the hon. and learned Attorney General, accordingly, was ready to withdraw the Amendment which had reference to it. As the matter stood, he should strongly advise the friends of Baron de Rothschild not to resist the adjournment of the debate. It would be of immense advantage to be able to discuss this very grave judicial question calmly, deliberately, exempt from haste, excitement, or passion. It was urged on the one hand that the law and the custom of Parliament were altogether against this claim; on the other hand, it was contended that by custom—a custom recognised, perhaps, by statute—other high tribunals sanctioned the claim. It was most desirable that the House should have until Monday ["No, no!"]—well, or until some other day next week, to weigh maturely all the bearings of this most important question.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment if, in order to enable him to do so, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the Motion upon which it rested, leaving a Motion for adjournment to be subsequently renewed.

gave notice that, on the debate being resumed, he should move an Amendment on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, that the Baron de Rothschild having presented himself at the table of the House, and requested that the oaths be administered to him on the Old Testament, which he believed binding on his conscience, the clerk be directed to administer to him the oaths of allegiance and supremacy accordingly.

suggested that Monday would be too early a day. He thought Thursday would be a more convenient day, the disscussion to be then taken upon the whole question.

appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury whether, after the distinct intimation he had given that this subject would not be resumed until next Session, upon the faith of which intimation many Members had quitted town, and even gone abroad, it would be fair in the Government to permit the discussion to be renewed so early as Monday?

was quite ready to proceed on Monday, but it was immaterial to him whether the House named Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. The House might rest assured that the friends of this claim would not allow Parliament to separate till the question was settled.

said, that as hon. Gentlemen declined the concession of an adjournment until Twelve o'clock on Monday, he should move, as an Amendment, that the debate be adjourned to Five o'clock on this day.

said, he hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not assent to either of the propositions before the House. He (Mr. Spooner) knew that several Scotch Members had at great personal inconvenience waited in town until the noble Lord declared the other night that he would not press the Oath of Abjuration Bill, and they had now gone to Scotland. He was satisfied that, as the question had been brought before the House in this manner, many of those hon. Members would return to London if they could do so; but it was utterly impossible for them to be in their places on Monday. He put it to the noble Lord, therefore, whether he would consent to exclude those Scotch Members from taking part in the consideration of this important question.

said, he had stated in the earlier part of the debate that as Members were not aware until late last night that Baron de Rothschild would come to the table and claim his seat that day, he considered it would be inexpedient for the House to come to any decision on the subject to-day, and that he was in favour of the adjournment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. But the House having agreed generally that there should be such adjournment, he thought it ought to be to the earliest possible time. The hon. Member for the city of London (Baron de Rothschild) wished a decision to be taken upon his case, and, as he had declared that he did not wish counsel to be heard with respect to the preliminary question, he (Lord J. Russell) thought the House should meet in order to decide at least that preliminary question at the earliest convenient period. He hoped, therefore, that the House would agree to meet on Monday next to discuss the subject. He thought the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex would be attended with some inconvenience, because, as he understood the terms of the Amendment read by that hon. and gallant Gentleman, it seemed to imply that a Member of that House might take two of the oaths, and that the third, the oath and declaration of abjuration, might be omitted. He (Lord J. Russell) certainly thought it would be very difficult for the House to come to a decision implying that any of the oaths and declarations fixed by law to be taken by Members should be entirely omitted. He would give his support to the Motion for adjourning the debate to Monday at twelve o'clock.

said, he saw the force of the noble Lord's suggestion, and he would consider the terms of the Amendment before he placed it on the hooks.

hoped the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would persist in opposing the Motion. The grounds upon which he (Mr. Scott) wished the discussion to be postponed to a later day were precisely those which had been alluded to by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He considered that sufficient intimation had not been given of the intention of Baron de Rothschild to claim his seat, and that many Members of the House had not, therefore, the opportunity of being present to record their votes. He (Mr. Scott) considered that the debate should be adjourned till Thursday or Friday next. He thought, that as under the present Post Office arrangements no letters could he delivered on Sunday, such an adjournment was not unreasonable. He begged to move that the House do now adjourn.

said,' that he bad been sitting during the last three hours listening with Job-like patience to speeches which were meant to show either that the House ought then to adjourn, or, that if they did adjourn, it should be until Monday. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cockermouth stated it was to him a matter of little consequence whether they adjourned to Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday; and one hon. and learned Gentleman opposite proposed an adjournment to Friday. He trusted that the House would do no such thing. He objected to any adjournment, because the House had often considered this question before, and therefore required no adjournment respecting it. [Loud cries of "Adjourn, adjourn!"] He begged to assure hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, who were interrupting him, and who would not find it very convenient for them to interrupt him elsewhere—["Hear, bear!"and"Order!"] He begged to assure the hon. Member for Reading, that he could well understand this interruption. He would, too, assure the hon. and gallant Member for the Irish metropolitan county, that he understood also his interruption; but he would tell him, at the same time, that he was very much mistaken if he supposed that his unmannerly interruption would succeed. Having said so much, he would now beg to assure hon. Gentlemen that he had but a very few words to address to the House. He would wait there until the latest hour at which the House might sit, I or obtain a hearing. He begged also to state that if he had been permitted to make the few observations he intended to address to the House, he should have finished by that time. It was said that the "shortest way to cross a hill was to go round it,"; and so the longest course for persons to; take with him was to interrupt him, when he thought he ought not to be interrupted. All then that he had now to say with respect to the question they were then discussing was this—that it had been before them for three years; that the House had divided upon it eight times, and now he had to state with what results. Upon the first occasion 214 Members had voted in favour of the claim, 140 on the second occasion, 278 on the third, 241 on the fourth, 225 on the fifth, 164 on the sixth, 103 on the seventh, and 272 on the eighth division. These had voted in favour of the: principle of civil and religious liberty. He was not surprised that he had been interrupted in his observations by Members on the other side of the House; but he was surprised at the interruptions he experienced from Members who were on the same side of the House with himself—with those who were "in the same boat" with him; for they had, like him, voted for the support of the principles of civil and religious liberty; but though those Members were "in the same boat," yet he had been told that "they did not row with the same skulls" that he did, and he believed it. He was opposed to any adjournment, and he could not but express his delight that all hypocrisy on this question was now to be I got rid of. Baron de Rothschild had been advised to take a manly course in coming; there. This question involved more than the rights of Baron de Rothschild. They were now to understand whether that House would for the future sacrifice its rights and its privileges before the footstool of the House of Lords. [Cries of "Order!"] He believed, that in Parliamentary phraseology the House of Lords ought to be designated as "elsewhere," or "another place;" but whether it was; "elsewhere," or "another place, "he hoped they would not make any sacrifice of principle in that House. An hon. Gentleman over the way had suggested that the debate should be adjourned until Tuesday; but the noble Lord had already fixed Tuesday for taking into consideration the Irish Franchise Bill; and perhaps that consideration induced the hon. Member to suggest Tuesday, because it would enable that hon. Member to aid in carrying out that which had been done elsewhere, where the attempt was made to deprive the people of Ireland of having the choice of their representatives. He concluded by begging to remind the House that this was a question of privilege, and must take precedence of all others.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, but he wished to state his reasons.

rose to order.

Hon. Gentlemen over the way have begged an opportunity. I have not had an opportunity of concluding the remarks I was about to make.

Is it the pleasure of the House that this Motion for adjournment be withdrawn? The hon. Member for Berwickshire may explain, but he is not entitled to speak again on this Motion, as he has already spoken. Is it the hon. Gentleman's wish to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the House?

It is.

The hon. and learned Member for Youghal wishes to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that the debate be adjourned till Monday at Twelve o'clock.

suggested that the best mode of settling the intricacy of the question would be to divide.

said, the House must first decide whether the words "Monday next" stand part of the question. If the House decide not, then the next question will be that the debate be adjourned to this day at Five o'clock, and then it will be competent for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreham to move Tuesday next.

presented a petition from several persons residing near Hyde Park, complaining of the proposed erection of an edifice for the projected exhibition in that park. They stated that they had prepared an information to be filed in Chancery, in order to prevent the building from being proceeded with; that the information set forth that the Sovereign on Her accession surrendered the hereditary revenues and possessions of the Crown in consideration of the civil list; that Hyde Park is part of those possessions, and was by Act of Parliament placed under the management of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests as trustees for the public; that the commissioners had no power to make any alterations except such as the Act of Parliament authorised, and had no authority to allow "waste" to be committed, or to grant a lease of any portion of the Royal parks; that it was the intention of the Exhibition Commissioners to erect a large edifice in the park, for which purpose they had obtained the grant of a lease, licence, or agreement (which amounted in substance to the same thing), for about twenty acres of the most ornamental portion of the park, on which it was their intention 10 erect a building of considerable size; that, to make room for it, the commissioners had cut down ten trees of forty years' growth, and would have to cut down others; that, in the proposed building, a steam engine of great size was to be erected, with a variety of offices of a substantial character; that though it was said that the building would be removed seven months after the close of the exhibition (in November, 1851), yet an irremediable injury would be inflicted on the park, and for two years the petitioners would be prevented from enjoying it; that, having been advised that the conduct of the commissioners was illegal, the petitioners had prepared an information as already alluded to, to be filed (nominally) at the suit of the Attorney General, and that, having the signatures of two counsel testifying that it was a proper information to receive his sanction for filing, it had been presented to the late Attorney General for that purpose, who, after keeping it a few days, had returned it, stating that he could not lake any fresh papers as Attorney General, and that it had been presented to the present Attorney General, who had declined to sign it; that thereupon a memorial had been presented to him, requesting him to reconsider his resolution, which, however, he had refused to do; and the petitioners, being advised and persuaded that the con- duct of the commissioners was illegal, prayed the House to take such steps as were requisite to prevent justice from being defeated or denied.

I stated that I would give notice to-day of what would be the substance and terms of the Amendments I should propose respecting the Franchise Bill for Ireland. The Lords made two Amendments especially, of very great importance. One of them requires that persons claiming to vote for a county should be rated at 15l. annually instead of 8l. as proposed by the Commons; and the other requires that a person entitled to register should himself give notice of his wish to be so registered. Without going into details, I may state that I shall propose that instead of 15l., 12l. be substituted as the rating qualification; and with respect to the second, I intend to propose that this House should disagree to the Lords' Amendment.

said, he wished to take the earliest opportunity of stating the course he intended to pursue with respect to the report made by the Ceylon Committee, and the more so, both as the subject itself was one of great importance, and as the report was perhaps the most singular, inconsistent, and extraordinary document which had ever emanated from a Committee of that House. He must in the first place remind the House of the object for which that Committee was appointed, namely, to inquire into the conduct of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the proceedings which had taken place in Ceylon, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House. The Committee had sat for nearly two years; a vast amount of public money was expended in bringing over witnesses from Ceylon, a vast amount of very important evidence had been collected, and the Committee had come to the extraordinary resolution of not reporting either their opinion to the House, or the evidence which had been taken before them. The only resolution to which they had come was, that the evidence they had taken should be recommended to the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government—that was to say, that the Committee which was appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Government, recommended to that very Government the serious consideration of the evidence taken before them. Now, he need not say that he utterly repudiated having anything whatever to do with that report, which he believed to be discreditable to the Committee, and not very respectful to that House. The first report stated—

"Your Committee deeply regret that that House did not see fit to acquiesce in the recommendation submitted to them at the close of the last Session, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She would be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire on the spot into the circumstances connected with the suppression of the late insurrection in Ceylon."

