said, that in moving that the House at its rising do adjourn until Monday, he thought it would he for the convenience of the Members if he were to state the course which it would be, he thought, convenient to adopt. It was at the desire of the noble Earl now at the head of the Government that Parliament should reassemble as speedily as possible for the despatch of public business; and, therefore, for the information of hon. Members, he (Sir W. Jolliffe) wished to state that the House would meet on Monday next for the purpose of his moving for such now writs as appointments to offices not yet filled up might render necessary. He should then ask the House to adjourn from Monday next until Friday week, the 12th of March; according to former precedents that being the earliest period at which it could reasonably be expected the new ministers could be in their places to proceed with the public business. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving that the House at its rising do adjourn until Monday next.

Sir, I wish to trespass upon the time and patience of the House for a short period, while I endeavour to bring before it some considerations which appear to me to affect in a material degree the regularity and the decency of proceedings in Parliament, even if they do not in some measure affect the privileges of Members of this House. If there be in any nation two deliberative assemblies, acting in concert with each other, it seems consistent with propriety and also with the obligations of decency that if a speech be delivered by a member of one of those deliberative bodies in considering a measure brought before it, it should not be competent for any member of the other assembly, before the measure is submitted to them, to take that particular speech and to make it the subject of criticism, and to accompany that criticism by personal and offensive observations. It is impossible to conceive anything that would more tend to interrupt the order which should prevail in deliberative assemblies, or which could more interfere with regularity and propriety of conduct on the part of the Members than such a course of proceeding. But, Sir, one might condone this—one might pass it over without remark—if it were the accidental exuberance of zeal or enthusiasm on the part of some young Member of either House; one might even forgive it if the offender had been accidentally betrayed upon one occasion only into such forgetfulness. But, if it turns out to be a practice repeatedly pursued, frequently remonstrated against in private, although forborne to be noticed in public; if it turns out to be a practice followed by grave and reverend and aged men, entitled to be regarded as leaders in the assembly of which they are Members, and who may fairly be expected to afford to younger Members examples of order, of regularity, and decency—more especially when those grave and eminent personages happen to be invested with the highest judicial functions—then it becomes unquestionably a most unfortunate thing, which no one can contemplate without the deepest regret and pain. I must beg the indulgence of the House while I call its attention to certain proceedings which already figure in the history which is given of the transactions of our two deliberative assemblies. In the month of August last, a great and important measure (the Trustees Relief Bill) came down from the other body to be considered in this, the Lower House. It was brought forward at a time when it was utterly impossible to give to that measure the calm, patient, and lengthened attention which its importance required. It had been conceived, as it appeared, by certain Members of that assembly with great deliberation, but it was expressed and accompanied by more than usual infelicity. That being so, in measured and temperate language, without any allusion to the authors of the measure in the other assembly, this House, without a division, unanimously, and apparently even with the assent of its propounders, came to the determination not to entertain it. That decision having been come to, a scene took place in the other deliberative body in which a grave and learned and most eminent person, disappointed apparently at the measure not having been received here, addressed that House in language which I find thus reported in history. It is by examples of the past that we are to correct our conduct for the future. That noble Lord (Lord St. Leonards), after alluding to a Bill which he had prepared and introduced to protect honest trustees, in reference to what had passed in another place, is represented to have said; —

"On that occasion, however, the learned organ of the Government in the House of Commons stated that the measure was so inaccurate and obscure, and so inadequate for the purpose for which it was intended, that it would require at least three days to make it right. That learned person then added—with the confidence which belonged to him, and by which he was led to imagine that he could make that clear which was obscure, substitute light for darkness, and make that adequate which was inadequate,—that he himself would undertake to introduce a suitable measure on the subject in the next Session of Parliament. He certainly was astonished to learn that that learned person had spoken in those terms of a measure which had been prepared with such great care and deliberation, and which had passed through their Lordships' House without any great objection."—[3 Hansard, cxlvii. 1778.]

