said, that it was now nearly two years since he brought before the attention of the House the condition of the Military College at Sandhurst, and obtained from the noble Lord at the head of the Government the appointment of a Committee, presided over by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring). That Committee, after sitting nearly three months, recommended that ten children, the orphans of officers, should be admitted into that institution free, as a cadet class, every year; there should consequently be twenty orphan cadets now in the institution. Some short time ago it appeared, by an answer to a question put by himself, that the Government found it was out of their power to provide for twenty orphans, the children of the soldiers of their gallant army, and no steps had been taken in the College itself to introduce the class recommended. He now asked whether, when universal joy was spread throughout the land at the return, if not in all cases of dear relations, at any rate, of old and valued friends, the Government were not prepared to provide for the education and the support of twenty or thirty orphan boys, whose gallant fathers had fallen fighting for the honour and glory of their country, whose hearths would be the only desolate ones amid this otherwise universal joy? He begged to inquire whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to carry into effect the recommendation of the Sandhurst Committee with respect to the establishment of the orphan class of cadets at that College?

observed, that one of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee, to which his hon. and gallant Friend had alluded, was that means should be taken to improve the education of officers on the staff, and he wished to know what had been done in that direction?

said, that it was the intention of the Government to adopt the recommendations made by the Committee as to the support and maintenance of a certain number of orphans whose fathers had lost their lives in the service. Indeed, they had a claim upon the country, and he was sure the measure by which they were adopted, as it were, by the nation, would obtain general support. He did not, however, know whether his hon. and gallant Friend had forgotten that the funds for the support of the Military College of Sandhurst were derived from the payments made by the friends of the boys receiving their education there, and those funds were not sufficient to enable the Government to provide a gratuitous education for a sufficient number of orphans. It would, therefore, be necessary that Parliament should provide the requisite additional funds. When such a Vote had been agreed to Government would take care to apply the money to the purposes for which it should be granted, and to do so in the best possible manner. The question of improving the education of staff officers was no doubt a valuable one, but its discussion would open up a very large field of inquiry.

said, he felt the justice of the remarks which had been made respecting the impropriety of discussing a variety of subjects upon the Motion for the adjournment of the House; but the subject upon which he wished to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government was so important that he hoped the House would allow him to make a very few observations upon it. In the first place, questions like that which he was about to put were sometimes assumed to convey some insinuations prejudicial to the persons referred to in those questions. He assured the House that such was not his feeling upon the present occasion. No one entertained a deeper reverence or regard for the right rev. Prelates to whom his question related than himself, whether he regarded them as dignitaries of the Church or as ministers of Christ; but his question was rendered necessary in consequence of infirmities over which those rev. Personages had no control. He could conceive no position more distressing than for a right rev. Prelate, who fully recognised the high and responsible character of his duties, to find a large accumulation of important business pressing upon him and demanding his supervision, to which, however, from physical causes, he was not able to bestow that attention which its importance required. He (the Marquess of Blandford) thought he was ranging himself on the side of those right rev. personages in putting his question, and that nothing would afford them more gratification than to hear, as he trusted he should hear, from the noble Lord, that the subject had received, and would still receive, the earnest consideration of the Government, He need not allude to the importance of maintaining the love of the episcopacy in this country; but he would put it to the Government whether, if it could he shown that during lengthened periods certain dioceses were left without any direct episcopal supervision, that was not a state of things calculated to create a doubt as to the value of the episcopacy as an institution, and, perhaps, even to bring it into contempt; and if so, was it not the duty of the Government to take steps to prevent any misconception arising as to the necessity of the episcopacy? At present, whenever such occasions arose as those he referred to, a colonial Bishop was called in to do the duties of the diocese, or a neighbouring Bishop took upon himself those duties in addition to the burden of his own diocese, and sometimes the Archdeacons were intrusted with the performance of certain episcopal duties, such as visitation; but there were other and most important episcopal duties which Archdeacons could not perform. He would only add, that the Act of Henry VIII., although a sleeping one, appeared to be one that would meet the present emergency. That Act enabled a Bishop, who required the assistance, to nominate two persons, of whom the Crown selected one, for consecration by the Archbishop. Such person might hold two benefices, and perform all the duties attaching to them, in addition to those which might be delegated to him by the Bishop who appointed him. That appeared to meet any difficulty as to endowment; but, even if the difficulty remained, he could not doubt that the right rev. Prelate who required assistance would willingly contribute a portion of his episcopal income for that purpose. He begged to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consequence of the state of health of several of the Prelates of the Church, who were unhappily disabled from attending their dioceses, it was the intention of the Government to take any steps to put in force the powers of the Act 26 Hen. VIII., c. 14, "For the Nomination and Consecration of Suffragans within this Realm;" or, if not, whether the subject was still one which had occupied the attention of Her Majesty's Government with a view to providing a suitable remedy?

said, before the question was answered, he wished to assure the House that he deeply sympathised with the noble Lord at the country being deprived of the episcopal services of certain Bishops. [Laughter.] He did not mean it as a joke, he meant it seriously. He regretted they were prevented from performing their duties through ill-health; but there were other duties which kept them from their dioceses, and he was sure the country would echo the wish which he expressed that they should be relieved from their Parliamentary duties in the House of Lords. Their presence in another place was a most painful scene to him—the most unpleasant of anything connected with his Parliamentary duties. What were the duties which required their presence in the House of Lords? Was there a single public measure, anything connected with the freedom, liberty, or welfare of the country, which had not been opposed by those right rev. Gentlemen? ["Oh, oh!"] He was speaking the voice of his constituents and of the country. And he maintained that the absence of the right rev. Prelates from the House of Lords would be a source of exultation throughout the land. He did not say this from sectarian feeling or in hostility to the Church, but in the belief that their presence in another place impeded the progress of true religion. He was confident that if he polled all the members of the Established Church he would find a vast majority to join him in soliciting that the Bishops should be relieved from taking their seats in the Legislature. He begged to ask whether the noble Lord had turned his attention to this subject, and whether he had it in contemplation to propose any measure to relieve the Bishops from their attendance in another place.