That first resolution, he humbly submitted, contained an implied censure on the decision of a majority of that House; the House decided by a majority last year that there should be no Commission, and therefore, the Committee, he must say, made a reflection on the decision of the House. Again, the Committee declared they found themselves unable to make a complete report on some of the various matters into which they were directed to inquire. Now, this implied that there were some matters on which they were in a position to report; and if so, was it not the duty of the Committee to obey the instructions they had received from that House? The Committee went on to say they were of opinion that the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government should be called to the evidence taken in the course of this inquiry. Then, why should not the serious attention of the House be called to that evidence? That was, of course, with the view of the Government agreeing on some measure, or coming to some conclusion; but the Committee stated that they were unable to come to any conclusion whatever. They then recommended that a Royal Commission should be appointed to proceed to Ceylon—precisely what the House determined should not be done last year—to ascertain what changes might be necessary for the better government of the country, unless some step should be forthwith taken by the Government which might obviate the necessity of further intervention. Now, was it possible for the House to discover the sense of this expression, or what the Committee could possibly mean when they said that "some step should be taken?" Their meaning might possibly be understood by Her Majesty's Government, of which there was a Member on the Committee. The authors of that resolution stated that their intention was, that the Governor of Ceylon should be recalled, and as such it was accepted by the Under Secretary of the Colonies; but if that was the intention, surely it was the duty of the Committee to have stated it in plain terms, and not to have insinuated it in the manner they had done. He had thus stated to the House the objections he entertained against the resolutions of the Committee, and the House must be aware that at this very late period of the Session it was quite impossible for a private Member to obtain a day to bring a subject of this nature under consideration. In these circumstances, all he wished at present to do was to give notice that at the earliest possible period of the next Session he should move that the evidence taken before the Committee be laid on the table, and should call the attention of the House to it.

said: It being well known that the separation of the great body of the people from the Church in Wales is caused by the want of sympathy on the part of their English ecclesiastical rulers with the feelings, habits, and language of the people; and that the solemn ceremonies of consecrating churches and confirming children are still performed in language not understood by the people, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will assure the House that no clergyman shall in future be appointed to any see in the principality of Wales who is not well acquainted with, and able to speak, read, write, and preach in the Welsh language?

begged to ask the noble Lord, before he replied to the hon. Gentleman's question, whether, considering that the 1st and 2d of Victoria, cap. 106, sec. 103, gave ample powers to the bishop to provide that clergymen, in all necessary cases, should be acquainted with the Welsh language—considering that there was a power, on the part of the Welsh laity, to enter a caveat against the appointment of any clergyman who did not understand the Welsh language—and considering that it was desirable to extend the knowledge of the English language, which was spreading rapidly in Wales—he did not think the state of the law at present fully provided for the state of Wales?

in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Macclesfield, had to state that some years ago it was a question in the House whether or not they should proceed to enact, that no one should be appointed to a see in Wales who was not well acquainted with the Welsh language. That proposal did not meet with the approbation of the House, and was rejected, it having been thought desirable to leave the Crown full discretion with respect to the appointments to sees in Wales, and not to fetter its discretion so much that if there was any person not so well qualified as another, but speaking the Welsh language, he should be appointed to a see, to the exclusion of him who was better qualified. Considering also that in the exercise of the discretion which devolved on him as Minister of the Crown, be had advised the Crown on a recent occasion to nominate a clergyman well acquainted with the Welsh language, who was besides a person of great learning and of unexceptionable qualifications, he thought he would not do right to fetter himself by a pledge which was never demanded before on behalf of the Crown. With respect to the second question, by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, in which he had called attention to an Act of Parliament referring to the appointment of clergymen to Welsh livings, and not to the appointment of bishops, he could only say, without looking to the Act in question, that the existing state of the law, as he considered, made sufficient provision as to the knowledge of the language to be possessed by clergymen in Wales. He would, however, look to the Act, and consider the matter again. His present impression was that legisla- tion was not required; but if he found that was not the case, he would not hesitate to propose a measure to Parliament on the subject.

said, that when the noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated the alterations he proposed to make in the Lords' Amendments, there was no question before the House, and therefore it was not possible for him (Mr. Disraeli) to give an intimation, which he was now desirous of conveying, to the Government. He regretted that a more conciliatory spirit had not been shown by Her Majesty's Government, and that there was not, in consequence, any prospect of the Bill passing into a law during the present Session. But he thought it right to state that his Friends on that side of the House would feel it their duty to oppose the alterations which the noble Lord had declared would be made in the Irish Franchise Bill as it had been returned to them from the other House.

Perhaps the House will allow me to make a few remarks on what has just fallen from the hon. Gentleman. The proposal I shall have to make with respect to the Irish Franchise Bill is certainly liable to observation and to censure, on the ground that it is too great a departure from the original principle of the Bill; and when I say that for the sake of obtaining the assent of Parliament to the Bill, I consent to an alteration of the franchise from 8l. to 12l., and only ask the House of Lords to go from 15l. to 12l., the want of a conciliatory spirit is, I must say, the last charge the hon. Gentleman could fairly make against us.

begged to call attention to the report of the Ceylon Committee. He wanted to know by what authority the Committee had referred the evidence to the Government. For his part, he was not disposed to leave anything connected with the subject to the Government, for they were in fact implicated in the charge, for they had acted in violation of all the principles which ought to have governed their conduct in the matter. He spoke in so far as they had approved of the acts of the Colonial Secretary. The Committee recommended last year that a commission should proceed to Ceylon; but the noble Lord at the head of the Government, to stifle truth, proposed that the inquiry should be resumed by the Committee this Session, and that the witnesses whose evidence might be necessary to elucidate the truth, should be ordered home here. But when the chairman of that Committee pointed out the names of the parties from whom evidence was required, the Committee were informed that the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary would not consent to their being summoned. He mentioned this to show the nature of the obstructions which the Government had thrown in the way of the inquiry. The Committee had now determined not to make any report to the House, and the inhabitants of Ceylon were to remain unprotected, and their grievances unredressed. He wished to know from the Government whether the consequence of that decision on the part of the Committee would be to put off the question altogether until next Session, or whether any steps would be taken in the meantime? There was no reason whatever why martial law should have been proclaimed; and as martial law could only be justified for the purpose of protecting the lives and properties of the Queen's subjects, and as no such reason existed in Ceylon, he contended that the whole proceeding, under which these military executions—which he could only designate as murders—had taken place, were illegal. And to add to the severity of the act, that protection, which even the forms of military law secured to those who became amenable to it, was withheld from those who had been made the victims in this case, by the court having departed from the ordinary mode of conducting their proceedings. The courts, it appeared, were appointed by Colonel Drought, under the orders, as it was said, of Lord Torrington himself, and the proceedings were carried on without reference to form or precedent; and as a proof of the irregularity which had marked the whole business connected with these courts-martial, he might state that the Committee, after two years' inquiry, had been unable to ascertain by what means Lord Torrington sent the proclamation to Colonel Drought, authorising martial law to be established. The Commander-in-Chief had been sent for by the Committee, in order that some evidence might be obtained on this point—

must remind the hon. Member that it was out of order to allude to evidence which had not yet been laid before the House.

said, that lie was alluding to nothing but what had already been laid on the table in the last year's correspondence. He had the information last year, and was then prepared to produce it, and he knew of no order that prevented him from quoting evidence which he obtained from sources independent of the Committee, He contended that the result of such evidence was, that if a court-martial sat upon Lord Torrington's conduct in any part of the world, he would not be allowed to hold Her Majesty's commission for one hour afterwards. He therefore appealed to the House, and to those who were anxious that justice should be done to our fellow subjects in distant parts of the world, whether Ceylon was to be subjected to a tyranny worse than that which prevailed in any other part of the world, and which it was disgraceful to this country to permit? He, for one, was not willing that any part of the Queen's subjects should remain for one hour under the government of a man who had violated the principles of humanity, and outraged not only the feelings of a gentleman, but, he must add, the ordinary usages of civilised life. Last year, when the proceedings of the courts-martial were called for, they were told they had not yet been received in England. Yet the noble Lord, in the absence of those proceedings, without any knowledge of the evidence, gave his sanction to them. This year, for the first time, they had some account of those proceedings, and they found that Lord Torrington had ordered the sentences of the courts-martial to be carried out at once, without going through the ordinary form of referring the evidence to the Commander-in-Chief. The conduct of Sir Henry Ward in Cephalonia was bad enough, but that of Lord Torrington at Ceylon was infinitely worse. He had abolished all the safeguards which the law required should be extended to Her Majesty's subjects when subjected to military law. As he had said, he believed there never was any ground for martial law, and, consequently, the proclaiming it was an illegal act; but supposing he had the power to establish martial law himself, it was clearly illegal to delegate that power to Colonel Drought, and for him to delegate that power again to the other officers of the Army, was a course wholly unprecedented. It was on these grounds that at this late period of the Session he was anxious to call attention to the subject. He regretted to say that they had not been met in the Committee in that way they had a right to expect from the Government. Instead of affording them every information to enable them to judge, they had rather stood; between the people of Ceylon and the parties who had been guilty of these cruelties. It should he remembered that besides the sacrifice of life which had been inflicted, numbers of the people had been sent into banishment, and were at this moment suffering all the miseries of that condition; and, in addition to this, under Lord Torrington's proclamation, the military had entered the houses of those persons who had fled to the jungle for fear of the martial law, and, taking their absence as a proof of guilt, had plundered their dwellings and seized and sold their property. This question of the plunder of the property by the military was of itself a matter for grave investigation, even were there! no other feature in the case. These were the acts which the Committee upstairs had, by the course they had adopted, stifled all inquiry into. He demanded on the part of the people of Ceylon, who had petitioned the House, that those who were guilty might he punished, and that they should not be screened by the Colonial Office. He contended that Earl Grey, by approving of the proceedings of the colonial government had made himself a party to all their acts—the letting loose the military upon the people without any reason—the wanton sacrifice of life—the conducting the courts-martial without any of the necessary safeguards with which such tribunals were ordinarily clothed; and, again, letting loose to prey upon the people a number of young officers, one of whom behaved so bad that Captain Watson was obliged to send him under an escort, for exacting money from the natives, as a bribe to leave them unmolested. He hoped that the House would order the evidence to be produced, in order that they might be made acquainted with the facts of the case. It pained him to think that those with whom he had for years acted should attempt to cloak and cover the faults of parties who had so grossly abused the trust which had been reposed in them. Up to the present time they had not heard by what means Colonel Drought had received his orders. They could not ascertain whether he received them from Gene- ral Smelt or not. If General Smelt had allowed the troops to he placed under the command of the Governor—if he had neglected his duty, the Horse Guards ought to institute an inquiry whether he was fitted to remain in his present position? On every gound—on behalf of the people of Ceylon, and on behalf also of the people of this country—he appealed to the noble Lord, that as he had refused the report of last Session to the Committee, the evidence taken before which had been suppressed by a majority of one—a decision which, had the late Sir Robert Peel lived, he believed would never have been come to—he appealed to the noble Lord, as a matter of justice, to move that that evidence be printed and laid before the House.

thought the House would be of opinion that it would be impossible then to enter on the grave consideration of the affairs of Ceylon, with reference to the proceedings of the Committee appointed to investigate those affairs. The Committee had not thought it right to report the evidence to the House. The Committee having come to that decision, for the House now to act on the statement of the hon. Member for Montrose, he submitted, was entirely out of the question. He trusted, however, that no hon. Member would take for granted that the hon. Gentleman's statements were at all borne out by what took place before the Committee. The report of that Committee was—

"your Committee also regret that, notwithstanding their utmost diligence and perseverance, they find themselves still unable to make a complete report upon some of the various matters into which they were directed by the House to inquire.

"Your Committee are of opinion that the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government should be called to the evidence taken in the course of this inquiry; and they recommend that a Royal Commission should be appointed to proceed to Ceylon to ascertain what changes may be necessary for the better government of that colony, unless some step should forthwith be taken by the Government which may obviate the necessity of further investigation."

Without entering into the question, whether the Committee were justified in coming to that conclusion, he could only say that the Government would give their attention to the subject, and take such steps as might be deemed most advisable. The Committee, no doubt, thought there were sufficient reasons why the evidence should not be given to the public. Accounts from Ceylon showed that some portions of the evidence had been published before the inquiry was complete. That evidence must have been purloined from some Member of the Committee. As the Committee had come to the conclusion that the evidence should not be published, he should only express the hope that more care would be taken in future to prevent evidence from being published till due authority was given for its publication.

agreed with the noble Lord that it was impossible to enter satisfactorily into this important question at present. At the same time, he was not surprised at the strong expressions used with regard to the proceedings of the Committee by the hon. Member for Montrose. The proceedings of the Committee were, in his judgment, of such a nature, that though it was impossible on the present occasion to discuss them, they must infallibly be discussed at some future time. It was true the Committee had decided not to report the evidence to the House; but it was equally true, and it would be seen from the proceedings which the Committee had printed for the use of Members, that, on the day before they came to this decision, they came by a large majority to a directly opposite decision, to report the whole evidence to the House, with the exception of that which was personal and confidential. He should offend against the rule he had himself laid down, if he were now to go into the particular considerations which led him to think that this matter was a subject for the full consideration of the House. In his judgment, the hon. Member for Montrose, or the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, would do no more than their duty to the public if, on the earliest opportunity that the state of the public business would permit—if not on this, certainly on the earliest opportunity next Session—they again raised the question by a Motion for the production of the evidence, to draw the attention of the House both to the merits of the case with respect to the Governor of Ceylon, and with respect to the Government at home, and to a third subject, which, in his mind, was not the least instructive or the least important of the three—to the proceedings of the Committee which this House had appointed.

said, there was one point in the proceedings of the Committee of which he was a Member, that he wished to advert to, rather with a view to the regularity of the proceeding than with any other object. Because it would be observed from the report of the Committee—for which, to a small extent indeed, was he responsible—that they had determined not to report the evidence to the House, and yet at the same time they had determined to recommend that evidence to the serious attention of Government. He must say he was not aware of any constitutional means by which that evidence could he laid before the Government. It happened that, on the Committee, the Government was represented by one Member, who might have submitted the evidence to the consideration of the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown, or to the Government at large. But what he wished to point out was, that the Committee had taken an anomalous course, in refusing to report the evidence to the House, and at the same time in recommending that identical evidence to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. He would say no more upon the subject now. He felt that there must be other opportunities of entering into the general question; but he must say that the inquiries before the Committee had disclosed a state of things in the colony which not only demanded the serious attention of Government, but which induced him to hope that, before next Session, Government would take measures to remove the serious evils that existed, and that the House would not be required to go full' into the consideration of this painful case, as it would otherwise be constrained to do.

would not have said a word, but for what fell from the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, with reference to the Committee recommending the evidence to the serious attention of Government. Now, he had the honour to be a Member of the Committee, and it had been a part of his duty to submit the evidence to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies. But, more than that, the Committee had ordered that a regular copy of the evidence should be sent from day to day to the Colonial Office; and therefore the Government were fully cognisant of it.

was afraid that was contrary to the rules of the House. It was done, he dared to say, with the best intentions; but he put it to Mr. Speaker whether any evidence taken before a Committee appointed by order of the House could be laid before any department of the Government before it was laid on the table of the House?

