Any hon. Member who desires to take his seat will please come to the table to be sworn.

returned as one of the Members for the City of London, came to the table, and was about to take from the Clerk at the table a copy of the Oath prescribed by the 21 & 22 Vict., c. 48, passed this Session, when

rose and said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether notice was not necessary before—["Order! Chair!"] Sir, I rise to order—

Order, order! The taking of his seat by an hon. Member is matter of privilege, and ought not to be interrupted by any discussion whatever.

Sir, I beg to state that, being a person professing the Jewish religion, I entertain a conscientious objection to take the oath which, by an Act passed in the present Session, has been substituted for the oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required.

My object in rising, Sir, is to move a Resolution in conformity with an Act recently passed. (21 & 22 Vict. c. 49). It is as follows:—

"That it appears to this House that Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, a person professing the Jewish Religion, being otherwise entitled to sit and vote in this House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the Oath which, by an Act passed in the present Session of Parliament, has been substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required."

seconded the Resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance and regret, and contrary to my own previously-declared determination not to open my lips again on this question, that I rise to address a few observations to the House. It has now arrived at a very grave crisis in its constitutional history and that of the country, and a sense of duty will not allow me to remain silent. I have already, and very lately, as an humble member of the great Conservative party, entered my most solemn protest against the step which the Legislature was about to take in this matter, and have but little to say upon this momentous occasion. This House is about to consummate that great constitutional change in the character of the House which it has so lately been empowered to effect, and to take upon itself the entire responsibility of admitting into the representative branch of the Legislature a gentleman who has this moment declared that he cannot take—that he cannot be bound by an oath administered on the Holy Gospels—an oath which has been so long taken by all other Members of this House, with the exception of those who, though Christians by profession, were permitted, in deference to their religious scruples, to use a different form of oath or declaration. Sir, this is to me a most painful and distressing moment—but I cannot help myself; and, in accordance with what my conscience tells me is my most imperative duty, I am resolved to take the sense of the House upon the proposed Resolution. Lest, however, any one should do me the grievous injustice of supposing that I am, at a moment so painful, actuated by considerations of a personal nature with respect to either Baron Rothschild or the ancient race to which he belongs, I beg now most emphatically and truly to disclaim any such feelings. With reference to that gentleman, I must take this opportunity of declaring, that never in my life did I hear a whisper of even an insinuation against his character—of anything inconsistent with that reputation for purity, that spotlessness of character which Baron Rothschild enjoys. He occupies, deservedly, a high social position in this country; and I can only say again, that, while compelled to oppose the Resolution of the noble Lord opposite—to resist him to the last on this question—I have not in my heart one particle of animosity towards either the Jewish race or that representative of it now seeking admission into this Christian Legislature. If it be really the deliberate will of this House of Commons, as it has undoubtedly been declared the will of the Imperial Legislature that they may, if they think fit, exercise a privilege which I for one regard as so dangerous, I have nothing more to say; but in the meantime I beg, though I should go out alone into the lobby, to meet the Resolution of the noble Lord with a direct negative.

I do not think my hon. and learned Friend could have caught correctly the terms of the noble Lord's Resolution. It is simply declaratory, in terms of the new Act, of a matter of fact which neither my hon. and learned Friend nor any one else will contest, and does not admit either Baron Rothschild or any other member of the Jewish persuasion to a seat in this House. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend will not put the House to the trouble of dividing at the present stage of the proceedings.

I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, and shall not press for a division on this Resolution. I had not caught the exact words of it and was taken altogether by surprise by the whole proceedings of this morning. I therefore withdraw my Motion.

I now rise, Sir, to move a Resolution in pursuance of the Act which received the assent of Her Majesty on the 23rd instant, and which is entitled "An Act to provide for the relief of Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion." In order that the House may be fully in possession of the words of the Act I shall now read them. By the first clause it is enacted that—

"Where it shall appear to either House of Parliament that a person professing the Jewish religion, otherwise entitled to sit and vote in such House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the Oath which by an Act passed or to be passed in the present Session of Parliament has been or may be substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required, such House, if it think fit, may resolve that thenceforth any person professing the Jewish religion, in taking the said Oath to entitle him to sit and vote as aforesaid, may omit the words 'and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.'"