wished in one word to express his earnest hope that the noble Lord would take into his serious consideration the subject which had been mentioned by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Blandford). He believed there prevailed a general feeling that the interests of the Established Church were materially injured by the frequent inability of right rev. Prelates from age and infirmity to discharge their episcopal duties; and he hoped that as the appointment of Indian and Colonial Bishops afforded a good precedent, the noble Lord would turn his attention to this matter, believing, as he did, that that precedent might be well applied to the case of the Bishops in England.

said, that, being in some way connected with the subject which the noble Marquess had brought before the House, he begged to offer one or two remarks. He thanked the noble Marquess for having introduced the question, but he would take the liberty of observing that the appointment of suffragan Bishops under the Act of Henry VIII. would not meet the case in which he was more immediately interested. The Act of Henry VIII. could only be put in force at the request of the Bishop himself. No doubt, most hon. Members had read with great regret a correspondence published in one of the public papers of great circulation in this country. He was sure it must be a feeling shared in by all in that House that for the sake of the Church it was much to be lamented that such a correspondence should have been made public. He would take that opportunity of assuring hon. Members, both in that House and elsewhere, that that correspondence was published at the request of the Bishop, and therefore it might be fairly alluded to. He knew not whether he had better at the present moment repeat a portion of that correspondence. ["No, no!"] Then he would not do so; but he would say this, that he had taken all the means in his power with the right rev. Prelate himself, and through his relatives, to remedy a state of things which ought to be remedied. It was lamentable to know that any right rev. Prelate could so forget himself, and forget his high position, as to use such language as had been addressed by him to a clergyman who thought it was his duty to get a more efficient performance of the services of the Church. It appeared, therefore, to him to be incumbent on, the higher members of the Church and of the First Minister of the Crown to take some means to prevent a recurrence of these proceedings; for unless some remedy were applied a great injury must ensue to the Church itself. He, therefore, begged to ask the noble Lord, not to put the Act of Henry VIII. in force, but to give his attention with a view to provide for a case where, from age and infirmity—for he (Mr. O. Stanley) knew that it was only from age, and from the infirmity of a mind once of the highest order,—a man, who was eminent for his virtues and his abilities—should unfortunately be so lost as to come under the censure of his friends. He hoped the noble Lord would give the House some assurance that means would be taken to prevent any similar occurrence.

said, that this subject had engaged the attention of the Chapter Commissioners, and they had recommended a remedy, which was that of appointing Suffragan Bishops in cases where Bishops were unable, by age and infirmity, to discharge their episcopal functions. He concurred entirely with the noble Lord with respect to the importance of the subject, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would pay attention to the recommendation of the Chapter Commissioners.

The subject to which the noble Lord has called the attention of the House is one of very great importance, and one which justly deserves serious consideration. I can assure the noble Lord that it has not escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Government. It is a matter which is now, and has been, under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but, at the same time, I am sure the noble Lord and the House will see that it is a subject beset with many difficulties, and is not one on which a hasty or premature decision can be well arrived at. But it has, I repeat, engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and we shall endeavour to find a remedy for the evil to which the noble Lord has alluded. With reference to the supplemental question, which has been put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), I must say that I do not at all concur in the opinion he has expressed that the Bishops are out of their place in taking their seats in the other House of Parliament, and I beg to inform my hon. Friend that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any change in that respect. I hope no hon. Gentleman will put any further questions to me, at least upon this Motion, because hon. Gentlemen must recollect that when questions are put to any hon. Member, and he has once spoken, he cannot speak again.

said, he wished to put a question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, upon a subject of some moment to the peace of that country. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Act known as the Crime and Outrage Act would cease to be in force on the 1st of July; he was also aware that all the provisions of law to regulate the possession of arms in Ireland were now embodied in that Act, and would expire with it. It would be very dangerous to leave the Executive without any power of controlling the possession of arms in districts where crime might unhappily prevail. For the last few years a Bill had been annually brought in renewing the Crime and Outrage Act from year to year; but it had been invariably brought in at the very close of the Session, when it was impossible to discuss or modify details, and when those who might not wish to continue many of the provisions of that measure were left no choice but either to vote for its renewal as a whole, or to take the responsibility of leaving the Government without any control over the possession of arms. Last year the Act had only been renewed to the 1st of July, with the view that this year there might be early and satisfactory legislation, with full opportunity of discussion. In former years he (Mr. Butt) had felt it his duty to call the earnest attention of the Irish Government to the danger of permitting all regulations in relation to arms to expire. He hoped it was not necessary to do so now. He felt sure the right hon. Gentleman was not disposed to repeat the experiment of 1846, and attempt to govern Ireland without the power, if necessary, of imposing some check upon the acquisition of arms by the ill-disposed. But as the period was so near when the Act would expire, and no steps had been taken by the Government, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it was intended to introduce any measure with reference to the approaching expiration of that Act?

said, in reply to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, he begged to say it was not the intention of the Government to bring in any Bill for the continuation of the Crime and Outrage Act of last year; but to propose an amended Act to continue all the important parts of the present law, but to leave out some of its provisions. That Bill was now ready to be introduced.

said, it was understood some time last year that a negotiation was in progress between Dr. Southwood Smith and the Treasury, whereby, instead of Dr. Southwood Smith receiving £1,200 compensation for the loss of his office, he should receive £300 a year pension. Under the head of Civil Contingencies for this year there was a charge of £300 to Dr. Smith, and he wished to know whether that was part of the pension?

said, it was originally intended not to give a pension to Dr. Smith, but, upon the case being again brought before the Government, it was finally decided that Parliament should be asked to grant a pension of £300 a year. There was no provision for the payment of it last year. It was thought hard to make Dr. Smith go without it another year, and the £300 paid out of Civil Contingencies was by way of advance.

who had given notice of the following Amendments, namely—

"In line 14, leave out the words 'and the assurance;'

" In lines 15 and 16, leave out the words 'or as set forth and prescribed in any previous Act or Acts;'

"In line 20, leave out the word 'not;'

"In page 2, line 1, after the word 'be,' insert the following words, 'administered with the omission of the following words, And I do solemnly and sincerely declare, that I do believe in my conscience that not any of the descendants of the person who pretended to be Prince of Wales during the life of the late King James II., and since his decease, pretended to be and took upon himself the style and title of King of England by the name of James III., or of Scotland by the name of James VIII,, or by the style and title of King of Great Britain, hath any right or title whatsoever to the Crown of this Realm, or any other the dominions thereunto belonging, and I do renounce, refuse, and abjure any allegiance or obedience to any of them;' And also, in the part of the said oath as set forth in the said Act, containing the words 'And I do faithfully promise to the utmost of my power to support, maintain, and defend the Succession of the Crown against the descendants of the said James, and against all other persons whatsoever," that the said oath shall be administered with the omission of the words 'against the descendants of the said James,' and of the word 'other' before the word 'persons,' and 'shall not be."