said, that all the Committee could do was to report the evidence to the House; and the evidence so reported might, with the approbation of the House, go to the Government. Or, the Committee might state that it was not proper or right that the evidence should be made public, and the House might order the evidence to be referred to Her Majesty's Government. The Committee could not do it of themselves.

said, he had seen many reports presented to the House, but never had he seen a report so ridiculous, so lame, so unworthy an investigation of this serious character, as the one in question. He was satisfied that when they read the report, and considered the painful rumours which were afloat, the very nature of the report itself would force them to call for the evidence. It was clear that either the Committee had been sitting for two years about nothing, or that they had discovered evidence of so painful a character that they had shrunk from reporting it. At the commencement of the Session they had had a discussion relative to the attempts made for bringing witnesses from Ceylon to this country. He confessed that suspicions of the gravest nature had been aroused in his mind; and he urged the House to call for the evidence, and to insist on its being placed on the table. Nothing could be more preposterous than the idea of the Committee passing over that House with the evidence, and giving it at a Government office. The House had better go home if such a system were to be pursued, and let the Government take the course it pleased. The whole thing tended to create grave suspicion, and he hoped the House would not be content until the evidence was laid upon the table.

rose to call the attention of the House to the case of the retired rear-admirals, and also to the judicial appointments of vice-admiral and rear-admiral of the united kingdom, lie said, that in 1845 a plan had been issued by the Admiralty relative to the retirement of captains in the Royal Navy, for the wise pur- pose of infusing some young blood into the list. This plan was unattended with any compulsory regulation. In 1846 another plan was issued, which differed from the plan of 1845, inasmuch as it called on captains either to accept or refuse the retirement offered. Several captains at the top of the list were in possession of civil appointments, and they were told that if they did not accept the retirement offered, they would lose these appointments. The first case which occurred under the new regulation was that of Captain Hornby, who was comptroller of the Coast Guard, and who, on his turn arriving for becoming an admiral, had to give up that appointment. The next case to which he would allude was that of Captain Beaufort, who held the situation of hydrographer to the Admiralty. When it became this officer's turn to be made an admiral, he was told that if he did not allow himself to be placed on the retired list, he must resign his appointment at the Admiralty. He accepted the retirement offered. Now here were two cases—one that of an officer losing his situation for non-compliance, and the other that of an officer retaining his appointment by compliance. Now, there was something in this which looked like compulsion. He had now to touch on the real grievance. It pleased the late Sir Robert Peel, during the time when he held office—and it was certainly a wise act of that lamented statesman—to fill up appointments at Greenwich Hospital with naval officers. At this period a gallant officer, who had served under Lord Exmouth, Captain, now Sir Henry Hart, was appointed a Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital. Now, when it became his turn to become an admiral, he thought it wise to comply with the Admiralty regulation, and accepted the retirement so as to retain his situation. Still Sir Henry Hart thought he was acting under compulsion. The officer who next succeeded on a vacancy as Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital, Sir Watkyn Owen Pell, was allowed to retain his place, and yet to remain on the active list. This was an anomaly which Sir H. Hart could not understand. He had never looked forward to being put on the retired list, a position foreign to his feelings; but Sir Watkyn Pell had somehow battled it out with the Admiralty. Now, he apprehended, there were precedents for allowing admirals to hold civil appointments, and yet to be on the acting list. Sir Augustus Clifford, who sometimes knocked at the door of that House, and discharged his duties very properly, was allowed to retain his situation of Usher of the Black Rod, and yet he was an admiral. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury had laid it down, during the discussion with Admiral Napier, that the office of Lords of the Admiralty was a civil appointment. Now, he would like to know why the Lords of the Admiralty did not impose on themselves the regulations they imposed on others. He was sure those gallant Gentlemen would do their duty to their country whenever their services were required; but why should there be a distinction drawn between holding a civil appointment at Charing-cross and a civil appointment at Greenwich? The plan of retirement was considered as a boon, but it was never expected that officers at the top of the list would accept the retirement. He hoped that, having brought forward the case of Sir Henry Hart, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would give it his consideration. He now came to the second branch of his subject. Three rewards were given to three admirals. One, the admiral of the fleet, was an appointment made by the Admiralty; the other two appointments, those of vice-admiral and rear-admiral of the united kingdom, were made by the First Lord of the Treasury, and were judicial appointments. These offices were intended for the senior admiral and the two next admirals, according to the seniority. He found, from the estimates every year, that the senior admiral held two appointments, those of admiral and vice-admiral of the fleet, and thereby an injustice was done to the gallant officer who was next in succession in point of seniority. The senior admiral was a man most distinguished in the service, and therefore he did not wish to make any invidious remarks. He would only say that, when the vice-admiral got his promotion as senior admiral, he should have been called upon to resign the inferior before he obtained the superior appointment. As it was, this double appointment operated most unjustly towards one of the most distinguished ornaments to the service, Admiral Sir Edward Codrington, by depriving him of a reward which, during a long life, he had looked forward to. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would remedy this practical injustice.

must oppose the Motion. He was not aware that any rule existed which debarred admirals in the service from holding civil appointments. The rule no more existed in the naval than it did in the military service. He therefore had no cause to defend such appointments. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to be under the impression that officers were obliged to accept the retirement or to give up their civil appointments. These cases had occurred before he took office; but from all he had heard of Sir Henry Hart's, it appeared to him that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton was under a wrong impression. He believed the acceptance of the retirement was not compulsory on any officer. They accepted it, and it was regarded as a boon. As to the case of Admiral Hornby, he was informed that on his becoming an admiral it was intimated to him that it was inconsistent with that office to hold a captain's appointment. He had never heard any complaint from Sir Francis Beaufort. The place he held was generally held by captains, and he (Sir F. Baring) regarded any arrangement by which this gallant officer's services could be secured to the country as most beneficial. With regard to the office of admiral of the fleet, the hon. and gallant Member was under some mistake. This was an office which was not conferred out of the usual line of seniority. The vice-admiral and the rear-admiral were not appointed according to seniority, but the distinction was conferred by the Crown on the recommendation of the First Lord of the Treasury, on the ground of distinguished merits. The admiral of the fleet drew no salary as vice-admiral, and did not think lie was called upon to resign that appointment, for though he highly valued the office of admiral of the fleet, having obtained it by seniority, he still more highly valued the office of vice-admiral, having obtained it as a reward and recognition of his own merit. He need hardly assure the House that, although Sir Edward Codrington had no claim to the office on the score of seniority, he felt sure that should a vacancy occur he would receive the reward to which his high merit, during a long career in the service of his country, entitled him.

had the honour of serv- ing under Sir Henry Hart during the war, and he could state to the House that this gallant officer felt hurt at the rule laid down by the Admiralty. He could not understand why the Admiralty had imposed on that gallant officer the necessity of resigning his appointment or becoming a superannuated rear-admiral. There was not a more gallant officer in the service than Sir Watkyn Owen Pell; but he could not understand how he had been allowed to receive his flag and retain his civil appointment, when the gallant officer Sir Henry Hart had not been permitted to do so. The same rule ought to have been applied to both cases.

said, the difference in the two cases was, that Sir Henry Hart had taken the retirement, knowing he could not rise beyond the rank of rear-admiral, and Sir Watkyn Owen Pell had not accepted it.

wished before the House went into Committee of Supply, to call the attention of the House to that part of the report of G. A' Becket, Esq., that relates to Reading, in Berkshire, contained in the reports to the Poor Law Board on laws of settlement and removal of the poor, presented to both Houses of Parliament, by command of Her Majesty, in the year 1850. It appeared that some time since evidence had been given by Mr. Chadwick, before a Committee, to the effect that the poor had been driven into Reading in consequence of a number of houses having been pulled down in the surrounding agricultural parishes. That was doubted. However, in 1848 the late President of the Poor Law Board directed inquiries to be made by a gentleman named A' Becket. That gentleman, in his report, distinctly referred to the evidence of Mr. Chadwick, and in the last paragraph of his report he stated that he had no hesitation in saying that the practice of pulling down cottages for the purpose of driving out the agricultural labourers had existed in several parishes. That allegation bad created some surprise in the neighbourhood where the occurrences were alleged to have taken place; and Mr. A' Becket added that they had been driven into Reading either because they had been guilty of poaching, or had been accused of it. Correspondence had taken place upon the subject, and he and his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire had received numerous communications. There now appeared to be two courses which might be taken on the subject. One was to appoint a Select Committee; and the other, the more simple and readier course, would be, that on some occasion he should move as an unopposed return, that that correspondence he printed and laid before the House. He begged to ask whether there would be any objection to that course?

said, that having seen the report alluded to, and the statement relative to the parishes in his own neighbourhood, he had thought it his duty last year to inquire whether that report was substantially correct; and he could not find that within the recollection of persons in the neighbourhood the facts were as stated by Mr. Chadwick. There was one parish in the county of Oxford the greater portion of the property in which belonged to a friend of his. He knew that that gentleman was considerably hurt at the allusions that were made, and he denied the accuracy of the statement. Also in a part of the county of Berks there was a small parish near the town of Reading, which he knew to be the property of only two persons. One of those gentlemen had brought him a list of the different cottages pulled down on account of dilapidation, and of others built in their place, and had made a statement which was very different from Mr. Chadwick's and the report. The other gentleman had made a statement of the facts before a Master in Chancery. He thought it would be very satisfactory if all the papers were to be laid upon the table of the House.

should be extremely sorry that any report that emanated from the Poor Law Board should be the means of doing injustice to any one; but the allegations having been made, he was anxious that the truth should be fully investigated. The hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to communicate to him the contents of the letters that he had received. He thereupon placed himself in communication with MR. A' Becket, stated that doubts had been expressed with regard to the accuracy of some of the information he had received, and asked him to go down again, and investigate on the spot the facts of the case. Mr. A' Becket accordingly did go again to Reading, and he had since re- ported that his original impressions remained unaltered. He had handed the hon. Gentleman opposite the letter so received from Mr. A' Becket. Further correspondence ensued, and he begged to say that every letter and every document in his possession forming a portion of that correspondence should be most cheerfully produced.

would now call the attention of the House to the proceedings on the part of the Attorney General relative to the erection of buildings in Hyde Park for the proposed Exhibition of 1851. It had been his intention to have moved an address, "praying Her Majesty to direct her Attorney General to give his sanction to the filing of the proposed information for an injunction to restrain the erection of any building in any part of Hyde Park for the intended Exhibition of 1851;" but it appearing that the forms of the House precluded his making that Motion at the present moment, he should reserve it until some other opportunity when the House was going into Committee of Supply, or Ways and Means. After the very explicit opinion just given by those eminent counsel, Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Rolt, and Mr. Cairns, he trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General would be induced to reconsider his refusal to allow the filing of the information which required the sanction of his name. Such a course would be at once honourable on his part, and an act of justice to the public, and that numerous body of petitioners who had petitioned the House on the subject. He denied the efficacy of a vote of the House of Commons to contravene the public rights, and repudiated the notion that the Attorney General could not act in opposition to such a vote. He also denied the right of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to appropriate the public parks of England to any purpose which might be pleasing to themselves, or which they might think congenial to wishes expressed by persons in certain quarters—persons whom it might be their interest, but certainly not their duty, to fawn upon and flatter. The right of enjoyment of our parks was vested in the people of this country, and had been recognised in the reigns of the Charleses, of William III., of George II., of William IV., and in the reign of the present Sovereign. He believed Her Majesty to be one of the last persons who would desire to do anything or to sanction anything hostile to the feelings of Her subjects, or which could interfere with their rights and enjoyments. Hyde Park had been devoted uninterruptedly to the enjoyment and recreation of the people; and so strongly was their right held to be in the reign of William III., that hackney coachmen were not suffered to remain within the park, because at some previous period they had interfered with, molested, and insulted the respectable class of persons seeking recreation there. Hyde Park was emphatically the park of the people, and it was now proposed to be devoted to purposes which he must hold to be prejudicial to the people in a moral, religious, and social point of view. It was sought to appropriate it to the encouragement of—what? To the encouragement of everything calculated to be prejudicial to the interests of the people. An exhibition of the industry of all nations, forsooth! An exhibition of the trumpery and trash of foreign countries, to the detriment of our own already too much oppressed manufacturers. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests, as trustees of the public, were bound to protect their rights, and not permit them to be robbed and spoliated. The Attorney General said, "It is my will and pleasure that I should do as I propose," and forthwith he put his will and pleasure into execution. But even supposing the Attorney General to be right in refusing to file the information, was it wise to use the giant's strength he assumed to possess against the public good and against public principle? The public had a voice in such a matter, and were not to be trifled with. He thought it neither politic nor judicious to make the attempt. He believed that those who had been first and foremost in starting this exhibition regretted very much that they had ever taken it in hand. They now declined to retrograde, however, because they feared giving offence to foreigners. The promoters of this project had got into a scrape, and the sooner they got out of it the better. They were flying in the face of the rights of the public merely to gratify the foreigner, who had no right to be here at all. He called upon the Attorney General to give ear to the opinions expressed, and recommendations emanating from such eminent lawyers as Lord Chief Justice Campbell, and Mr. Justice Cresswell, and join in a censure upon the illegal and unconstitutional course the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were pursuing. On a future occasion, he should move the address which he had read to the House; and on Monday next, in moving that a petition on the subject, presented a few days before by the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon be printed, he should again address some observations to the House.