I do not know whether these terms are to be deemed complimentary or the opposite. I rather believe that they were not used with the intention of conveying any praise, but rather of personally holding up a Member of the other deliberative body, who had performed what he conceived to be his duty, to ridicule and public observation on the ground of the observations he had made. Now, the individual alluded to unquestionably felt a good deal of pity for the irritable feeling that prompted these observations, and although he might have brought the matter before the body to which he belonged, yet from considerations of the past he abstained, and contented himself with addressing a remonstrance to the Members who heard this speech, and with expressing an earnest desire that proceedings such as these, which were likely to lead to feelings of rupture between the two bodies, might not be for the future persevered in. Now, Sir, on another occasion a grave question arose before the deliberative assembly to which I allude, touching a most important institution in a country—namely, the great and supreme Court of Appeal. The person who has now the honour of addressing this great assembly was called upon by many Members of this House to declare the opinion which he had formed from his experience of the way in which that great court had discharged the functions committed to it by the constitution, and what might he required, if need were, to render it more satisfactory in the performance of those functions. A great debate ensued, in which many Members took part, and which ended with an expression of the carefully considered opinion of the body then deliberating. These proceedings, being communicated to the public in the ordinary way, attracted the attention of Members of another assembly. These grave and learned persons to whom I have referred, and to whom that body should look up as guides in matters of order, met together for the purpose of expressing an opinion upon what had been stated in the other great Council of the nation. This is the language which history records to have been used on that occasion by the very grave and learned person who fills the highest judicial seat in the courts of law in this country:—

"Lord Campbell had witnessed, he must say with indignation, the attack that had been made on their Lordships' judicial jurisdiction by Her Majesty's Solicitor General. It was a most violent attack, having a direct tendency to bring their jurisdiction into disrepute, and it was astonishing that it should come from an officer of Her Majesty's Government. It was an attack upon the constituted authorities of the country and upon a public functionary—for he (Lord Campbell) must say, that it appeared to him to be an attack on his noble and learned friend on the woolsack who presided over their Lordships" proceedings when sitting as a Court of Appeal. It seemed to him, if the report were a just representation of what fell from the Solicitor General, that he thought that justice would never be satisfactorily administered in their Lordships' House until he (the Solicitor General) was presiding on the woolsack."