In page 2, line 1, leave out the words after the word 'made' to the word 'whatsoever,' and insert the words 'in any other manner and form.'"

In now moving the first of these Amendments—namely, to omit the words "and the assurances," &c.—said that it was a series of Amendments so connected together, and having one common object, that he thought it would be convenient for him on that occasion at once to explain the view with which he proposed them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) in introducing the Bill had argued with considerable force, and with great clearness, upon the absurdity, if not irreverence, of requiring solemn declarations against claims and persons no longer in existence; and he asked assent to this measure principally because part of the oath of abjuration had become entirely obsolete. Those who opposed the Bill concurred in the propriety of making such an alteration, and were ready to concur in any measure for that purpose. But the right hon. Gentleman had another and an ulterior object. Had the right hon. Gentleman no other object his course would have been plain, easy, and simple enough. It would have been merely to have proposed to erase from the oath the words to which his professed objection applied, leaving the remainder of the oath in its integrity. The right hon. Gentleman, however, did not attempt to conceal that he desired to introduce the Jews into Parliament; and with that object it was necessary for him to get rid of another part of the oath; and, therefore, finding that part of the oath which conferred upon the House its Christian character interposed an invincible obstacle in his way, the right hon. Gentleman desired to give the oath its death-blow. Now the course which had been adopted by the right hon. Gentleman was not fair, candid, or convenient. When a measure was professed to be propounded upon one principle and for one purpose, and really there was an ulterior object and an indirect result to be attained, the House was liable to be misled. The House in this case had not been fairly called upon to discuss what was really the principle of the Bill—viz., to get rid of the oath of abjuration. The right hon. Gentleman knew that this was the only oath which recognised the Protestant succession as established by the Act of Settlement; nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman, in this Bill, would sweep away the oath. Now, many had voted for the second reading of this Bill, not because they approved of this, but because they hoped that the Bill might be modified in Committee, so as to retain the substance of the oath. But that was a most inconvenient and unsatisfactory course to pursue. The second reading of a Bill was the proper period, and the only proper period, for discussing its principle; and he could not understand how hon. Members could vote for the second reading of a Bill without regard to its principle, in the hope that in Committee its principle would be altered. However, his right hon. Friend the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli), who on this subject differed from the great majority of his party, had intimated his intention of proposing in Committee certain Amendments, the object of which was to distinguish between that part of the oath which secured the Protestant succession, and that part which excluded the Jews from Parliament by the force of the words "on the true faith of a Christian. That intimation on the part of his right hon. Friend had lost him (Sir F. Thesiger) some votes on the question of the second reading. His right hon. Friend had been as good as his word, and had proposed to introduce words in Committee which would have the effect of leaving the oath in its integrity, and which at the same time raised distinctly and clearly for the consideration of the Committee whether they would get rid of the words "on the true faith of a Christian," and thus relax the oath so as to admit Jews into Parliament. The noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) had on this occasion condescended to play the part of under workman to the right hon. Gentleman the framer of the Bill, and had given notice of an Amendment merely pointing to the recognition of the Protestant succession as established by the Act of Settlement. But the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to get rid of all the rest of the oath; and thus, not directly, but indirectly and by a side wind, would admit the Jews into that House. Now, the noble Lord had hitherto taken the fair course of raising distinctly the question as to the admission of the Jews. That was the fair, proper, and straightforward course to pursue. But the noble Lord had not adopted that course upon this occasion; and if he (Sir F. Thesiger) were driven to choose between the course proposed by the noble Lord and that pursued by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli), he should undoubtedly prefer the latter, as being fairer and more direct, and raising the question of the admission of the Jews into Parliament in a more plain and simple way. The question, first, was whether the House would consent to the Amendments which he (Sir F. Thesiger) now proposed, the result of which would be that the Bill would effect all that its author had originally professed to have in view, and would preserve the oath while getting rid of the obsolete words in it. Why should any further alteration be made in it? This oath had been framed in the thirteenth William III., in the year 1703, and had thus lasted 150 years. It had been from time to time altered to meet the altered circumstances of the times, as in the reign of Anne, in the reign of George II., and in the reign of George III., the last alteration having been so long as ninety years ago. During all that time no class but those who were excluded by it had complained of it. Let the oath remain, and merely be modified to meet the objection as to that part of it which was obsolete. The course he should ultimately pursue in regard to the Bill depended upon the shape it should take in Committee; he would now, however, move the first of his Amendments, namely, to omit the words "and the assurances."