said, that so far as he was personally concerned, he felt indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for bringing this question before the House, both because it was highly important that every public functionary should be ready to explain his conduct upon all occasions to the House, and also because upon this particular occasion he was extremely desirous to state to the House the motives which had actuated him in the course he had adopted with respect to the information in question. But before he proceeded to say anything on that subject, be thought it right that he should say that the course adopted in this case had been taken upon his own sole responsibility; that he had not been asked to take that course by anybody; and that he had not been advised by anybody to take it. He had not, indeed, consulted with anybody-previous to determining upon taking that course. He might very possibly be wrong in the judgment he had come to. If he had had any doubt upon the subject, he should have thought it his duty to take advice and counsel from those who were capable of giving it; but entertaining no doubt with respect to the course which he felt it his duty to pursue, he thought that the only proper and dignified course for him to take was to act upon his own responsibility. In this case, too, the House would permit him to observe that there could be no doubt at all that the duty of signing the information by the Attorney General was not a mere matter of form. It was a matter in which he had to exercise his discretion—in which he had to read every information in order to enable him to form an opinion whether it was a proper case to be submitted to the consideration of a court of justice. This had been the established and invariable practice, as far as he was aware, of all the Attorney Generals who had preceded him in his office; and he had heard regret over and over again expressed by every Judge who had presided in the courts of equity, that cases had not been fully brought under the attention of the Attorney General, because if that had been the case he would never have sanctioned such proceedings. He had also known matters referred back to the Attorney General, with a recommendation from the court to reconsider them, and to see whether, upon increased information, he would deem it proper to proceed. And without detaining the House upon the subject, he might be allowed to say that various matters might technically arise in which great evil might be occasioned, if an information were permitted to be brought before the attention of courts of justice without considering how far the interests of other persons whose benefit was sought to be promoted would be affected by it. He had himself since he had had the honour to hold the office he now held, refused to grant his fiat to a petition under the 52nd George III., which was exactly analogous to the present proceeding, because he was convinced that the advantage which was sought to be gained by the redress of the inconvenience in the particular charity, was not commensurate with the expense which would be incurred in redressing it. There could be no doubt, then, about the discretion which was required to be exercised by the Attorney General, and the great responsibility which attached to him before he gave his sanction to any information whatever. He should now proceed briefly to explain the motives which induced him to refuse his assent to the information. The information was at the instance of certain relaters, who conceived that the building proposed to be erected in Hyde Park would interfere with the rights of individuals as well as with the rights of the public, and they therefore sought to obtain an injunction to restrain those who intended to erect such a building from proceeding with that undertaking. Now, it was essential that the House should hear in mind the several interests connected with this matter. The information alleged that there were two interests concerned—those of the Crown and those of the public; but the interests of the public were divisable into two parts, one portion that of the State, as represented by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and another portion that which the public had in the enjoyment of the park as a place of recreation. The rights of the Crown were simple and plain: Hyde Park was a portion of the hereditary property of the Crown, subject to no restrictions but what the statute law imposed. The rights of the Crown were those of a proprietor in fee simple—the Crown might do with that estate as it thought fit, except so far as it might be restrained by the various Acts of Parliament having reference to its property, and except in so far that it had no power to alienate from its successors that or any other hereditary estate. It was part of the functions and duties of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to manage the land revenues of the Crown, except in so far as that power might have been taken away by Act of Parliament. Now, in this case it was alleged that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests did not possess any authority to erect any such edifice as it was now proposed to build, and the statement was sufficiently correct if limited to the exercise of that authority as against the Crown; if that prerogative of the Crown were invaded, it would be the duty of the Attorney General to proceed, not by signing such an information as was now under consideration at the instance of relators: it would be his duty to file an information ex officio. But that the Crown—the Commissioners of Woods and Forests cooperating—did possess the power of erecting buildings in Hyde Park, was a position of which there could not be the slightest doubt. That to act upon that opinion had very long been the practice, there could also be no doubt whatever, in proof of which he might mention the barracks erected in St. James's Park, as well as various waterworks, for which no Act of Parliament had ever been thought necessary, the Royal sign-manual being the only authority, as happened also in the case of the cottage built in Windsor Park by George IV., then Prince Regent. For any building in any of the parks no sanction of an Act of Parliament was necessary if the Crown gave its consent. But he then limited himself to speaking of the erection of buildings which did not interfere with the rights of individuals; wherever those rights were affected, the persons concerned had their proper redress, but the power of which he spoke was one which the Crown had always possessed, and had always exercised. A question of right, however, arose when individuals claimed redress; the Crown, however, was not accustomed to use its prerogative to the injury of private interests. As he had already said, the interests of the public in this matter were divisable into two parts—that which the Board of Woods and Forests administered, and that which the people at large enjoyed when they took recreation in Hyde Park. The Board (that of the Woods and Forests) by which the land revenues of the Crown were managed, had been created by Act of Parliament for the purpose of managing that property in a manner the most beneficial to the Crown. That Board received all the rents and fines accruing to the Crown, and by a species of compact, the civil list being provided for out of the Consolidated Fund, the issues and profits of the Crown lands were, by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, paid over to that fund, and the Commissioners, representing the public, had an interest in the matter now under consideration; but he wished to consider the other interest that the public had in this matter. First, he alluded to the interest which they had when taking pleasure and recreation in the park; and here he would venture to say, that as to the legal point, the relators had no ground on which to base their resistance. The public, so far as recreation was concerned were in the same situation with regard to Hyde Park as that in which they stood with regard to all others of the Royal parks: they were admitted by the grace, and at the pleasure, of the Crown. It was an enjoyment with which the Crown was never likely to interfere; but that was not now the question. What he meant to affirm was, that, speaking as to the legal point, there was no right in the public to the enjoyment of those parks. There might, perhaps, be a right of way from one place to another, but that was a different question. The free access to the parks—the enjoyment of them as a place of recreation—was a matter which depended solely upon the grace and favour of the Crown, and no man could say that the public possessed any legal right to insist upon the gates of any park being kept open, say till any particular hour of the day, or to insist that any particular class of vehicle should not be excluded from the parks. He spoke now of the public possessing no common-law right to take pleasure or recreation in those parks. If there were particular customs in a matter of this sort, they could be enforced, not for the benefit of the public, but for that of some individuals, or set of individuals, who did not constitute the whole community, but a certain class or classes. Thus, the inhabitants of a certain district might possess by custom the right to play at cricket on the village green. That right might be very good as regarded the inhabitants of the district; but it was one in which the public at large had a direct interest. This might appear a technical distinction, but, in the present case, it was by no means merely technical, for the information claimed a right on behalf of the public; but the public could possess no right independently of an Act of Parliament, and there was no statute which gave to the public a right to take pleasure and recreation in Hyde Park, or in any one of the parks. Assuming for a moment that any one supposed the rights of recreation and pleasure to be in persons residing within a certain distance of Hyde Park, in the inhabitants of London, Westminster, Southwark, and the villages adjoining them, the right would not be in the community at large, but in certain classes of persons; and they would not be entitled to proceed by way of information; the proper mode for them would be, that a few of the inhabitants of London and Westminster should file a bill on their own behalf, and on that of the other inhabitants of those districts; and no refusal of the Attorney General could prevent their doing so. Nothing more easy than for such parties to do so; but, as the Crown would be in possession, it might possibly be necessary to prefer a petition of right. The Attorney General, however, would be without any power in the matter, inasmuch as the right could not under such circumstances as he had supposed be claimed by the whole community. But in the present case there had been no allegation of any right possessed by any particular class. He thought that that was the proposition to be considered, and he thought that the Attorney General had a right, on the part of the Crown, to stop the course of the proceedings when the relators came forward on behalf of the public; and he had declined to sanction the information after giving to the subject the best attention in his power. It appeared to him that the relators sought not the advantage of the public, but their own advantage; and, under such circumstances, if the Attorney General had acceded to their wishes, he would have betrayed the interests of the Crown, and deserved the severe censure of the House of Commons. On the part of the relators, it was alleged that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were trustees for the public, and that they could be made accountable in the courts of justice for the manner in which they administered the trusts confided to them. This he conceived not to be the law; and he considered the question attempted to be raised one of very great importance. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests were Ministers of the Crown, appointed by the Crown to manage the Crown revenues for the benefit of the public, and to pay them over to the Consolidated Fund; they were, therefore, strictly accountable, but they were not accountable in any place other than in Parliament, and it would be a most dangerous innovation if the Court of Chancery were to be allowed to call such Ministers to account instead of leaving them to their responsibility in Parliament. It would be in the recollection of the House that six years ago a right hon. Baronet, now no more, had by an Order in Council suspended the admission of foreign corn free of duty. If he could have been made responsible for that in a court of equity, a collection of landlords might have sought for an injunction to restrain him; and that case appeared perfectly analogous to the position in which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were now placed by the parties who called upon the Attorney General to concur in this most dangerous innovation, which appeared deeply injurious to the interests of the community; and he dwelt on this the more especially as it had been noticed of late that there was a great desire on the part of the courts of law to interfere with the privileges and prerogatives of that House. He did not propose to go into that question, but it had long been notorious to every one that such a disposition existed; and it had long been an adage in Westminster-hall that it was the part of a good Judge to endeavour to extend his jurisdiction; but if he had signed such an information as that presented to him, he would certainly have made himself instrumental in extending the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery; and he did consider that if he had sanctioned the proceeding which he was called upon to give his name to, he should have been doing nothing more nor less than sanctioning an appeal from the House of Commons to the High Court of Chancery; and if the Attorney General had done anything of the sort, he would have been guilty of a gross neglect of duty. The interests of the Woods and Forests and those of the public had already been decided by that House, and nothing remained but to carry that decision into effect. Nothing would have been more easy for him than to have given his consent to the information. His doing so would not, in any respect, have prejudiced him—whatever course he took it would not deprive him of the office which he now held, nor would it injure him in his profession. The House was well aware that if he had taken a different course, he would have had the powerful support of the press, and he could not be blind to the fact that, having resolved not to sign the information, vituperation and blame had attached to him in the course which he had taken; but he took that course because he firmly believed it to be his duty; and as long as he held the office which he had now the honour to fill, he would discharge its duties on his own responsibility alone, and he trusted that he should temperately but fearlessly do whatever he had undertaken to perform.

said, he should admit that the Army was now in a better position and condition than either the Navy or Ordnance. He thought there was much to be done in regard to the improved organisation of the Army. However, he would not then enter upon that question. Looking at the state of the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, and the state of our finances, he believed considerable retrenchment might be made without rendering either of these branches in the least degree less effective. He believed a very large portion of the Ordnance stores had been wasted, and in that department especially much more improvement might be effected. It was not his intention to propose any alterations then, or interfere with any of the returns. The House had voted the number of men—they were bound to pay them, and the vote before the House was for that purpose. At the same time he was certain they had voted for 20,000 men more than they wanted; but the time was not far distant when considerable retrenchments should be made. He thought it was of great importance that the public should be made aware more precisely of the nature of those estimates than they could be by the more anouncement of the total sum voted. He was of opinion that the estimates ought to be reduced to what they were in 1835. As regarded the Army, he felt bound to say that the estimates were rather creditable, looking at the relative expenses of the three branches. There was certainly much less ground for com- plaints of the Army Estimates, seeing the increased number of men employed, than in the other two departments of the service. He had examined the returns submitted to the House, and compared their several items. The result of his opinion was, that the Army bore by far the best comparison. He found the Navy and Ordnance estimates very different indeed. There was an enormous increase for the last five years on the expenses for the preceding five years. In the Ordnance department they wore more than double what they had been. Taking the expenditure of the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, for five years, from 1834 to 1838 (both inclusive), and distinguishing under each year and each head the separate expenditure, and the total amount of the three services in each year, he found the results to be—

Years.	Army.	Navy.	Ordnance	Total.
	£.	£.	£.	£.
1834	6,493,925	4,503,960	1,068,223	12,066,057
1835	6,406,143	4,099,430	1,151,914	11,657,487
1836	6,473,183	4,205,726	1,434,059	12,112,968
1837	6,521,715	4,750,659	1,444,523	12,716,897
1838	6,815,641	4,520,428	1,384,684	12,720,750
				61,274,159

Taking the averages of each service in the next five years, from 1846 to 1850 inclusive, he found the returns stated—

Years.	Army.	Navy.	Ordnance	Total.
	£.	£.	£.	£.
1846	6,699,699	7,803,464	2,361,834	16,864,697
1847	7,540,404	8,013,873	2,947,869	18,502,146
1848	6,647,284	7,922,286	3,076,124	17,645,694
1849	6,549,109	6,942,397	2,332,631	13,824,537
1850	6,490,474	6,711,724	2,485,387	15,687,585
				84,524,659

Showing an increase for the latter period of about 4,300,000l. There was a very strong opinion that considerable alterations ought to take place in these matters, and that great improvements might be made without lessening the efficiency of the services. He should like to see the Army as in other countries, where each regiment should take their routine of duty abroad. It was not fair to give some regiments all the service abroad, and a very small proportion of it at home. He believed there might be reductions. Military men, of course, differed with him, and if he was in the Army himself he might be disposed to be of their opinion; but not having any personal interest in view, and looking at the increase of taxation and the burthens on the country, he thought great improvements might be effected in the services generally.

willingly bore testimony to the patience and temper with which the Committee upon the Army Estimates had investigated the matters before them, and which could not fail to be of service to the whole branch of the profession. They had opened large subjects of inquiry—the clothing of the Army, the question of agency, and, indeed, the whole constitution of the Army. These were subjects which required very considerable time and deliberation before the Committee proposed any report to the House. The Government would be in the possession of the evidence upon these points; and before the estimates were presented to the House next year, the Government would give it their most careful consideration.