Now, Sir, if I were speaking of the language used by John Thomas to James Styles out of doors, I should pass it by as that species of personality which indicates great want of good breeding and good manners. But if this history says true, and if those words did proceed from one who was bound to maintain all order, all gravity, and all decency, why, undoubtedly, it is a thing to be spoken of with the greatest pain and regret. So far as the institution is concerned to which I have referred—these remarks having been made when the individual had no power to bring them before the other body, which had adjourned—that individual was content with the ample revenge which he afterwards had, without any act of his, by these same learned persons appointing a Committee to consider that very institution of which they had constituted themselves the champions in these singularly vulgar terms; and this Committee, by the evidence they took and their own Report, said much worse and more severe things of the institution in question than they had attributed to the unfortunate Solicitor General. To crown the matter, the individual who used this language came to this very Solicitor General, and, with an inconsistency which those who know him better than I have the honour to do tell me is not an unusual thing, deplored the state of this very institution, and begged the assistance of the person to whom he applied in devising some means of improvement. So much with regard to the past. With regard to a later occurrence, there is also recorded in history a passage which I wish humbly to submit is deserving of grave consideration. It is the province of the Judges of the land to declare the law, but to declare the law in their courts, after argument, upon a judicial occasion, and after grave deliberation. It is most deeply to be deplored if there should happen to be in any country a Judge of the greatest eminence and authority, who must know well that, in a particular conjuncture of circumstances, he might be called upon to sit in judgment upon a particular case, and who yet, with reference to that case, before it came before him, gratuitously and unnecessarily rushed into public, and declared that the law which governed the case was so and so, and that all who held a different opinion committed such grievous errors that it gave him the most acute pain to observe the blunders into which they had fallen. Well, Sir, if there is a man who should have done such a thing, and if such a man should be clothed with the ermine of the highest station, I think this House will be of opinion with me, that he would disqualify himself from sitting as a Judge to hear and determine that question, if the case on which he had thus given an opinion and decision should arise. There is nothing more to be deprecated in the Judges of the land than that they should be "incontinent of tongue." I quite agree that when the occasion demands the expression of opinion it ought to be given with firmness, and I would not desire to check it in any manner. But I humbly trust that this House will agree with me in deploring the case when it should arise, when individuals clothed with that authority should be found in this manner to commit themselves to opinions which render them incompetent to discharge the highest judicial functions. I have another object in trespassing upon the House. It is very inferior to that which I have alluded, and yet to me it is extremely dear and extremely important, and I trust the House will allow me to speak upon it with great sincerity and without affectation. If there is anything that I have felt due to the House during the time that I have had the honour to hold office, it is that when I have been called upon by the House of Commons to give an opinion I should give it faithfully, conscientiously, according to the best of my knowledge, and with the sincere belief that it is correct and well grounded. Therefore, when I am charged with having made to the House of Commons a statement so erroneous that no man of common understanding could have made it, it is undoubtedly most important to me that I should be borne with while I bring before the House the accusations and the answers. It will he in the recollection of the House that on Friday night last, during the discussion which took place on the Bill then before the House—the Conspiracy to Murder Bill—I was called upon in a very earnest manner, by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) to express my opinion on that measure. I ventured to give that opinion to the House as clearly and as accurately as I could. I must confess that I have always had a certain horror of endeavouring to guard myself in giving opinions by using words of doubt or ambiguity. It is a very common practice with lawyers to avoid giving an opinion upon any doubtful question. They say that the decision may be on this side or on that; and, in point of fact, they give no opinion whatever. Now, on all occasions upon which I have been called upon by the House of Commons to examine a subject with the view of stating my opinion, I have been desirous—whether it be a merit or demerit—to form the best opinion I could, and to express it in the clearest and simplest language. Now, the tenor of my argument on last Friday night, as hon. Members will bear me out, was this: — I was desirous of showing that an alien stood upon a different footing from that of a British-born subject with reference to particular cases. I am quite sure that no hon. Gentleman who did me the favour of attending to what I said for a single moment supposed that I ever affirmed the state of the law to be this—that an alien coming to this country is not amenable to our law—that an alien coming to this country could rob, or murder, or commit any species of violence without being amenable to law. But will the House believe me when I say that that particular proposition having been extracted from the rest of my speech, was put forth in another place as representing my arguments upon Friday last? Now, Sir, I happened to be in a particular room in which the following took place. A grave and learned Judge rose and said that he was desirous or putting a question to a noble and learned Lord. The person interrogated was evidently prepared for the question, for he rose up and took out of his pocket a newspaper. He read from that newspaper certain words, which he said constituted the argument of the Attorney General elsewhere. He then proceeded to denounce that particular passage, and to represent it as being totally at variance with the law of this country. Now, the House will permit me to quote from an historical record the words I actually uttered: —

I rise to order, Mr. Speaker. I have always understood it to be the rule in this House that there should be no reference to a matter which has occurred in a previous debate in the same Session. I am perfectly aware that the House may be much more desirous of hearing the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman than anything I can offer; but there is one observation which I will make—and I hope that not only this, but every future House of Commons will concur in it—namely, that there is nothing of greater importance than to adhere to our Standing Orders. It is with the view of having those Standing Orders enforced that I take the liberty of now rising to order. If the House wish that a matter which personally affects the hon. and learned Gentleman should be explained, let them give him a specific indulgence to that extent, but let not our Standing Orders be infringed by any one, and least of all by the course proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

In answer to the appeal made to me I must give my opinion that up to this period the address of the hon. and learned Gentleman has not transgressed the Rules or Standing Orders of the House. He is now taking an opportunity of making a personal explanation, and the House always permits hon. Members to make such explanations.

I am desirous of stating as briefly as I can what was really the argument maintained by me on the occasion in question. The particular expressions then used by me were to this effect: —

"The state of the English law I believe to be this—that foreigners are able to do in this country that which your own subjects are unable to do in this country, and that which would be a crime in natural-born British subjects is a matter of impunity in foreigners."

An illustration of that was subsequently given by me in the following words:—

"I believe that the state of the law may be thus accurately represented—supposing two or more foreigners in this country conspire together to commit a crime abroad, although the thing which they conspire to do is a crime, yet, if it be committed abroad, it would not be punishable by the law of this country; neither is the conspiracy punishable."