said, that if he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, he proposed to omit all the abjuration from the oath of abjuration. Everything to be abjured was to be omitted, and yet members were to continue to take the oath of abjuration. The hon. and learned Gentleman must surely give it a new title, for it would be monstrous, having omitted all the abjuration part of the oath, to continue to call it still the Oath of Abjuration. The course he (Mr. M. Gibson) had taken was strictly in accordance with the precedents in the former Acts, for, whenever a single word of the oath had been altered, the custom had been to repeal the oath altogether, and enact a new oath, which the Act said should be taken in lieu of the oath that had been repealed. That must certainly be the course taken with the oath proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, for it would be impossible to patch up an oath in the way his Amendment proposed. He himself was prepared to do without any oath of abjuration, for he believed that the Constitution and the Protestant Succession to the throne would be quite as safe as they were at present; and he was confirmed in that belief by the fact that there were thousands of cases in which the law was not enforced, and in which the parties were indemnified by an Act which was passed at the end of every Session. In fact, except in the case of Members of Parliament and the holders of a very few offices, the oath was not taken at all; and an oath which was so extensively neglected could not be a very important ingredient in the security of the Crown. He did not see how the words "and the assurance" could be omitted, and for this reason—that the assurance, which was designed especially for the Scotch, contained all the words in the Oath of Abjuration with respect to the descendants of James. The same amount of swearing that sufficed for Englishmen would suffice for Scotchmen. In order to remove some objections which existed to the Bill, he was ready to agree that the oath of which the noble Lord the Member for London had given notice should be substituted for the Oath of Abjuration. As to the admission of Jews into Parliament, that question did not arise out of the present Bill. All that the present Bill did was to abolish an oath which was unnecessary and superfluous, and if any Member had any Motion to make for the exclusion of Jews, it would be competent for him to bring it forward. As far as he was concerned, he was prepared to remove the obstacle against the admission of Jews to Parliament upon other grounds, but his object at present was only to do away with an absurd and superfluous oath. For these reasons he felt compelled to oppose the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, he should not propose any more of his Amendments then, as his object was to see what course the Bill would take. He should probably introduce a form of oath to meet the objection he entertained to the change now proposed on the third reading.

regretted that he could not support the noble Lord's Amendment. He was quite willing to support any form of oath that would be more consonant with modern ideas, but retaining the words, "on the true faith of a Christian;" thus omitting the passage relating to the Pretender, but reserving the question raised by the other words as to the admission of Jews to seats in Parliament, for subsequent consideration. Many persons who would support the noble Lord in the former part of his proposition disagreed with him on the latter, and would therefore be obliged to vote against him. The noble Lord had, in fact, taken the course which he was now recommending, when he brought forward his Bill for the alteration of the abjuration oath in 1849. He then, while omitting the words relative to the Pretender from the oath, retained the words "on the true faith of a Christian" in the oath to be taken by the Christian Members, omitting the latter words in the oath to be tendered to the Jews. The Jewish question ought to be dealt with separately; he strongly objected to its being mixed up with the question relating to the descendants of James the Second.

said, that the effect of what the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down suggested was, that there should be one form of oath for Christians to take, and another form for those who were not Christians. In the first oath he wished to retain the words "on the true faith of a Christian." These words were not in the oath of allegiance, which must be allowed to be an oath of equal importance with the oath of abjuration. The fact was, that the whole thing from beginning to end was a sham. The oath of allegiance had been taken for centuries, and never objected to. It was impossible to exclude infidels by any oath that could be framed. How could they, by the test of an oath, have excluded Bolingbroke and Gibbon? The words were only introduced for the purpose of exclusion, and whilst hon. Members on the other side of the House were professing to rest their opposition on Christian principles, they were acting in an unchristian manner by attempting to exclude their fellow-subjects from that House.

said, that so far from Members on this side of the House being here to countenance a sham, they were anxious to prevent an imposition being practised. They were anxious to clear the ground. He certainly desired the exclusion from the House of such as were not Christians, as he did not think that men who were not actuated by Christian principles should take part in the making of Christian laws. Thank God, our laws were framed by a Christian legislature. But he distinctly stated, that while he desired the profession of Christianity on the part of its Members, he would not exercise any species of inquisition as to a man's tenets. The first act of a Jew, however, at the Speaker's table, was to reject the Gospel. He rejected the blessed Redeemer, whose morality it was our wish to perpetuate in our laws.

said, that the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) confirmed what he (Mr. Roebuck) had said, that the whole thing was a sham. The whole object of the Opposition was to keep out the Jews. Then, why did they not say so? why not plainly tell the House that such was their object? They thought that by retaining the words "on the true faith of a Christian" in the oath, that they could exclude the Jews, but he (Mr. Roebuck) would tell the Committee, that if he was a Jew he should take the oath. He would repeat the words "on the true faith of a Christian" and would add the words, "these words have no binding effect upon me." After he had repeated the words imposed by the Act of Parliament, he could not be excluded from his seat.

said, he could not but agree with the hon. and learned Member, that there was a great deal of sham upon this question. It was well known that the words so much talked about secured as much as it was possible to secure the fidelity of those who were expected to be unfaithful without them. He wished the noble Lord, having touched upon this question, to consider another branch of it—the Royal Marriage Act, which interfered most improperly with the rights of the Royal Family, and which was passed at the instance of George III. to spite his two brothers. Upon this clause, he would only add that, if they were to have a Jew question, let it be raised fairly and distinctly, and not in the present indirect manner.

said, that he and his friends had always expressed their anxiety that the question should be fairly and distincly raised, and this objection to the noble Lord the Member for London's proposal was, that it did not directly raise the question of admitting the Jews to Parliament, while at the same time it indirectly effected that object. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had made use of the word "sham"—a phrase which was becoming almost Parliamentary. [Mr. ROEBUCK: The thing is.] Why those on his side of the House had always resisted the introduction of Jews to Parliament. The hon. and learned Member said, that were he a Jew he would take the words and deny their effect upon him. He (Sir F. Thesiger) would admit, that if a person of no religion at all presented himself at the table, and took the words "on the true faith of a Christian," but which had no binding effect on his conscience, he could not exclude such a person. If an infidel subscribed those words, the blame rested with him. It was impossible to set up barriers which immoral men would not overleap. The Conservative side of the House had always maintained that a Jew ought not to sit in a Christian Parliament. That question it was his intention to raise substantially at a future stage of the Bill. He would admit that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were not originally introduced into the oath for the purpose of excluding Jews from Parliament; but he must be allowed to say, that in framing the Act of Settlement, the great men who were instrumental in bringing it about, adopted the words "on the true faith of a Christian," and thus stamped the Christian character of Parliament and the constitution.

begged the Committee to observe that the hon. and learned Member said that they could not raise barriers for the exclusion of immoral men, though they could for the exclusion of moral and conscientious men. The former were therefore to be admitted, and the latter excluded from Parliament.

said, that upon the first settlement after the Revolution none of the oaths contained the words "on the true faith of a Christian." It was only in 1701 in consequence of the recognition of the young Pretender by Louis XIV. that a new oath was proposed containing these words, and that oath was carried through Parliament by a majority of only one. He objected to an oath to be taken by only a portion of the House, and approved of the course proposed by the noble Lord, of having an oath which every Member of the House could take; which could be taken by Protestants and Catholics, by Jews and Christians. He desired to see the day when they should all take one simple form of oath.