Sir, I trust my right hon. Friend the Secretary at War will bear with patience, and excuse the remarks I think it my duty to offer on these estimates, believing I am solely actuated for the benefit and advantage of that profession in which I have passed my life. Good-Conduct Badges.—I beg, in the first place, to draw the right hon. Secretary's attention to this item. I see no charge for them in the Estimates, though I am quite aware the right hon. Secretary only gives one to each soldier as his conduct merits it. Is the right hon. Secretary unwilling this should be known? But, shabby as the distinction is, it costs the private soldier 3s.; and if he has to provide them, and becomes entitled to three or four badges, this supply of eight (one for each jacket and coat) forms a large deduction from his pay; and as gold lace is worn by corporals of Cavalry at a charge of 1s. 6d. each badge, when he becomes entitled to three or four, it entails an expense of 10s. or 12s. a year. Now, Sir, as all honorary gifts and decorations are given to officers free of charge, I cannot understand why soldiers should pay for them. I therefore beg to call my right hon. Friend's attention to this; and I hope he will not only furnish them gratis in future with every clothing, but give them of gold or silver lace, according to the service, whether Cavalry or Infantry, the man is in. Allowance to Commanding Officers.—The next remark I would make, Sir, is, how can any idea of right or justice sanction an Infantry Lieutenant-Colonel re- ceiving 3s. a day for commanding his regiment, and not grant it also to the Lieutenant-Colonel of Cavalry, whose expenses quadruple those of the Infantry Lieutenant-Colonel? It actually makes the Infantry Lieutenant-Colonel receive more pay than the Cavalry. My right hon. Friend seems incredulous, but I think I can convince him I am correct ere long. I now come to Money Allowances to Field and Staff Officers at home, in lieu of Forage, and would ask, can anything he more unjust than charging Cavalry Officers for the forage of the horses they are obliged to keep for the public service? I will take the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. He is obliged to keep a horse, for the forage of which he suffers a daily deduction of his pay of 2s. 10d.; that daily pay of 1l. 3s. is thus reduced to 1l. 0s. 2d. Now, the Infantry Lieutenant-Colonel receives 17s. a day; 3s. a day for commanding his regiment, and about 2s. 3d. or 2s. 6d. for forage for his horse. I think I have now proved to my right hon. Friend (miserably and inadequately paid as both services are), that the Cavalry Lieutenant-Colonel is the worse off, although he has expensive horses to purchase, expensive appointments and accoutrements to provide. Now, Sir, I hope the right hon. Secretary will recollect this, and remove an injustice which only exists in the Cavalry service; for when we find our illustrious Field Marshal—all General Officers—all Staff Officers—all Officers of Artillery and Engineers, and mounted Infantry Officers, are paid for the keep of their horses, no one idea of right or justice can be brought forward in support of the Cavalry Officer being obliged to pay for those horses which the public service compels him to provide. The next item is, Lodging-money for Married Soldiers. When I last called the attention of the House to the demoralisation and impropriety of married and bachelor soldiers occupying the same rooms in barracks, I was told that Government had it under consideration, and had given a grant for that purpose. But, Sir, what does this great grant—this extraordinary boon—amount to?—4d. a week to a married soldier to provide lodging for himself and family. Really, Sir, the penury of this grant is inconceivable; but I am sure my right hon. Friend will correct. The next item is, the Gratuities to deserving Soldiers. This is also on the lowest possible scale of economy. In my mind, Sir, soldiers who deserve a gratuity and medal, or discharge, should receive it; and this honour and bounty should not be so restricted as at present. One only is issued in each year; one for the serjeant, one for the corporal, and one for the private. Therefore, the most numerous body can only receive a medal in three years. I cannot state how perfectly incomplete this reward is. Paymasters and Solicitors.—I see, Sir, 16,305l. charged for the former, and 205l. 6s. 3d. for the latter. Now, Sir, as to the former, I really think a great saving may be here gradually made. The Household Brigade, the Artillery, the Engineers, all do without the services of this officer; and I cannot see why it should not be the same in the Cavalry and Infantry of the Line. I have the greatest respect for these gentlemen, and I would not remove one of the present occupants; but I think their services may be gradually dispensed with without any loss to the public service. As to the Solicitors, I do not understand that situation; but if the Foot Guards must go to law, they should, I think, pay their own solicitors' bills. Serjeants and Serjeant Majors.—I now come, Sir, to what I consider one of the greatest grievances in the Army, and I feel confident my right hon. Friend will give his serious consideration to its amelioration. I mean, Sir, depriving Serjeant Majors and Serjeants of their good-conduct pay on being promoted to that rank. When a corporal is promoted to the rank of serjeant, he is at the same time rewarded and punished. His pay as Corporal is 1s. 8d. per day (in Cavalry), and if he, after years of continued good conduct, and the strictest attention to duty, obtains four or five badges for good conduct, it exceeds that of a serjeant, and he is promoted to a situation of far greater merit, honour, and far greater expense. From his multifarious duties he is so occupied as to be unable to clean his horse or appointments, and is obliged to employ a Dragoon at an expense of 1s. 6d. per week (the sum the Regulation also orders the Infantry officer to pay his servant). Being obliged at all times to be respectably dressed (in fact, to he a pattern man), he has to supply himself annually at least with a pair of boots at a cost of 18s., a jacket at 25s., overalls, 26s., a forage cap, and other articles of expensive equipment. For the right hon. Secretary is of course aware the Cavalry soldier is only clothed once in every two years. The serjeant is also by regulation obliged to attend the Serjeants' mess; another additional expense. On discharge he is also a sufferer. If he serves 21 years, and has not completed three years of that time as a Serjeant, he only receives a private's pension—8d. a day; whereas, had he remained a corporal, and with the same service, he would be entitled to 1s. Being deprived of his good-conduct pay and badges on promotion, though he possessed them as corporal and private, no mention of them is made in his parchment certificate or discharge, and this often militates against his obtaining employment on retirement from the service. It has been said, Sir, that an equivalent is given by the allowance of medals and gratuity of 20l., which a well-conducted Serjeant can receive on discharge. Now, really, Sir, this is perfectly absurd; and I am sure every hon. Member who hears me must see it in that light when only 123 Serjeants out of 7,118 have been granted that gratuity (from the paucity of the grant), or one in about 70. This certainly is but small encouragement for good conduct. In consequence of what I have stated, and the very few advantages held out to the Serjeant, I have known several corporals refuse the promotion, from the greater benefits of the corporal's situation, both when serving and on discharge. This, Sir, should not exist. Sir, I have, however feebly, endeavoured to bring the case of this most deserving and excellent class of men—the Serjeants of both services, before my right hon. Friend and the Committee; and I trust I shall not have pleaded in vain, but that the right hon Secretary, seeing the manifest injustice of depriving the Serjeants of their hard-earned honours, will take their case into his serious consideration, and grant that good-conduct pay and badge which they have so well deserved, and which I cannot help saying they have been unjustly deprived of.

said, no one more sincerely felt the necessity for economy than he did. As the Committee had not reported, he would abstain from any remarks on the subject. He quite concurred in the hardships on private soldiers referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Cork city.

said, there was one subject connected with this vote to which he wished to call the attention of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War. He referred to the allowance to officiating clergymen for performing divine service—17,500l. He was not about to object to the clergymen or the vote, but he thought it right to refer to a circumstance connected with both. He observed that the practice of blessing or consecrating banners, for the Army, was continued, and he was prepared to state his own opinion with regard to that practice. He believed it was calculated to give very great pain to large classes in this country—large bodies connected with the Established Church—and Dissenters more especially, from the manner in which it was performed. The case to which he wished to call the attention of the Secretary at War appeared in the Freeman's Journal of the 28th of March, 1850, upon the occasion of the presentation of new colours to the 55th Regiment, in Phœnix Park, Dublin. The ceremony of consecration was performed by the Rev. Charles Hort, chaplain to the garrison, who was robed in his full canonicals. What he (Mr. Bright) wished to call attention to was the prayer, which, in his opinion, was totally unsuited to such an occasion; and he ventured to say that no man in that House would be prepared to defend it as it appeared in the newspaper. After praying for the Queen, and offering up a variety of other petitions, the rev. gentleman went on to say—

"Having implored thy blessing, O Lord, upon the Queen and all the Royal Family, we would now implore thy blessing upon that portion of Her loyal and devoted subjects now present, and who are more immediately engaged in the service and defence of their country. We thank thee, O Lord, that although the maintenance of the profession to which they belong is rendered necessary owing to the wickedness and depravity of man, still it is a profession countenanced and recognised in the pages of thy Holy Word; and as the banner of the cross of Christ, the great Captain of our salvation, is therein set forth as the chief point around which the soldiers of Jesus rally in the day of trouble, and a sight of which, when looked at through the eye of faith, inspires the beholders with renewed confidence and energy, so, O Lord, may these earthly banners now being renewed and consecrated to thy service and the defence and honour of our Sovereign, be as instrumental as those that are now being laid aside, have been in maintaining the loyalty and bravery of the corps now before thee—a corps which has ever been ready to stand foremost in its contributions to the fame and glory of the British arms. We call upon thee, therefore, O Lord, to bless and consecrate these banners. In thy name, most mighty Lord of Hosts, we do now send them forth. May they never be unfurled in any but a good cause—may they, as we doubt not they shall be, borne and supported by strong arms and brave hearts, who, if they fear thee only, shall be enabled to do all things through Christ, who will strengthen them. Cover and protect those over whom these colours shall wave in the day of battle; or if they tall, as many of their gallant comrades have fallen whose bones have been left upon foreign shores, may they die as good soldiers of Jesus Christ, and who have triumphantly borne the banner of the cross. May they never be ashamed of Him whose encounters and victories on their behalf this solemn season of the year brings forcibly to mind. Finally, may they be strong in the Lord—may they this day put on the whole armour of God—may they fight the good fight of faith, and lay hold on eternal life; and for their encouragement may they treasure up the words of the great Captain of their salvation—'Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.'"

If there were parties who believed that there could be any advantage to those banners, or the persons who served under them, derived from such services, he (Mr. Bright) could only say he thought that it was one of the greatest superstitions conceivable. If there were persons who believed there was no advantage from it, then his opinion was that such consecrations were a hollow imposture, which ought to be abandoned. Since Constantine marched under the banner, bearing the motto, In hoc signo vinces, there had been nothing which more nearly approached to superstition than that prayer—an abstract from which he had read to the House. What salutary effect could it have upon the soldiers, mixed up and confused as it must have been in their minds at the time? He was sure it had no effect upon their individual respectability or good conduct. He did not speak of the matter with regard to the peculiar sentiments of any particular sect. He believed there were hundreds of thousands of all denominations of Christians in this country who disapproved of it. Its effect, as far as the soldiers were considered, could be of no good whatever. He believed no man in the British Army thought the banners were rendered more useful by consecrating them. He feared by persisting in such practices it would be thought the Legislature was endeavouring to bolster up Christianity itself. He should like to know whether it could be proved to the House and the country that any good object could be effected by such a ceremony. If it was necessary that petitions should be put up to Heaven, they should have them in their public services and in places devoted to public worship; but they should not call upon the Sacred Name and Attributes in such ceremonies as he had described. He had heard of similar occurrences at Portsmouth and other places, but he thought that to which he had called attention was the very worst they could have seen. It was a prayer, not only not religious, but upon the face of it, he said emphatically, it was as blasphemous a prayer as ever had been offered in the face of Heaven.

said, he did not think the exactions referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for the city of Cork were so very great, after all, when it was considered they were made with an increase of daily pay. With regard to the question of married soldiers, he had done all in his power to make arrangements in the barracks; and the Ordnance Department had been most anxious to assist him, so as to separate as far as possible the married from the single. He believed that was carried out to a considerable extent, and he did not find now so many complaints on that subject as there were. With regard to the solicitor of the household brigade, there were many cases in which the household brigade and the Army generally were involved in law, and in the household brigade they found it better to make a small allowance to pay the solicitor. There were so many detached bodies of the Army, that they could not appoint solicitors to each of them. Then, with regard to the discharge, the commanding officer put at the bottom of the certificate the character of the man. And now to address himself for one moment to the question which his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester had raised. He must say that the question of the consecration of the colours of a regiment was one which must be a matter of opinion. It was a custom which had been handed down in the Army from time immemorial. It was the practice whenever colours were presented to a regiment, to sanction the presentation by invoking on the occasion the blessing of the Almighty God. For his own part he could see nothing offensive in this; he could see nothing superstitious in it. He admitted that it might not be necessary, in order to ensure to those colours the attachment and affectionate regard of the soldiers who fought under them; but the soldiers were none of them the worse for hearing that blessing solicited. With reference to the prayer which his hon. Friend had read, he confessed that if this observance was to be practised at all, so far as he could listen to that prayer, he did not see anything that could be found fault with, and he saw no expression which could well be improved. The chaplain of the garrison of Dublin, from whom that prayer was said to have emanated, he believed had the interest of the soldiers, over whom he held a pastoral charge, most sin- cerely and cordially at heart. He believed I there was no act which attracted so much the attention of the soldier of a regiment, or one with which so little fault had been found, either by the public press or by individuals complaining to a public department, than the observance of a religious ceremony on the presentation of new colours to a regiment. It was, as he said, established by no order or regulation that he was aware of, but it was a custom that had come down to us from the earliest times, but it was one that might be dispensed with, if such was the wish of the Army and the pleasure of that House. But it was one that he saw no grounds himself to interfere with, and therefore, with all respect to, and feeling all respect for, the religious feelings of all classes in this country, he should not interfere with it, believing it to be acceptable to the feelings of the Army, and also to the feelings of the public.