Now, no one who read what I then uttered would think of disconnecting these two sentences. No one with ordinary candour or ordinary intelligence would read the first sentence as containing the proposition, that an alien may come into this country and here commit with impunity acts for which a British-born subject would be punishable. But the two propositions show plainly that an alien may come to this country and plot with impunity the commission of an act abroad which a natural-born British subject could not do. In that respect, therefore, an alien, although standing in the position of owing allegiance to your law, is under that law exempt from consequences to which a natural-born British subject would be liable. Now, what does the House suppose that I was elsewhere represented to have said on the occasion? The passage that was read elsewhere was that first quoted by me. A grave and learned speaker said:—

"I find in the public journals the following words attributed to the Attorney General: The state of the English law I believe to be this— that foreigners are able to do in this country that which your own subjects are unable to do: and that which would be a crime in natural-born British subjects is a matter of impunity in foreigners."

The grave and learned speaker goes on to say: —

"That is not the law of England, and it is of the last importance it should be known to the country that that is not the law of England. There is no distinction whatever between natural-born British subjects and aliens with regard to acts committed within the realm of England."

Now, the other learned persons whom he was addressing had never read the speech from which that extract was taken. It was represented to them that I held the doctrine that an alien might with impunity commit any crime in this country. They were astonished at such a proposition; whereas it is perfectly clear if the whole, or even another passage had been read, the proposition which I maintained was only this, that anterior to the 9th of George IV., according to the common law of the land, a British subject committing a murder abroad was not amenable to English law; that that state of things was altered by that statute, but that it was so worded that it did not comprehend aliens resident in this country within its provisions; the result, therefore, was plain, that an alien not being comprehended within the statute is not in the same position as a natural-born British subject, but is in the same position that natural-born subjects were previously; and I argued that we ought to amend the law in that respect. There has been, therefore, I must say in that particular, one of the most extensive misapprehensions and (of course unintentional) misrepresentations that it is possible for any one to conceive. The whole of the address of the grave and learned speaker dwells simply upon that passage which he read, as comprehending the whole of the argument which I addressed to this House. In the rest of his address the speaker proceeded to represent that the doctrine of conspiracy in this country was a doctrine laid down and recognized in such a manner by all the writers on the law that it would comprehend the act of aliens conspiring in this country to commit a murder abroad. And accordingly he put it thus—that the law of conspiracy in this country comprehends all persons combining to do anything that is malum in se. Now, the way in which I stated the law on that subject was this—I stated to the House that unquestionably there were some general and loose definitions of this elastic principle of our law as to conspiracy, but that they had never been followed out by any decision and were not illustrated by any precedent or any decided case; and, therefore, the words that I used were that it was unsafe to rely upon such expressions of that principle, and that one of the greatest Judges in this country had said that it ought not to be carried any further than it had been carried. The statements that I made are confirmed by the opinions of the profession. I have had assistance tendered to me from every quarter on this question. Representations have been made to me by several of my learned Friends—by men most competent to speak on the subject—that they have searched every book and every decision relating to the law of conspiracy with a view of discovering therein the doctrine laid down by the noble and learned speaker, and have not been able to do so. What then will the House think was the next proceeding of those grave and learned men in another place, was to advert to a sentence pronounced by the assembled judges of England in the case of an unfortunate man who was convicted and hanged, and they pointed out that that sentence might be erroneous. I think the House will see that it is most unfortunate a learned Judge should commit himself to a statement which he might find most inconvenient when called on to act in a judicial position. I have felt it my duty to bring this matter before the House, and I believe the House will admit that great inconvenience and an enormous amount of disorder much to be deplored will result if this practice of Members in one assembly criticising individuals in another be continued. My own desire has been in these observations to set myself right with the House, and to do that through the means of bringing before you these provocations, these attacks, which have been made from time to time on Members of this House, which I trust the House will consider were uncalled for, and which, if continued, will lead unquestionably to consequences of the most unfortunate character. I thank the House for its kind and patient attention. I trust I shall never again have occasion to make a statement of this kind.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of reviving a former debate, but to make one or two observations which he thought called for by the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, for whom he entertained feelings of sincere friendship. The House should bear in mind that a dignified deference from one House to the other was the keystone of their co-operation, and it was not desirable to see Members of one House speaking at Members of the other, or setting one House against the other. If such a course were pursued, both Houses must suffer in public estimation, and their powers of doing good must fail. The statement of his hon. and learned Friend on a former occasion had, from his position as the first law adviser of the Crown, become public property, and when he beard that statement he shared in the astonishment which had been expressed with regard to it. The remarks to which his hon. and learned Friend had called attention, and which were made in that mysterious ''other place" to which reference had been made, appeared to have been expressed with the greatest possible temper and dignity—