With regard to the Motion of my noble Friend I shall give it my cordial support, not that I think the omission of any mention of the Act of Settlement in the oaths taken at this table could have the slightest effect in impairing the force of that law, because the Act of Settlement rests on a foundation much stronger than any oath taken in this House; nevertheless, as we have hitherto acknowledged the Act of Settlement in the oaths taken by us, I think it fitting that that acknowledgment should continue as part of our engagement at this table. With regard to the objection which has been urged, that this is indirectly removing an obstacle which prevents Jews from sitting in this House, I say that obstacle only indirectly and unintentionally accomplished that purpose. It was not at all put in for the purpose of excluding Jews; therefore in removing that obstacle we are in no way running counter to the original intention of Parliament in adding those words to the oaths. But if it is necessary to add to the solemnity of an oath by words declaring that the person taking it took it upon the true faith of a Christian; if it is necessary, in order to add to the binding force of the oath, to adopt those words, why are not those words added to other oaths, why not to the oath of allegiance, which is undoubtedly a much more important oath than that to which these words are now appended? I therefore am quite prepared to agree to the Amendment of my noble Friend. I concur in the removal of those words which interpose an impediment to that which I think is a matter of principle in modern times, namely, that Jews elected to Parliament should be admissible and able to take their seats in this House. So far therefore from feeling any objection to the oath from the circumstance of its omitting words which will enable Jews to sit in this House, that is, among other reasons, a strong recommendation to my regard of this measure. Those who agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman may very easily bring the question under the separate and deliberate consideration of the House by proposing to insert these words in a future stage of the Bill. They might make a distinct proposal to insert the words for the express purpose of excluding Jews from Parliament, and then take the decision of the House upon that question. For the reasons I have stated I with great cordiality give my support to the Motion.

said, he was opposed to the Amendment of his noble Friend, but he did not wish to prolong the discussion, because, as he understood, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger) had given a pledge to the House to take that very course which the noble Lord had suggested, as the most convenient for the purpose of giving the House an opportunity to come to a positive vote upon the question.

understood that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stamford proposed to take the discussion on the third reading. He thought that would be the better course to pursue.

said, that in giving a vote in favour of that proposition of the noble Lord, he certainly did not look at it as a stepping-stone towards removing the oath taken by Roman Catholics. He believed that was a very necessary oath to be taken.

then moved to add to the Bill the following clause:

"Every person permitted by the said Act of His late Majesty King William IV. To make his Affirmation instead of the Oath of Abjuration and Assurance shall, in lieu of the Oath hereby substituted, and of the Affirmation contained in the last mentioned Act, make his solemn Affirmation in the following words, that is to say:—'I, A B, being one of the people called Quakers [or one of the persuasion of the people called Quakers, or of the United Brethren called Moravians, as the case may be], do solemnly promise that I will be true and faithful to the succession of the Crown, which Succession, by an Act intituled, "An Act for the further limitation of the Crown, and the better securing of the Rights and liberties of the subject," is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants.'"

said, that in matters of this kind they must be guided by practice. Now, officers' chargers and the horses of officers attached to the Inland Revenue Department could not be placed in the same category with those of police officers. Officers in the army and of the Revenue were in the service of the Queen; not so officers of the police force, who were under the control of the magistrates, and were paid out of the local rates. The principle might be applicable to Ireland, where the whole expense of the police was defrayed out of the public revenue, and where the police were under the control of officers appointed by the Government.

But under the new Bill half the expense of the police will be defrayed by Government.

That slightly alters the case, but still the expense was mainly to fall upon the county rates. The proportion to be paid from the Consolidated Fund was the same as in the case of the metropolitan police; but the horses of the metropolitan police were no more exempt from taxation than those of private individuals. And although he did not mean to contend that the matter was of any great moment one way or the other to the revenue, still he was not prepared to agree to a new principle of exemptions.

thought that if the clause were accepted as it stood it would lead to interminable disputes. A police officer in the country districts usually went about in a tax cart, and thus travelling about he was very apt to take up persons on the road. Well, if he did so under this clause, the taxgatherer would be down upon him. The best way of meeting the difficulty would be to authorise each police officer to keep one or more horses, according to his rank.

was in favour of the clause. Indeed he was inclined to the belief that the horses of the police were formerly exempt.

would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the horses of the yeomanry, a force supported by the counties, were exempt from taxation.

said, he thought that in some parts of the country it had been usual to exempt the horses of the chief superintendent of police.

hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would oppose the proposition in whatever form it was introduced.

asked the indulgence of the House while he proposed a clause which was not on the paper of to-day, having omitted to give formal notice of it. The object of his clause was to provide that there should be appointed in county districts a proportion of not less than one policeman to every 2,000 inhabitants, and in every city and borough not less than one policeman to every 1,000 inhabitants, according to the last census. It appeared to him that unless a minimum number of the police force was compulsorily established by the Bill, the whole would fall to the ground, and become a dead letter. It was true that the Bill provided for a police force where it was already existing, and when the majority of the ratepayers demanded it; but he contended without some such provision as he proposed, as a general measure for establishing an efficient force for the prevention of crime, it would wholly fail. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Grey) made an objection to his proposition, on the ground that practically it would be considered by the country the maximum adopted by Parliament. He (Mr. Bentinck) confessed he did not see the force of such an objection. He contended that by fixing the minimum number of the police force to be established, he threw no obstacle whatever in the way of increasing the amount of the police force wherever it was deemed necessary. It appeared to him, that unless the measure operated equally throughout the country, it was impossible to make it efficient for its objects. If any borough or county district were left without an adequate police force, it would become a receptacle for the depredators and vagabonds from other parts of the country. It had been shown that when an efficient police force was established, the amount of crime in the district was immediately reduced in an inverse proportion as it increased in the neighbouring districts where there was no police force to check it. In the latter case, it was often necessary to call in the assistance of the county constabulary, or of the military force, which was generally deprecated by borough Members. He contended that the adoption of his clause would prevent the occurrence of any such evil.