said, he was glad that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the city of Cork had brought forward the subject of good-conduct pay. He himself knew of the case of a corporal who had four badges for good conduct, and who had on that account an addition of 4d. a day to his pay, and who preferred remaining as he was than being made a sergeant. With regard to what fell from the hon. Member for Manchester, he (Captain Boldero) thought the prayer he had read a very appropriate one. The hon. Member talked of regiments as if he were as conversant with them as he was with the loom and the spinning-jenny of Manchester. Soldiers were much attached to the colours of their regiments; they would defend them at the risk of their lives, and rather than they should fall into improper hands they had been known to burn them and eat the ashes.

explained, with regard to the good-conduct pay, that a corporal's pay was 1s. 4d., while a Serjeant's was 1s. 10d., a day, and the Serjeant when he was discharged was entitled to a higher pension.

complained of the proportion of the expenses paid by the East India Company for the troops in their service.

said, the agreement was that the Company should take upon itself the pay of each regiment from the day it embarked to the day it returned, besides which they paid 60,000l. a year towards the pensions.

was quite sure that the East India Company did not pay their fair proportion of expenses for the soldiers in their employ. Take, for instance, the pensioners. The out-pensioners of Chelsea alone cost a million a year. At this moment nearly one-fifth of the Army was in India, and if the Company were charged one-fifth, their proportion of the pension list would be 200,000l. a year, letting alone the officers.

begged to ask the Secretary at War if any inquiries had been made or steps taken with regard to the adoption of the knapsack invented by Mr. Bennett, and which was admitted to be much superior to that now in use?

replied that his attention had been drawn to it. It did not, however, rest with him, but with the Commander-in-Chief.

Has it been brought under the notice of the Commander-in-Chief?

It has been brought under the notice of the Adjutant General.

said: I cannot avoid remarking upon the enormous and unjustifiable charges in the first page of this vote. I see clerks of overy degree receiving more pay than General Officers in the Army. I do not wish, Sir, in the least to detract from the merits of those gentlemen, nor do I desire to have the smallest deduction made from the pay of the humblest of them. But when I see men of their class in life receiving more pay than officers of high rank in the Army, who have purchased their commissions—who are exposed to the casualties of war and the vicissitudes of climate, I cannot but exclaim against such injustice. In the second page of this vote, that department over which my right hon. and gallant Friend presides, and presides so ably, the salaries of this description of gentlemen are still more extravagant and unjust. Clerks receiving 1,200l. per annum—even those of the third class 300l. per annum—is, in my mind, quite uncalled for; and I trust, Sir, future estimates will show, at least, a reduction of one-third in this large amount.

said, these gentlemen held very important offices. The depart- ment alluded to managed all the financial department of the Army, including an expenditure of six millions per annum. The men who managed it had risen through a long life, from the lowest offices; and they were well entitled to the salaries they received, and it would be a great injustice to attempt to reduce them.

rose, pursuant to notice, to oppose the vote, the principal object of which was the maintenance of the yeomanry corps—a body alike inefficient in itself for any useful purpose, and unconstitutional in its tendency. He was aware how unpopular his opposition must be in an Assembly which numbered among its Members a full squadron of yeomanry officers, all bristling with yeomanic valour, and burning with squirarchal indignation that any one should dare to meddle with this pet toy of the landocracy and aristocracy—this mimicry of war; but he must fulfil what he considered to be a duty. He approached the subject in no spirit of hostility—[ironical laughter]—don't let hon. Gentlemen laugh before they know what they are laughing at—in no spirit of hostility to our regular Army. He had the highest respect for both of our glorious services; but he had none at all for what he considered a mere mockery of a service. He was not a member of the Peace Progress Society, he was not a member of the Financial Reform Society, although he respected the motives of his hon. Friends who were; he was not afflicted with anything in the nature of military-phobia; he had no objection to a properly-constituted military force, but he had a decided objection to pay 81,000l. a year—and more than 81,000l.—for the Chancellor of the Exchequer was minus some 20,000l. every year from the evasion of horse duty by these yeomanry gentlemen, large numbers of whom drew the voluntary sword in order to get rid of the involuntary tax—to pay 100,000l. a year or a force which in no way answered its alleged purpose. He would show that the yeomanry never had adequately fulfilled the purpose for which they were established, looking to the past, and also how they threatened to fulfil that purpose, looking to the present and to the future. The first position he assumed was, that no armed force could be of any utility unless it was strictly amenable to discipline, the first rule of which is subordination; and it was because the yeomanry had for a long series of years been insubordinate, disobedient, and disorderly, and because they now avowed, and unblushingly boasted, of that pernicious habit, that he thought them utterly unworthy to be intrusted any longer with the guardianship of the public peace. He would beg the Committee to look back to the conduct of the yeomanry for the last thirty years, and he would invite their attention to the principal events in which the yeomanry had been engaged during that time. The first case to which he would ask their attention—the coronation of George IV.—was one which showed the pernicious habits of the yeomanry in reasoning upon their orders, instead of carrying them out. On that occasion, the Queen Consort had returned from the Continent, and threatened to take part in the ceremonies of the day. Great excitement prevailed in London; vast numbers of persons were congregated, and there was an evident disposition to riot and disorder. The military were called out, and with them the yeomanry. Among the regular troops called out was the brigade of Life Guards, which behaved then, as it always had done, with humanity blended with firmness. The yeomanry, however, behaved after their kind; they proceeded to reason upon their orders. They debated those orders, instead of carrying them out. The Queen, according to yeomanry reasoning, was an ill-used woman; so a fig for the Home Secretary and for the Horse Guards. The yeomanry were called out to keep the peace; and they did so by riding about and cheering for the Queen and Alderman Wood. Was it necessary that he should point out to the Committee the danger of such conduct, or the invidious position in which it placed the regular military, who did their duty silently and steadily? If he wished for an instance of the danger of such proceedings, he had only to refer to the case of the Bristol riots, when the conduct of Colonel Brereton and of the Third Dragoon Guards, in mingling with the people, and cheering for "King William and Reform," produced the most disastrous results. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He mentioned the case of the Bristol riots merely as an instance of the effects of such conduct; but he had a word for they yeomanry on that score in good time. He would now call the attention of the Committee to an instance of yeomanry insubordination equally remarkable, but of a different nature. He referred to what was commonly called the "Manchester or Peterloo massacre," in 1819. That case afforded an instance of the impulsive character of yeomanry proceedings; it showed how completely their impulses were unchecked by discipline. On that occasion the yeomanry were called upon to disperse an unarmed mob of both sexes, among whom were a large number of children: and how far they exceeded their orders, and brutally slew men, women, and children, was matter of history. In this case, the orders given to the yeomanry were in perfect keeping with their feelings and inclinations; they: were ordered to disperse a mob which had met to petition for reform of Parliament and for cheap bread; and the consequence was, that they threw into their onslaught the vengeance of prejudice and personal malignity. In both the cases he had mentioned, he thought it clear that the yeomanry had reasoned upon their orders, and that insubordiuation was the cause of both effects. At the coronation of George IV. the yeomanry were pleased to patronise the Queen, and they regarded the people as a well-disposed mob, who had the perfect confidence of the yeomanry warriors. In the Manchester riots the people were an ill-disposed mob, with designs on the yeomanry breeches pocket. He now came to the incendiary riots, known by the name of the "Swing riots." On that occasion the Lords Lieutenant of counties called out the yeomanry, but they could not get the yeomanry to come. [Laughter, and cries of "Where?"] Why, it was a general complaint throughout the country. At that time fire-raising was the order of the day, and every yeoman feared he might become a marked man; and the Lords Lieutenant reported to the Government the inefficiency of the yeomanry corps in the whole of the west of England. [Shouts of "Name, name!"] It was very well for hon. Gentlemen to attempt to stifle discussion, but he stated this as a matter of notoriety. He would remind the Committee that in 1837 and 1838 Lord Melbourne made a reduction of the yeomanry corps, and by so doing gave great umbrage to the yeomanry. He remembered that Lord Sondes threw up his commission, and invited the whole of his corps to disarm. Hon. Gentlemen had asked him to mention cases; they had cried "Name, name!" and he would give them enough of names before he had concluded. He would name cases where the yeomanry had behaved in the very worst possible manner, and where they had shown themselves to be inefficient, incapable, and disorder. The opinion of almost all Lords Lieutenant with whom he had spoken was, that the yeomanry were useless as a constabulary, because they could not be brought to bear upon any given point on a sudden emergency. Why, they might carry a troop of Life Guards from London to Leicester in less time than it would take to assemble an effective troop of yeomanry in Leicester; and they might carry a couple of guns, with their attendant artillerymen, from Woolwich to Bristol, in less time than it would take to assemble an efficient body of yeomanry in Bristol; for an effective body of yeomanry could not be assembled in an averaged-sized county within forty-eight hours. The Lord Lieutenant of Gloucestershire, who was a great supporter of the yeomanry, and who raised a troop of his own, which he sent to the Duke of Beaufort's regiment, had stated that he could produce the staff of his own militia regiment, a handful of men accustomed to arms, conveying them in waggons, at any given point of the county, many hours before he could hope to see there an effective yeomanry force. He (Mr. Berkeley) would now show the Committee what the yeomanry were worth on an emergency. They all remembered the Bristol riots; and he thought hon. Gentlemen were not so ignorant of geography as not to be aware that Bristol was in two counties, Gloucestershire and Somersetshire, in both of which counties yeomanry abounded, and very finely-dressed gentlemen they were. They wore a vast deal of hair on their faces, and they looked desperately fierce. But Bristol was on fire for three days, and was, during that time, completely at the command of lawless men, while the yeomanry were of no more use than a set of old applewomen. What aid did Bristol receive, in her three days of dolour and distress, from the voluntary heroes of Somersetshire? During that time about ten of the Somersetshire yeomanry marched into Bristol, and they were kindly locked up by the authorities to prevent the mob from harming them. That fact was stated in the Bristol Gazette of the 9th of May last. It appeared that a protectionist dinner was held at a place called Old Down, near Bristol, where a Mr. Colston, a magistrate, who seemed, according to the description of Hudibras, to have united the hero with the magistrate, "great in the seat, great in the saddle," boasted how he and the yeomanry cavalry of Somersetshire would serve an ill-disposed mob if they could only get Her Majesty's Government to back them, which meant, to be interpreted, that if Government would only pass corn laws, Mr. Colston and the Somersetshire yeomanry would sabre a little those who called out for "cheap bread." He invited any hon. Gentleman who belonged to the gallant yeomanry corps of Somersetshire to refute that statement, or to explain why, on the occasion referred to, the corps did not make its appearance. Well, then, a word for the voluntary heroes of Gloucestershire. He found it narrated that Captain Codrington having been sent for by the magistrates, appeared in Bristol, after some time, at the head of the Doddington and Marshfield troop of yeomanry; but the hon. Gentleman on that occasion, if he did not perform the part of Dunois, yet certainly performed the feat achieved by the King of France, who, they were told—

"Marched up a hill, and then marched down again,"

for he marched into Bristol at the head of his troop, at the request of the magistrates, and he marched out again by the light of the Bristol fires. That was all the assistance the inhabitants of Bristol received in those three black days of fire-raising and robbery from the united heroes of Somersetshire and Gloucestershire; yet it was this species of force which the citizens of Bristol were to be required to pay for. But, though the people of Bristol might be called upon to contribute to the support of this force, they would not forget what old John Dry den said of such a band, in his day, that they were

…"maintained at vast expense; In peace a charge—in war a weak defence. Stout, once a year, they march, a blustering band, And ever, but in time of need, at hand."

It might be said, however, on behalf of the yeomanry, that the Bristol magistrates were not to he found; that they acted as all such ancient and dignified Dogberries might be expected to act, before the Municipal Reform Act had weeded the corporations; they retired to their houses, locked their doors, barred their windows, and left the Recorder to scramble over the houses like a scared tom-cat. But if the excuse of the yeomanry for quitting the city was, that no magistrate could be found, such an excuse, instead of palliating, was an aggravation of their offence; for it had been laid down by Lord Mansfield, by Lord Ellenborough, and by Sir N. Tindal, and it had been also stated by General Dalbiac, that if a magistrate could not be found, it was the duty of the military to act for the protection of life and property, and to repel force by force. He (Mr. H. Berkeley) would give one more instance to show how the qualities of the soldier were developed by the yeomanry. He had been anxious to find instances where they had been under fire; and at last he had dropped upon one. He had heard rumours of a campaign in Glamorganshire, and he wrote to a gentleman who had the honour of holding a commission in the Life Guards, and who, subsequently retiring into the country, took a commission in the yeomanry—Mr. Franklyn, of Clementstone, near Bridgend, in Glamorganshire, a gentleman of the highest respectability. That gentleman had sent him the following particulars respecting the conduct of the yeomanry in the Merthyr riots in 1831:—

"The corps consisted of three divisions, the eastern, central, and western, under the command of a country gentleman as major, since dead. These divisions were ordered to assemble, and march upon Merthyr. The western, or Swansea division, commanded by an old Peninsula officer, never reached Merthyr, having suffered themselves to be disarmed in a bloodless encounter with a mob on the road. A portion of the central division was hastily collected by me as lieutenant, and marched to Merthyr, where we found the major with the eastern division. The yeomanry, 100 strong, were ordered to march towards Brecon to escort some powder."