rose to order. He understood that the House had permitted the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir R. Bethell) to make an explanation, but he did not think that the Standing Orders would permit a discussion to be raised on the matter.

expressed an opinion that the hon. and learned Member had not yet put himself out of order.

continued. He had taken a part in the former debate, and he felt a deep interest in the state of the law being laid down and acted on for the safety of the inhabitants of these realms, and for the sake of their character abroad. His hon. and learned Friend had stated that if a dozen foreigners came here and concocted a crime, and went abroad to commit it, and then came back to this country — ["Order, order!"]

said, that he had expressed his opinion that while the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring to the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Bethell) he was perfectly in order; but he was now going beyond that point, and was referring to a speech made in a past debate.

would only say, before sitting down, that he had carefully considered what had been said by his hon. and learned Friend opposite, and he did think that it was the duty of a noble and learned Lord charged with the duty of administering the law of this country not to suffer serious misrepresentation and misapprehension of a most important part of our criminal law to go forth unanswered and unnoticed. He thought it would have been quite as well if his hon. and learned Friend had confined himself to his own vindication, instead of speaking of the chief administrator of the law of England as capable of garbling extracts and misrepresenting what had passed in that House.

said, that as his Lou. and learned Friend opposite, in his very able speech, stated what he believed to be the law, he (Mr. Whiteside) felt it his duty to say that he believed that the expositors of the law in another place had stated the law as it truly is. Nor did he believe that, because the assistants of his hon. and learned Friend had failed to find a case for him, that the general principles of the law of this country had been erroneously stated by the learned and distinguished personages in another place.

said, he understood that Her Majesty's present advisers were not in a condition to-day to take charge of the Bill, and it was therefore their wish that it should he moved on i that (the Opposition) side of the House. The subject had been fully gone into on Monday last; he had no remarks to add upon the subject now; and he begged, therefore, to move that the Bill be read a third time on Monday next.

believed there had been an understanding with an hon. Gentleman opposite, that the Bill should not come on for discussion until Friday, the 12th of March.

said that, considering the Bill had passed through several stages, he was not instructed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask for any delay on its last stage. Nevertheless, as it seemed to be desired by some hon. Members that the Bill should undergo further discussion on the third reading, it would he very inconvenient that that stage should be taken in the absence of his right hon. Friend. Perhaps, therefore, the House would allow the third reading to he adjourned until Friday, the 12th of March.

had merely mentioned Monday next, Because he understood it to be the wish of the present Government that the next stage of the Bill should be taken on that day. Its further postponement was entirely a matter for their consideration.

observed that the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry) bad said he was inclined to oppose the Bill. Now, it was most desirable for the public service that the Bill should pass at once; but if there was to be opposition, of course it would be uncourteous on his part to attempt to force on the measure faster than was wished.

said the House had never had an opportunity of discussing the principle of the Bill. It was understood the other day that this discussion would take place when the Bill went into Committee, but to the surprise of many hon. Members it was passed through Committee after the Government had resigned. The question he wished to bring before the House was that of the liability im- posed by this measure upon the country. There was no wish on his part or that of others to throw obstacles in the way of the Directors getting money to put down the Indian mutiny; but it had been pointed out that ample means existed for obtaining the money in another and quite as speedy, or, indeed, speedier, manner. He felt sure that the important principle involved in this measure respecting Indian finances and English liabilities ought not to be passed over by the House sub silentio; and he, therefore, gave notice that on the third reading he should call attention to this principle, and pointed out the dangerous precedent now sought to be established, and the risk which would be run of imposing heavy liabilities on the finances of this country.