"Provided always that, after the passing of this Act, the number of Constables appointed and paid, shall never at any time be less than one per two thousand of the inhabitants of every County or Police District, or one per thousand of the inhabitants of every city or borough throughout England and Wales, according to the last Parliamentary enumeration of the population for the time being."

said, the proposition was one which was certainly entitled to their consideration. Although he confessed he was at first favourable to the principle of having a minimum amount of police force fixed, nevertheless upon more careful consideration of the matter he had arrived at the conclusion that it would be inexpedient to fix any such minimum for a county or borough, because practically he thought it would be considered by the county as the maximum adopted by Parliament There were many boroughs which had a much greater police force than the hon. Member proposed. There, for example, was Liverpool—an exceptional case, he admitted—in which the police force was equal to one to every 450 of the population. He was afraid that if this clause were adopted it would convey the impression that one to every 1,000 would be sufficient in all cases. Now there was much difference in the state and circumstances of the boroughs and counties in England; and it was, therefore, most difficult to fix the minimum amount of the police force to be established in all places. He, therefore, thought it inexpedient to adopt such a proposition.

must say that the right hon. Baronet had bestowed so much pains on this measure, and had shown such an anxiety to accomplish the object of providing the country with an efficient police, that it was with great diffidence he (Sir J. Pakington) dissented from the conclusion to which he had come upon the proposition before them. He confessed that he concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk in thinking that it would be desirable to establish a minimum number of the police force to be employed. He could not concur with him in the minimum he had proposed; but assuredly some rule should be introduced. He thought for counties the number was too high; he would prefer rather one to every 3,000 of the population. He could not deny there was some force in the objection taken by the right hon. Baronet. Very great inconvenience would arise to the whole locality if any borough or district evaded the establishment of an efficient police. It might be replied that in that event it would be competent for the Government to withhold the Treasury grant, but their power in that respect afforded, no adequate protection to the public, inasmuch as the pecuniary saving effected by having a very small police establishment might be such as to counterbalance the loss of the grant. He thought, therefore, it was necessary to fix some minimum.

thought there was an obvious difficulty in laying down a minimum applicable to all cases without exception. Districts in counties differed very much. He knew a county where the police rate amounted to 1d. in the pound in one district, and 5d. in the pound in another.

was prepared to prove that such a minimum as suggested was quite unnecessary. In the county of Glamorgan, for example, which was a most important county as far as property and population were concerned, the inhabitants in 1841 amounted to 109,000, whereas in 1851 it increased to 180,000, exclusive of the large towns. During the Rebecca riots that county was remarkably free from those disturbances. The turning-point of those riots was, when they were put down upon the borders of that county. At that time the police, including the superintendent, amounted to only forty. The next county, however, where the riots did take place, had a much larger police force. He thought that fact was sufficient to illustrate the inefficacy of the proposition.

could not conceive how the Bill could carry out its object unless they enforced the necessity in boroughs and counties to make some provision for an efficient police force. He could not conceive why there should be any objection to such a clause.

said, he thought the proposition unnecessary. He thought that population was a fallacious test by which to regulate the number of police required in counties and boroughs. Regard should be had to the occupations of the people, their habits, their liability to periodic distress, and their position in relation to adjacent communities. Towns clustered closely together could assist each other in matters of police, and did not need as large a force as isolated towns.

thought that a minimum force according to population would not work well. A thin population scattered over the country often required a greater police force than a thickly populated place.

said, that the chief constables took population as the best test. There were some boroughs in which I there was not one policeman to 2,000 of the inhabitants.

quite concurred with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich as to the great attention shown by the right hon. Gentleman upon this question as well as others, and he deeply regretted to find himself in a position to differ from the right hon. Baronet. Although he was by no means convinced by the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, he would not, as it appeared to be against the feeling of the House, press his proposition.

submitted the following clause:—

"In any borough to which such sum as aforesaid shall be paid, the Police whereof shall not have been consolidated with that of a county, the head constable or chief of Police of such borough shall have the general disposition and government of all constables appointed therein, and at his pleasure may promote, suspend, or dismiss, all or any of them, and no constable so dismissed shall be reappointed without the consent of the said head constable or chief of Police, any law or Statute to the contrary notwithstanding."

Although he did not wish to deprive the watch committees of any of the powers they possessed, yet, considering that they were an annually changing body, he thought that the efficiency of the police force would be much better enforced by the introduction of such a rule as he proposed, which at the same time would leave untouched the principle of self-government. The watch committees would still retain the power of appointing and dismissing the head constables.

was gratified to hear the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland declare he had no desire to interfere with the powers of the municipal corporations; but the clause he proposed ill accorded with that declaration. Me proposed to make the members of the watch committees courts of record for the acts of the head constable, to whom he proposed to give the general disposition and government of all constables, with power to suspend or dismiss all or any of them, and no constable could be reappointed save by such head constable. Now this clause meant one of two things—either to prevent the boroughs from taking the sum allowed out of the Consolidated Fund, or to destroy the power of the watch committees. He (Sir J. Walmsley) regarded it as an offence to every municipal corporation in the kingdom, and it would be difficult to obtain the services of respectable and independent men if they were to be placed in such a position, He had had much experience with municipal corporation affairs, and especially in watch committees, and he was prepared to say that their conduct generally was most praiseworthy, independent, and pure. Much opposition had been withdrawn by the boroughs to this Bill, in consequence of the right hon. the Home Secretary having withdrawn the obnoxious clauses which the noble Lord now attempted to reintroduce in another shape. Whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite might think, he could assure them that there was quite as much public spirit, quite as much zeal for the public welfare, and, he ventured to say, quite as much talent brought to bear in the management of municipal corporations as could be found in the best regulated counties. He ventured to call upon the Government to oppose the clause, should it be pressed to a division, in accordance with that spirit which had actuated the boroughs not to oppose the Bill as a whole.