The letter went on to state that about two miles from Merthyr they arrived at a place on the steep side of a hill, where the road was found barricaded with huge heaps of stones, and the people on the height threatened to roll down stones on the troops if they did not retire—

"After some delay the major gave the word—What word? To get off their horses and storm the barricade? or to outflank the barricade with a party, and take it in the rear? No; nothing of the sort, the major gave the word, 'Threes about, march,' whereupon the mob begun to fire, I and the march instantly became a rout, which I in vain (said Mr. Franklyn) attempted to arrest by threatening to cut down the first man that [passed me, and which, accordingly, I essayed to do, but the sword being blunt—[who would trust one of the yeomanry with a sharp sword?]—the man was merely knocked back on the crupper of his horse, and carried on with the rush of the crowd, who reached the barracks according to the respective speed of their horses."

This was a subject of joking and laughter at the public-houses in Mertbyr to this day; and, considering the yeomanry dress, I the short jacket scarcely reaching down to the os sacrum—they must have made a pretty display when they all turned tail together. Mr. Franklyn concluded—

"This is the consequence which must necessarily arise from the attempt to make bad farmers into worse soldiers by a few days' drill—just sufficient to make man and horse uncomfortable—just sufficient to destroy the confidence of men individually; without giving the confidence of discipline to either man or horse. Humanity, policy, and economy forbid the employment of any other force than regulars against a mob."

Most true, and it was frightful to think of the consequences of the temporary success of an infuriated mob opposed to such a force as this. What would have been the consequence if, at the time of Frost's riot, Newport had been defended by a regiment of yeomanry instead of half a company of the 45th Foot? So much for the past glories of these warriors; and now for their present exploits. What were we told now? That unless certain public measures were carried, the yeomanry meant, to use their own expression, to fight for it; and that they would draw their swords when they pleased, and upon whom they placed, and when ordered to draw their swords they would keep them in their scabbards as long as they pleased. There was, for example, the boasted Protectionist meeting at the Crown and Anchor, with yeomanry delegates from all parts of the country—"the crafty and cruel Chowler," "the heroic Higgins," "the blustering and blatant Ball," "the audacious Allnutt"—and, though the froth of such scum might seem undeserving of notice, let it be remembered that this was countenanced by very different persons—there were seven great "Sachems" of the high council with their "medicine man," Richmond in the chair, and forty "braves" from the protectionist tribe in that House all joining in the war-whoop, all uniting in the war dance, in approbation of the sentiments, in honour of the threats, in con- firmation of the intentions of these savage warriors. Turn to Yorkshire; there you have Mr. Ferrand, in his war paint, digging up the hatchet. Does he not tell us how his yeomanry once protected our trade, and would not do so any more? The contemptibility of the threateners was no excuse for our paying them out of the purse of the threatened—men who had a private "Horse Guards" of their own. His right hon. Friend the Secretary at War would perhaps say there must he some force to support the military. Then increase the civil force. Instead of a rabble of 300 or 400 yeomanry, never found when wanted, and when found of no use, why not have, in an averaged-sized county, twenty-four mounted police, on horses well broken and well bitted, not on things used to snaffle bridles and to lean upon gig collars—men who would not endanger their horses' ears by the use of their sabres. The magistrates and the people at large would have infinitely greater confidence in such a body than in treble the force of yeomanry. One word on the subject of discipline. All officers of experience of whom he had ever heard had stated the same opinion as Major Mackworth, who, when examined in the King's Bench, on the subject of the Bristol riots, said any commanding officer would prefer being without raw recruits entrusted with fire arms. Now, what could yeomanry cavalry be called but "raw recruits?" He cared not for what inspecting officers may say at the annual drills; their language on such occasions was what Marryat called, in one of his clever novels, "flap doodle," or stuff to feed fools on. They were sometimes told it took three years to make a soldier; and it was said, moreover, that a commanding officer inspecting a regiment could distinctly detect a trooper who had not been drilled with his horse for a year. But it was not cavalry officers alone who used this language, but distinguished infantry officers like his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Frome. He found it stated that, at a festive meeting—

"The hon. Colonel Boyle returned thanks for 'the Army.' He trusted the Army would not be reduced in numbers, for a soldier was not made in a day; he must be drilled and disciplined, and on that discipline often depended the fate of battles."

[Colonel BOYLE: Hear, hear!] He was glad to hear his hon. and gallant Friend cheer that sentiment. Perhaps that circumstance accounted for the fate of yeo- manry battles. That motley rabble met once a year to have what they called "a drill"—a kind of military masquerade, a cavalry carnival—a crew composed of awkward bipeds mounted on raw quadrupeds; and then those experienced officers who talked of discipline reviewed them, and concluded the day by saying they had "inspected the finest corps of cavalry their eyes had ever seen go into a field." This was the language used to the gentlemen at inspections, but it was well known at the same time that almost every inspecting officer had his portfolio crammed with caricatures of "yeomanry at drill." In conclusion he submitted that he had shown that for years past the yeomanry had been insubordinate and useless. At the present moment they claimed for themselves the distinction of being disobedient and dangerous. Let the House, then, add what he had proved to what the yeomanry had confessed, and he thought they would have good grounds for doing what he proposed, which was, that they should reject this vote.

said, he must confess that at that period of the Session, and at that hour of the night, he was sorry that his hon. Friend who had just sat down had occupied so long a time in calling upon them to reject a vote which he (Mr. F. Maule) should not have proposed for their adoption had he not felt that it was for the support of a force which he believed to be in itself a good and a constitutional force. His hon. Friend had stated that he had shown that this force had for a long series of years been insubordinate and unamenable to discipline, and that it possessed every quality which would make it unfit and inefficient as a military force. His hon. Friend had gone through the long period which transpired between the year 1831 and the present time, and had quoted three instances during that time in which, according to his own showing, the yeomanry force had failed to do their duty as it would have been expected to have been done. He (Mr. F. Maule) thought that he knew a little more of the habits and practices of the yeomanry than his hon. Friend did, for he had had the honour of holding the office of Under Secretary of State for six years, during which time the yeomanry force claimed his most particular attention. He was then made aware of the character and state of efficiency of every corps, and of the reports to the Commander-in-Chief of the inefficiency and efficiency of each re- spectively. The House must be aware that every corps of yeomanry was inspected, with very few exceptions, after it had been called upon to do permanent duty, once every year; and nothing was more usual than that after these inspections the officer bearing Her Majesty's commission, who held the inspection, should feel himself called upon to compliment each corps on their appearance; but that officer had another duty to perform, one which on his honour he was bound to fulfil, and which was of a sacred and a serious character. He had to report confidentially to the Commander-in-Chief as to the discipline of the regiment which he inspected, and never in the course of his own experience, or that of any body else that he knew, was a report made which showed that any corps was deficient in discipline, or deficient in anything that should constitute a defence to the country if it were wanted, and that that report was unnoticed or passed over. The hon. Gentleman stated that Lord Melbourne felt that these corps were in some degree inefficient, and made a reduction in them. His hon. Friend would allow him to state that in that respect he was wrong, for Lord Melbourne increased the corps of yeomanry. When a reduction took place in the years 1837 and 1838, it was made entirely from a financial consideration, and not from any consideration on the part of his noble Friend, that the yeomanry were unfit in point of character and efficiency. He maintained that the character of the yeomanry of England was one which, in point of honour and of zeal, was not to be too highly valued. He did not suppose that there were many gentlemen in this country who, because some men such as those whom they had heard of at the Crown and Anchor, and who had come there to talk wildly and absurdly of what they would do, or would abstain from doing, would for one moment suppose that the opinions which they gave expression to were the opinions of the great body of yeomanry generally. He did not believe that he had seen any public meeting on any political subject where men had not been carried away by their feelings for the moment, and had not given expression to words of very little meaning, and were not listened to by men who were thoroughly unable to give a proper interpretation to them. He was not going to attach any weight to anything that might have been said at the Crown and Anchor, nor did he mean to attach any blame to those who would not withhold these expressions, because they could not. He was quite certain that whenever the yeomanry were called upon to do their duty, they would do it as faithfully and as readily as they always had done it. The hon. Gentleman, howevor, quoted three instances, in which he stated that they failed to do good service. Now he would give him one instance of their conduct on an occasion which took place in his own country, in the county of Stirling, when the troops were at the time scarce and scanty. Were it not for their assistance on that occasion, great loss of property and life would have occurred. The service which had been rendered by the regiment of yeomanry in that county was acknowledged by the commanding officer of the regular troops and by the commanding officer in Scotland, and to this day it was remembered by the inhabitants with the deepest gratitude. Similar services had been rendered by the yeomanry all over the country at times of disturbance. It was not so much that the yeomanry were not called out to enter into conflict with mobs, but it was the knowledge that the yeomanry corps were in reserve to protect the localities in which they wore placed, and that, on that account, the troops of the line could be removed to other places to suppress disturbance, that they occasioned the security of life and property. Small bodies of yeomanry isolated and little likely to be of service had been reduced; but the large regiments had been maintained in the populous districts, where they were more numerous, and could be assembled in numbers sufficient to give good service and conduce to the safety of the whole body. He could say, from the reports which had been made by the officers who inspected the yeomanry, that if they did away with them now, at a time when they were accused of leaving the country in an almost defenceless state, they would do away with a force which kept peace in the country, and cost them only the trifling sum which he had asked. He thought that he need say no more to induce them to agree to the vote, which was for the maintenance of a body of men who were ready to do again what they had already done if they had the misfortune to require it.

said, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol held an opinion of the yeomanry force diametrically opposed to his own. The hon. Gentleman had complained of the inadequacy, incapacity, and insubordination of the body. He, on the contrary, thought those corps immensely valuable to the State, both physically and morally, and eminently qualified to perform all the duties that could be required of them; and that was not a mere theoretical opinion, but was founded on practical experience and observation. When he had had the honour of commanding the Household Brigade, he had been employed from time to time in inspecting these corps, and bad consequently enjoyed good opportunities of forming a just estimate of their value and efficiency. Two or three years ago he had inspected a corps in Hampshire, commanded by the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker, under whose able command they all were in that House, and he had seen the right hon. Gentleman at the head of a most soldier like body of 200 or 300 men, putting them in the most excellent style through a number of well-selected manœuvres, such as were likely to be of real use on service. One combination was so good that he never afterwards had a field-day of his own regiment that he not adopted it. He had had the pleasure and satisfaction of seeing the officers and men under his command going through those manœuvres with the most surprising precision, regularity, and compactness. The corps was composed of materials of the most desirable kind of farmers and tradesmen of a superior description, all mounted on their own horses, and equipped and appointed in the most soldier like way; and he left the field with the conviction that they were eminently fit for any duty for which they might he called on, and he staked his reputation as a soldier that if they were in the same state as when he saw them, and were called on to quell any riot, even though the rioters were thirty times their number, they would very soon have routed and dispersed them. He could safely affirm that, with, at most, one or two exceptions, he had found all these corps in a slate of efficiency. Regarding the question of expense, it must be admitted that the yeomanry corps was the cheapest description of force the State could maintain. The yeomanry corps, numbering 13,500 men, cost the country, if they were not called out, 45,000l. a year; and if they were called out, the expense did not exceed 81,000l. Compare this with the cost of regular cavalry. A regiment of cavalry consisted of 400 men, but only 271 horses, of which not more than 250 were really effective. The cost of the regiment was 17,777l. per annum. If hon. Gentlemen would enter into a calculation, they would find that 1,140 mounted regular cavalry cost more than 13,500 yeomanry. It should he borne in mind, too, that these 13,500 men were liable to be called on for service at any moment in the course of the year. The hon. Member for Bristol said that when the yeomanry were wanted, it was impossible to get them together for several days; but he (Colonel Reid) knew, from experience, that the case was otherwise. During the Chartist riots the Buckinghamshire yeomanry were called out to replace the troops quartered at Windsor and other places. The Buckinghamshire yeomanry, consisting of 600 men, assembled in less than four hours; and not more than twenty men were absent on the occasion. The hon. Member for Bristol had read for the amusement of the House a letter written by an officer who was in the same regiment with him (Colonel Reid) some years ago. That gentleman was not a military authority, having served only a short time, and being possessed of very limited experience. No doubt there might be cases of inefficiency; but whenever inefficiency was clearly established against a corps, it was the duty of the Home Secretary to disband it. It was, however, necessary to proceed in such a matter with more caution and discrimination than a Whig Government had sometimes exercised. When the right hon. Secretary at War was Under Secretary of State, he (Colonel Reid) was employed to inspect the Berkshire yeomanry corps. There were four corps, and he inspected three of them. The fourth corps, which was commanded by a gallant Admiral—one of the Lords of the Admiralty—was not inspected. Of the three corps inspected by him, one was commanded by Lord Barrington, one of the Members for Berkshire, and another by a country gentleman universally respected. It was gratifying to him to be able to compliment the commanders of those corps, in the field, on their efficiency; and he reported them favourably to the Commander-in-Chief. Of the third corps, which he would not name, he was unfortunately obliged to report unfavourably. Between the period of inspection and the meeting of Parliament, the whole of the three corps were disbanded, and when Parliament assembled Lord Barrington asked in his place on what grounds that proceeding had been adopted? and the right hon. Secretary at War, then Under Secretary for the Home Department, said it was in consequence of the unfavourable report made by the inspecting officer, Colonel Reid. Now, it should be borne in mind that this report was confidential. Was it fair to place him in such a situation? From that moment up to the present hour, he believed the two gentlemen who commanded the regiment of which he reported favourably, entertained great doubt as to his candour. He told them in the field that their regiments were in a state of efficiency; and the Under Secretary for the Home Department stated in that House that they were disdanded in consequence of his having reported them inefficient. The fourth Bershire yeomanry corps, commanded by a gallant admiral, was retained, That regiment was not inspected at all. [Admiral DUNDAS: Yes, it was.] Not that year. He dared to say that the regiment was in excellent order, but it could not have been in a state of greater efficiency than those which were disbanded. It appeared to him that, in the case in question, neither the yeomanry corps nor the inspecting officer had received fair treatment from the Government. It was his misfortune to differ from the country party on several important points, but nevertheless, he held that great party in the highest estimation and respect. He believed that the country gentlemen and the yeomanry formed the most respectable portion of the British community. Their character stood too high to be injured by the calumnies which had been directed against them. Did the hon. Member for Bristol really suppose that because some persons at a public meeting had uttered intemperate language, the great country party would relax in the discharge of their duty? For his part, he believed that if the yeomanry should be called out to quell disturbances, they would be only the more anxious to prove that they were animated by the same loyal feelings which had ever characterised them.