said, the House, by a large majority, had determined in favour of a Bill for the government of India through the Crown, instead of through the Company. Her Majesty's present Ministers then expressed an opinion that no legislation should take place respecting India during this Session. Now, it appeared to him highly inexpedient to pass this Loan Bill unless there was a distinct understanding that the Government would proceed to legislate in accordance with the Vote of the House; and, therefore, on the third reading he and other hon. Members would probably desire to raise this question, and ascertain the intentions of the Government on the subject.

said, he could not think that this Bill had any connection with the question of the future government of India, nor could he believe that any Member of that House would deliberately throw obstacles in the way of obtaining the requisite funds for the despatch of stores and reinforcements to our army in India. He could not see that it now mattered who was responsible for the expenditure of this money—the money must be had, and he hoped the House would not allow of delay.

said, much weight should, no doubt, be attached to the difficulties which it was declared would arise if any delay occurred in raising this money. Every facility had been given to pass the Bill through all its stages, and the proposal of the hon. Member for Devonport was to have a discussion on the final stage. Now the House ought to consider the questions which the Bill involved, and to which they were likely to assent if they now parted with all i control over its provisions. The measure was one which proposed to establish a new precedent with regard to loans for the service of India. It authorized the Company to go into the London money market and raise loans to a large amount. There was also a clause enabling them to raise money here for open loans in India—that is to say, to furnish the constant ways and means by which a deficient revenue in India was to be supplied. Now, prior to this outbreak a chronic deficiency existed in Indian revenue, and that deficiency would of course be largely increased under present circumstances. There was no certainty that even the present inadequate revenue would be maintained; and other difficulties existed on this subject on which he need not now dwell. The House had no control over Indian expenditure. No provision was made by this Bill for paying the interest of the money intended to be borrowed, except through the medium of these open loans — a further unlimited charge on the revenue of India. These considerations raised a question no less important than this—to what extent were they in that House, and how far was the Consolidated Fund of England, to be responsible for a deficiency in the revenues of India? Now, on the first reading of this Bill he put this question to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he confessed he thought nothing could be more clear and explicit than the answer of the right hon. Gentleman— namely, that the whole burden was to be thrown on the resources of India, and that none could by any possibility be thrown on the resources of England. If, however, he was rightly informed, on the occasion when the Bill passed through Committee, which was, he believed, in a House of less than forty Members, a discussion arose as to whether any liability would, directly or indirectly, attach to the revenue of this country; and in that discussion the Minister then responsible for the government of India distinctly stated that no doubt there was a moral obligation upon England to furnish the money if the resources of India should prove inadequate. Now, of two courses each had its advantages. If money was raised chargeable only on Indian resources this country was, of course, free from all liability. On the other band, if, at starting, the responsibility of England wore openly proclaimed, the advantage would be gained of raising the money required at a very much lower interest. But there was another course, in taking which the combined disadvantages of both the others accrued, and that was first to raise money at a high rate of interest because you did not choose to say that England was responsible for its repayment, and then to admit, in the language of the late President of the Board of Control, that a moral obligation was thrown upon the country, by which, in the last resort, it would be bound. This was not a trifling question. The burden one way or another, of which this was only the small end of the wedge, amounting to something like £70,000,000 or £100,000,000 of money; and the proposition that this subject should be debated on the third reading of the Bill, at a time when the opinions of the new Ministry might be expressed respecting it, was, he thought, a most reasonable one upon a question of such magnitude. When Sir Robert Peel, in his speech on the income tax, let fall an expression that there was a deficient revenue in India, and that this country might at a future time be called upon to guarantee some loan for the service of India, that expression was at once laid hold of as clothing the whole Indian debt with the guarantee of England. He was afraid that if they passed the third reading of this Bill, the Minister responsible for India having stated that if the resources of that country failed there would be a moral responsibility upon the Parliament of England to supply the necessary funds, they would be establishing a precedent of the gravity of which they were not sufficiently aware. The course which he recommended was that whenever the third reading was taken Her Majesty's Government should be prepared to state through some of their organs their views upon the subject, and he thought it would be only fair that further discussion should, if possible, be postponed until the Minister responsible for the finances had an opportunity of giving his opinion upon this question.