thought, when the chief constable was appointed, the efficiency of the police would be best promoted by leaving the control in his hands. But as the Municipal Act placed the power in the hands of the watch committees, and as he believed that that power had been properly exercised, it would scarcely be proper, especially as the Bill had so far advanced upon the understanding that no interference with the powers of those bodies was to take place, now to take the control of the police out of their hands.

said, that in all counties where the police was well organised the magistrates did not think they lost anything of their dignity by the control of the police, when once they were appointed, being placed in the hands of the chief constable; nor did he consider that it would be so in boroughs. At the same time, he did not think it would be desirable to interfere with the functions of those bodies, and therefore he hoped the clause would not be pressed.

was glad to hear that his right hon. Friend did not intend to adopt this clause. It was proper to listen to the recommendations of the chief constables, no doubt, in appointing or removing the constable; but it was a very different thing to place the whole control and management in his hands, and to give him the absolute power of dismissal. That would be to supersede the functions of the Watch Committees altogether. As the Bill was originally introduced, it was open to objection; but as it now stood, the principle of local self-government was safe; so limited, he believed, the measure would be useful; but if its principle were too much strained, and the power of the Government were substituted for that of local self-government, as established by the Municipal Reform Act, it would create discontent and invite resistance. If it was found desirable, he had no doubt the boroughs would voluntarily adopt some such regulation as that suggested by the noble Lord, but he objected to its being forced upon them.

could not see that the power given to the chief constable by the proposed clause ought to excite any jealousy on the part of the Watch Commit- tees. Still, in the present position of the Bill, he recommended the noble Lord to withdraw the clause.

also recommended the noble Lord to withdraw the clause. He should have expected such a clause to have originated with an Austrian or Russian rather than an English nobleman. He would never give up the municipal privileges which the noble Lord the Member for London had obtained for them. The Secretary of State had offered a bribe to the county Members, and they had swallowed the bait. They now asked the House to do for them what they had had the opportunity of doing for the last ten years, and they had not had the public spirit or intelligence to avail themselves of the opportunity. He would rather take up arms than surrender his municipal privileges.

congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his prudence in giving to the boroughs the modifications which he had made in the Bill. He should oppose the clause.

said, that as the Bill originally stood it was highly objectionable, but the alteration made in it had made it more acceptable. If the county magistrates chose to surrender their command over the police they were welcome to do so; but, with regard to the boroughs, there was an arrangement with the Home Secretary that this power should be reserved to them. The power given by the proposed clause would give a greater power to the chief constable than any possessed by colonels of regiments or captains of ships. They could not dismiss their men at their pleasure. He should, therefore, oppose the clause.

said, a very comfortable arrangement seemed to have been made between the right hon. Gentleman and the boroughs on this point. [Sir G. GREY: It is perfectly untrue.] Now, he did not want to interfere with any of these corporations; he only lamented that Gentlemen who represented the boroughs compelled the counties to take that which they did not want. He feared that the Bill would necessitate future legislation, and that the right hon. Gentleman would have to quote over again the police deficiencies on which he had already been so eloquent.

would support the Government in resisting this clause. He thought the temptation of jobbery in this matter had been withdrawn by the clause already passed incapacitating the police from voting either in Parliamentary or municipal elections. At the same time, he could not agree in the statement that watch committees always appointed police constables from the purest motives. In two or three boroughs with which he was acquainted he could say that the police appointments were purely and wholly political, and every policeman voted the same way. Now, however, the watch committees possessed no temptation to go wrong, and if this Bill passed, as he trusted it would, the police throughout the country were likely to become a more efficient body.

said, that the evidence taken before the Committee showed that where there were brewers in boroughs, those brewers were on the watch committees, and the police were afraid to do their duty. The power of appointment would, under his clause, be left with the watch committees; but the clause would deprive them of that control which, under the Bill as it now stood, they would have over the police officers after their appointment. His only object was, to put the police in a position to discharge their duty without fear of consequences arising from local influence; but as he had no wish to disturb the unanimity of the House he would withdraw his clause.

said that, as strong objections had been taken to some of the principal clauses of the Bill, he would not ask the House to read it a second time, but would move that the order should be discharged, with the view of bringing in a new Bill with the parochial clauses amended.

thought the House had some reason to complain, that no notice had been given of the course intended to be pursued by the right hon. Gentleman. Up to seven o'clock that evening he had received no intimation of his intention, and then he heard of it by the merest chance. At the same time, no one who was in the House last Monday night, when the Motion for the second reading was so pertinaciously persisted in by the right hon. Gentleman, and who knew anything of the merits of the Bill, could regret the step which had now been taken. He was satisfied for his own part that the right hon. Gentleman had exercised a wise discretion in withdrawing the Bill.

So far from thinking that he was open to censure for the course he had pursued, he submitted that he had been outrageously goodnatured in his attempts to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen.

expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not confine his Amendments to the parochial clauses of the Bill, but would likewise make an alteration in the 28th clause, which transferred the election of district auditor from the chairman and vice-chairman of each board of guardians to the Poor Law Board.

did not object to the withdrawal of the Bill, to which he was strongly opposed, but complained of the manner in which the House had been treated by the President of the Poor Law Board. On Monday night, or rather at an early hour on Tuesday morning last, the right hon. Gentleman pressed the House to read the Bill a second time, on the ground that there was no principle in it. Looking at the way in which the Bill had been framed and introduced, he was disposed to say that there was no principle either in the Poor Law Board or in the right hon. Gentleman himself; and he begged to inform the noble Lord at the head of the Government that, if he allowed his subordinates to extend the pernicious system of centralisation, he would speedily find himself deprived of his usual supporters.