Sir, it is not my intention to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol through his tirade of invective and jest with which he has entertained the House; but as he has undoubtedly alluded to me as an Inspecting Officer, I must beg to offer a few remarks, and I think I should be undeserving of a seat in this House if I permitted any aspersion for a moment to be cast upon such an admirable, loyal, and efficient a body as the Yeomanry Cavalry of Great Britain to pass without remark; and I cannot suppress my astonishment that any hon. Member of this House could have the hardihood to express anything but to their praise and honour. I trust I shall not be thought intrusive in my addressing the House, but I hope to remove such an impression when I say I have had the honour of serving in the Cavalry at home and abroad for nearly forty years, and having been employed in inspecting Yeomanry Cavalry sixty-five times, I think the Committee will give me some credit for a knowledge of their formation, equipment, and efficiency. Sir, hon. Members are not aware of the great annoyances yeomanry are subject to during their period of drill and exercise, often to great pecuniary loss; but all those inconveniences, all those losses, are forgotten in the anxiety and zeal evinced by them to become acquainted with sufficient military discipline to render them useful should their Queen and country require their services, and show that loyalty and attachment to the Sovereign and institutions of the country and their officers. But how can they be otherwise than loyal and attached when they are so commanded? Have we not in this House the beloved and revered great authority in law, laying aside that judicial robe which he so much honours, periodically assuming the military costume, and adorning both professions as an accomplished soldier and enlightened statesman? Have we not in another place a noble Friend of mine, commanding the excellent corps the Yorkshire Hussars, whose enviable privilege is to excel in everything he undertakes? Have we not another noble Friend of the highest rank in the Peerage, after gallantly serving his country in the Army, reposing upon his well-earned laurels, and now commanding that admirable corps the Gloucestershire? Have we not other men holding exalted rank in the Peerage, commanding the Cheshire, the Lancashire, South Salopian, Royal Bucks, Taplow, North Devon, South Herts, Lanark, West Kent, Oxford, West York, Wilts, &c.? Have we not, Sir, in this House noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen commanding and serving in yeomanry corps, the enumeration of whose names the impatience of the House prevents mo from naming, but many of whom I see around me? And, Sir, such are the men—such are the officers the hon. Member would endeavour to calumniate and designate as useless; but, happily, Sir, his opinions on military subjects can have little weight in this House. I have endeavoured to give my opinion of the yeomanry of Great Britain—an opinion not partially or casually formed, but founded on experience and actual observation, as will be seen by my confidential reports in possession of Her Majesty's Government—of a force unique in establishment, devotion in loyalty, and efficient in promotion.

did not rise either to make an attack on the great country party, for whom he entertained much respect, or to eulogise the Government. He thought the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol would have been more judicious had he not raked up the Bristol riots, which ought to have been forgotten. But, on the other hand, the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor, if it proved anything, proved too much; for it went to show that a yeomanry corps, with seven days' drill, are quite equal to a regular corps. Nay, they were even told that the yeomanry were so admirably manœuvred, that the inspecting officer himself adopted a manœuvre which he had witnessed. The hon. and gallant Member's argument, if it were good for anything, was in favour of reducing the Army, and setting up a cheap yeomanry establishment. He dissented from that argument; regarding one troop of regular dragoons as at least equal to two regiments of yeomanry cavalry. He rose chiefly for the purpose of making an observation with regard to the yeomanry dress. In the reign of William IV., he believed, a general order was issued, establishing the distinction of gold and silver, lace for the regular force, and the yeomanry cavalry respectively; but he now saw yeomanry officers at levees and fancy balls arrayed in the most extraordinary costume. He had seen one commander of a yeomanry regiment in a dress which made him look more like a foreign potentate than an English soldier. It must be very galling to officers of the regular force to see gentlemen who were called out for only seven days arrayed in these dresses, and styled captains and colonels. He wished to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War, why the general order to which he had referred had not been carried out—in other words, why these yeomanry gentlemen were allowed to array themselves in the same uniform as Her Majesty's regular troops?

was not aware of the issuing of any general order with respect to the yeomanry. There had been one issued with respect to the militia, under which lord-lieutenants and deputy-lieutenants were required to wear silver instead of gold lace.

said, that after thirty years' service in the regiment of yeomanry to which he had the honour to belong, his experience led him to the conclusion that the yeomanry corps did not deserve the opprobrium which had been cast upon them by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol. The instances to which the hon. Gentleman had referred were, he thought, more disparaging to Her Majesty's troops than to these corps. The hon. Gentleman had also said there was great delay in getting the men together; but it had happened to him (Mr. Bass) to be called out on many occasions, and he had known his regiment summoned at seven o'clock in the evening, and to have marched into Derby before eleven o'clock the same night; and they had afterwards the satisfaction of receiving the thanks of the magistrates for their services. In 1842, when at a great distance from home, he had been ordered to attend in his county, and his regiment, which consisted principally of farmers to the number of 600 men, cheerfully left their own labours, though it was in the middle of harvest-time, and served for three weeks. The only advantage he had ever had from belonging to a yeomanry corps was to spend 1,500l. of his own money, for he had never received 1s. pay in his life. If his corps deserved one-hundredth part of the opprobrium the hon. Member for Bristol had lavished upon the yeomanry in general, he (Mr. Bass) should feel it a disgrace to belong to it; but it did not deserve that opprobrium, and he hoped that until he had a son ready to succeed him, he should be allowed to remain in it.

thought the country had no right to expect from any man sacrifices such as those made by the hon. Member who had last addressed the House. The reasons why he objected to the force were, that they were not placed under military law, and had not time for practice sufficient to make them steady soldiers when upon service. He believed that twenty troops of forty men each of the regular army would do more to preserve the peace than the whole of the yeomanry force of the country. If free trade continued, and wheat remained at 40s., the yeomen of England would have other business to attend to, and the young men would have to attend to other business than that of learning their military exercise.

said, that the hon. Member for Montrose was under a mistake in supposing that the yeomanry, when on duty, were not under the Mutiny Act in the same manner as regular troops, who were in the receipt of pay.

bore testimony to the valuable services of the yeomanry corps, particularly to those of the regiment with which he was connected.

I much regret having to say anything at this late hour of the night, when the House is so anxious to divide, especially after so much has been said upon the question, and would rather have given a silent vote; but after the unwarrantable attack upon the yeomanry generally by the hon. Member for Bristol, and in vindication of the regiment to which I have the honour to belong, I feel called upon to state a few facts that have come within my own personal knowledge. There are few Members of Parliament representing constituencies in the north of England who will not remember the riots of 1842, when the whole of the manufacturing districts were in a state of disaffection bordering on rebellion, and most alarming disturbances took place, calculated to spread terror amongst Her Majesty's loyal subjects, owing to immense mobs having collected from all parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire, and uniting in Halifax; and the authorities no sooner became aware of their intentions, than a despatch was sent off for a reinforcement of troops to Bradford, Leeds, Manchester, and other places. Every application was refused; not a single soldier could be spared, nor was it possible to procure even a file of men from either of the two Yorkshire yeomanry corps. These fine old regiments, consisting together of nearly 1,000 men, so highly prized and so justly esteemed throughout the county for the valuable services they have so often rendered during the last century, were employed in their respective districts in aid of the civil power. The town of Halifax for two days was a scene of the greatest confusion, and appeared to be in the power of the rioters. At length they came in collision with the military; half a troop of the 11th Hussars and two companies of the 61st Regiment being the only troops quartered in the town. A battle was fought, and blood was spilt on both sides before they could clear the town. After these disturbances had subsided, the inhabitants thought it necessary to provide, if possible, for the protection of life and property in the district; and as no reliance could be placed upon a sufficient sup ply of Her Majesty's troops on any emergency, the regiment to which I have the pride and pleasure to belong, was immediately raised, and in the autumn of 1847 we were on duty for thirteen or fourteen days, and for the services we then rendered we received the thanks of our Lord Lieutenant, and the approbation of the Government through the Secretary for the Home Department. The hon. Member for Bristol has stated, I believe, that it required forty-eight hours to assemble a regiment of yeomanry; and I will here mention a fact I consider a sufficient answer to such a statement. On the occasion above alluded to, our orders to march to Bradford arrived shortly before midnight, and although the Halifax squadron consisted at that time of 110 men only, and was dispersed over an area of four or five; miles, more than 100 men inarched out of the town before eight o'clock the following morning. I contend that the moral effect produced by the existence of 250 men, in this the most populous district of England, and forming a cordon of defence for one of the great passes between Yorkshire and Lancashire, ready and willing at all times to assist in enforcing order and supporting the authority of the Crown, is sufficient to disarm disaffection. As to the trumpery matter of expense, I think the Committee will scorn to take it into consideration.

trusted that, when the hon. Member for Bristol should again he about to make so unpopular a proposition as that which he had made to-night, accompanied, as it was, by an attack on the protectionist Members, he would not select that (the protectionist) side of the House to make it.

believed the hon. Member for North Warwickshire commanded a force somewhere in the neighbourhood of Uxbridge. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: I do not.] At all events, the hon. Member belonged to that distinguished corps to which he had alluded, and which was commonly known in the country by the name of the "mournful and dangerous." He had been told lately of some half-dozen of them marching through Uxbridge with umbrellas over their heads. As regarded his (Mr. Berkeley's) selecting his seat on the Opposition side of the House, that, he presumed, depended upon his own feelings, without the necessity of consulting the hon. Gentleman. But if the hon. Gentleman wished to know why he addressed the House from those benches rather than from the other side, which he should very much prefer, he begged to say that, from having a physical infirmity, he found it convenient to rest upon the table while speaking. With respect to the magistracy of Bristol, he hoped the present gentlemen who held the commission in that city would not be confounded with the past. The town of Bristol was now as perfectly safe from the threats of an ill-disposed mob as it would be from an ill-disposed yeomanry.

said, that as the hon. Gentleman had chosen, by inference, to cast an imputation against a sot of what he called unreformed magistrates, it would have been but common justice if he had stated that those gentlemen were brought to trial in the county of Berks, and acquitted.

said, that it was the last thing he should have thought of, to make any observation as to which side of the House it might be convenient for the hon. Gentleman to address the Committee; but he could not help feeling that, as the hon. Gentleman had indulged in language not highly complimentary to those around him, he (Mr. Newdegate) might be excused for having adverted to the circumstance. As to the "mournful and dangerous troop," he would not stop to inquire in what purlieus of Uxbridge the hon. Gentleman bad picked up that name.

said, that the change proposed to be made by the hon. Baronet was one of so much importance to the whole poor-law system that it could not with propriety be introduced at so late a period of the Session. The subject of the present clause had better be reserved until the whole question of settlement came before the House.

said, the Lords had made an alteration in the Bill as to the value of benefices that might be held in plurality; but in that alteration he saw nothing objectionable. With regard to the contiguity of benefices, however, they had made a change of which he did not approve. Instead of the arrangement agreed to in that House, the Lords had made it necessary only that the churches of two contiguous parishes held in plurality should not be more than three miles distant from each other. This he considered fatal to unity of charge; and therefore he would move the reinsertion of the words containing the principle of contiguity.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment. Much consideration had been given to the subject by the Bishops in the other House.