said, that no doubt it was a matter of great convenience—indeed, almost of necessity—that this Bill should pass as soon as possible, in order to enable the East India Company to raise a loan upon the most advantageous terms; but, at the same time, it was not right nor convenient that the Bill should be hurried with precipitation through the House, and without proper discussion. It was true there had been one or two debates upon particular points, but they had not been developed as much as was desirable. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell), however, had completely misquoted what he (Mr. Vernon Smith) said upon a previous occasion. Either his right hon. Friend was not present, or be (Sir. Vernon Smith) had been misreported. What he stated was, that it was desirable to pass this Bill as soon as possible—that being a time when he and his colleagues had resigned their offices, and were only holding them for the purpose of carrying on the Government—and that, in order so to do, it was his intention to accede to the proposition of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring); to reduce the amount to be borrowed from £10,000,000 to £8,000,000, and to withdraw that clause of the Bill which involved a, novel principle, namely, whether the Indian Government should be allowed to raise subscriptions for an Indian loan in England. The Member for the City of London objected to that proposition, because it followed that the Company might be allowed to raise any sum they pleased for Indian purposes. He (Mr. Vernon Smith) therefore thought that the point ought not to be pressed, and that the Bill ought to be passed without it, only by way of convenience. Upon that the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) said that that was his opinion also, and if the clause wore withdrawn he should not oppose the Bill. Upon that understanding he (Mr. Vernon Smith) left the House; but he was now told that this 11th clause had not been withdrawn, which he thought gave reason for some dissatisfaction, and was a good reason why there should be further discussion; and, therefore, he thought the proposal of the Government to postpone the third reading to the 12th March was not unreasonable. He (Mr. Vernon Smith) had not stated that there was any moral obligation binding upon the people of England to supply a deficiency in Indian revenue. What he had stated, in answer to the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, namely, that a change of the Government would produce a moral obligation of this sort, was that the moral obligation was the same whether the Government was changed or not. The moral obligation was exactly the same whether India was held for the Crown in trust by the East India Company, or whether it was held by the Crown itself. But he had never said there was a moral obligation upon England to discharge this debt. On the contrary, he said that he thought that the same rule which applied to Canada and the other Colonies ought to be extended to India. They raised their debt on the security of their own revenues, and he did not see why the loans for India should not be contracted separate from the Imperial revenues. He was glad to have had that opportunity of explaining the misrepresentation. He did not think it was possible to resist the arguments of those hon. Gentlemen who thought there ought to be an adjournment of this question.

explained, that he had obtained his information from one of the usual sources of information, which he then held in his hand—a newspaper.

observed, that he had not asked for a postponement of the Bill. On the contrary, he had said that he was not instructed by his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to ask the House for an adjournment. When, however, it was stated that there was likely to be a discussion on the Bill, he said he thought it right that such discussion should be postponed till his right hon. Friend should be in his place. He had, therefore, named the 12th of March for the discussion on the third reading.

thought the introduction of the principle embodied in the 11th clause of the Bill totally uncalled for. He trusted that hon. Gentlemen opposite would give some explanation as to the course they intended to adopt, or else take some measures to put the Bill on a more satisfactory footing.

suggested that the difficulty might be obviated by moving that the clause be struck out.

said, that there had been no inadvertence or mistake whatever in the introduction of this clause. The question was, that the words should be "for the public service in India," and not "for the public service in India and England." It was suggested that the clause should be confined to India. But the Committee deliberately consented to the other form of expression. He also begged to remind his right hon. Friend (Mr. Vernon Smith) that the Colonies could go into the market for money, and that Canada and other bonds were freely negotiable like other securities.

begged to make a proposal, which was this—to fix that the third reading of this Bill be taken on Monday next; and in the meantime an opportunity would be given of considering what would be the effect of postponing the third reading, and whether it was material that the Bill should pass through Parliament before the 1st of April, which was the end of the financial year. If the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should have made himself master of the whole circumstances in the meantime, Her Majesty's Government might find Monday a more convenient opportunity of stating their intentions.

said, that the immediate question was, what would he the power of the House as to striking out a clause on the third reading?

said, that if this stage of the Bill was passed no clause could be struck out on the third reading. The best course would be to postpone this stage until Monday.