also rejoiced at the withdrawal of the Bill, and would recommend the right hon. Gentleman, if he introduced another, not to submit to the House any provisions at all similar to those of the present Bill, for he would not have the smallest chance of carrying them. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not given earlier intimation of his intention to withdraw the Bill. He had waited there the whole evening, expecting that the Motion for the second reading would be brought on, because he felt anxious to protect the interests of the society of Lincoln's-inn, upon which the Bill proposed to impose a tax of several hundred pounds per annum, by annexing it to the adjoining parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn. But the right hon. Gentleman had shown "the better part of valour," by withdrawing the Bill, and he would do well not to attempt to introduce another of the same kind.

presented the Poor Law Amendment (No. 2) Bill, to amend the Laws for the Relief of the Poor.

expressed his satisfaction at the withdrawal of the original measure, but strongly objected to the practice of introducing important Bills without due notice being given to the House, and of placing them among the Orders of the Day, when there was no serious intention of proceeding with them. Somewhere about two years ago he moved for a return connected with the operation of the Poor Law, but it had not yet been produced, and only a few days ago he was informed that it would not be ready for some time. He hoped the House would not consent to read No. 2 Bill a second time until that return had been laid on the table.

said, the fact was, the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir F. Thesiger) was a director of the Law Life Insurance Company, and that the complaints which were made the ground of the argument in favour of the Amendment related to the property of the Company in Ireland.

opposed the Amendment as unnecessary. The law already gave a remedy.

urged that the Amendment was needed, because a re-presentment could not be traversed; nor could a presentment be traversed except at the assizes at which the presentment was made. With reference to certain remarks which bad been made, he (Sir F. Thesiger) begged to say, that, though he was a director of the Law Life Company, the very small interest that gave him in the question had not led him to endeavour to take any unfair advantage.

said, he understood the object of the right hon. Gentleman was that some notice should be given; but the Amendment he proposed was not at all practicable. The great difficulty was to find out who was primarily liable. He suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that on the third reading a clause should be proposed to effect the object of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, that his object was really as had been stated—to obtain sufficient notice, and he therefore accepted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and would withdraw the Amendment.

said, that under the existing Acts, charitable institutions were exempt, but the rents derived from them were charged with half the rate. The object of the clause was to enable a mesne landlord so charged to make a deduction from the head landlord.

protested against the principle of levying upon the landlord, who happened to let his house for charitable purposes, a tax which no other landlord was called upon to bear. He should advise his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland to strike out altogether a clause which would re-affirm an injustice which it was not desirable to continue; and he (Mr. Butt) should, upon the Report, or upon the third reading of the Bill, be prepared to introduce a clause which would obviate the objections to which the clause as it stood was liable.

having intimated his concurrence in the course proposed by Mr. Butt,

expressed a hope that the Attorney General would consent to deal with it as he had done with the 7th clause.

said, he had brought in the clause altogether at the suggestion of county Members.

then moved the following proviso:—"In Clause 9, page 4, line 40, leave out 'collected,' and insert 'of the collection,' and add to the clause."

"Provided always, that the Grand Jury shall not present more than 9d. in the pound; unless it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Judge of Assize in open court, that great difficulties have occurred in the collection of Grand Jury Cess in that barony or district, and still continue to prevail, and any ratepayer may traverse any application for more than 9d. in the pound as collectors' fees."

opposed the proviso.

then moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following clause:—

"With reference to any sums of Grand Jury Cess to be presented or re-presented after the passing of this Act, it shall not be lawful to commence any proceeding for the recovery of any sum in arrear or unpaid against any person not primarily liable to pay the same under or by virtue of the original presentment and appointment thereof, after the expiration of two years from the date of such original presentment, anything in this or any former Act to the contrary notwithstanding."

suggested the bringing up of the clause on the third reading.

objected to the clause, and preferred the law as it stood.

thought the clause a reasonable one.

as of the same opinion.

could not vote for the clause, so far as it was retrospective.

did not think the clause retrospective, and would consent to any alteration to meet the view of the hon. and learned Member.

then moved to substitute in line 5, "three," years for "two."

then moved the insertion of a clause authorising the grand jury of the county Dublin to grant the collector of the barony of Rathdown a superannuation allowance not exceeding three fourths of his average fees for the seven years prior to his retirement.

called upon the Committee not to sanction such a monstrous proposal. The collector had been in the receipt of a salary of £800 a year for a long period, and was a man still in the full vigour of life, able to perform any duties that might devolve on him.

defended the clause. The collector had received no more than about £420 a year; he had discharged the duties of his office for a period of thirty-four years, and his emoluments would be materially diminished by the division of his barony, which would be brought about by the clause just agreed to.

said, he did not think there were sufficient reasons for establishing a precedent for compensation.

said, he must oppose the Motion, and repeat what he had stated formerly, that the office of Secretary of State was conferred by the delivery of the seals; and about a year ago a decision of the Queen's Bench, delivered by Lord Campbell, distinctly laid that down. No point of constitutional practice was better established. Not only was the office conferred by delivery of the seals, but what was more to the purpose, the office of Secretary of State was withdrawn by the recall of the seals. When the Coalition Ministry of Lord North and Fox were turned out, the King, to whom it was disagreeable to give them a personal reception, desired that their seals of office should be sent to him by their under-secretaries, thus showing that the recall of the seals vacated the offices. The general practice, he would admit, had been to issue a patent after the delivery of the seals; but, a short time back, when the noble Lord the Member for London became Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he was advised that there was no necessity for taking out a patent, and therefore he did not do so. The general case had been submitted to the law officers of the Crown, with the view of ascertaining their opinion as to whether it was desirable and proper that Secretaries of State should take out a patent, and as yet no official answer had been received. He believed, however, that the view of those learned Gentlemen was, that it would be more regular to take out a patent. If their opinion, when officially expressed, should be to that effect the Government would be prepared to act upon it. Under those circumstances he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion.

said, that, as the right hon. Gentleman had conceded the whole question, and as it appeared that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown coincided with his own, he would withdraw his Motion.