It is not necessary to read any further. I propose, in conformity with those words in the clause, "such House, if it think fit," to move a Resolution as nearly as possible in the terms of the Act itself. Of course, I shall not now raise any question as to whether a Jew should sit in this House. That question has been repeatedly argued, and it has now been decided by Parliament, at least to the extent of leaving it to either House to act as it may think fit. I therefore content myself with moving: "That any person professing the Jewish Religion may henceforth, in taking the Oath prescribed in an Act of the present Session of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words 'and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.'"

seconded the Resolution.

Now, Sir, the time has arrived at which I may make my Motion, and state that I shall take the sense of the House upon it. It is, of course, not necessary for me to repeat any of the observations I have already offered, but must beg the House to regard them as having been offered in opposition to the noble Lord's present Resolution, which I now meet with a direct negative.

Sir, I do not intend to occupy the time of the House for more than one or two moments. My object is simply to explain the reasons of the Vote which I shall feel it my duty to give. I have always found myself conscientiously under the necessity of opposing the admission to Parliament of persons professing the Jewish religion. I have done so upon principle, and without the slightest particle of personal feeling. As Parliament, however, has decided against my views of this matter, I did not come down to the House to record any further vote on this question, but to take part in the discussion of other business; but, being here, I have to consider what course I ought to pursue. The part I have hitherto taken renders it impossible for me to concur in the Resolution of the noble Lord; while I cannot withdraw and abstain from giving any vote upon the question. I do not think it would be either an honest or a straightforward mode of proceeding, to shrink from expressing my opinion on a subject, with reference to which I think so strongly. I am therefore reduced to the necessity, without the slightest personal feeling towards Baron Rothschild, of going into the lobby with those who are resolved to meet the Resolution with a direct negative.

said, he had never been able to account for the prejudice which influenced hon. Gentlemen opposite in their hostility to the Jews. In his opinion the world was more indebted to that particular family of the human race than any other nation or people that ever existed. Hon. Gentlemen talked of excluding the Jews as a matter of Christian principle. He would say, let them endeavour to Christianize themselves by following the example of Him they all reverenced as the great messenger of peace, charity, and toleration, and who directed that the Gospel should be preached to all men—but to the Jew first. He regretted that this prejudice towards that family of the human race, to whom we were so deeply indebted, should have so long continued, but rejoiced in the opportunity of taking part in the removal of the Just of the disabilities which that prejudice had in this country inflicted upon them. He looked upon that occasion as a great triumph for the cause of religious liberty.

Sir, when first this question was brought before the House expressed my opinion, and I have never shrunk from that opinion since, that it was a religious rather than a political question. I thought from the first that the Legislature of this country, being admittedly a Christian Legislature from the earliest time, was not a body into which a person professing the Jewish religion could properly or conscientiously be admitted. I merely mention that for the purpose of showing, that now that the time has come for this House to determine how it will act, it is impossible for me not to feel, while admitting that Parliament has given us the power to seat Baron Rothschild on our own responsibility, that considering the opinions I have always held, I cannot be a party to the proposed Resolution. One or two words more and I have done, for I do not wish to raise any controversy on this occasion. I cannot disguise from myself that the person whom the House is now about to seat has this very much in his favour—that throughout the whole of this controversy he has never attempted to act in a manner contrary to the law of the land or to the rules of this House. I think it due to Baron Rothschild that I should say so much. I agree in the observations made by my noble Friend (Lord Hotham) when stating the reasons which would compel him to vote against this Resolution, and I shall go into the lobby with my noble Friend. There is one other observation that I would make. The hon. Members who advocate the admission of the Jews think that they are now closing this matter; but in point of fact they aro not. The course taken by Parliament in reference to this question is a course which in my opinion cannot be too much deprecated. I, for one, am extremely sorry that if Baron Rothschild, and those who like him, profess the Jewish religion, were to be admitted into the Legislature at all, they were not admitted frankly, plainly, and honestly, by a declaration made by Parliament in the form of an Act of the Legislature, instead of in a mode which I am afraid we shall hereafter find cause to regret.

Sir, the hon. Member for Sheffield has charged those who oppose the admission of the Jews into Parliament as so acting in consequence of a prejudice against the Jewish people. I, for one, utterly deny that. The Jews are a most interesting nation—interesting, if we look to their past history, and more so if we contemplate their future destiny. No, Sir, we are not actuated by any prejudice against the Jewish people as a nation, or from personal objection to the respectable individual who now presents himself for admission. There cannot be a second opinion with regard to that gentleman personally. He has the respect and esteem of all who know him, and especially of those who possess his friendship. What does actuate those who oppose such admission is the full and decided conviction that a Christian assembly like this Legislature should be wholly Christian, if we expect what we pray for—the blessing of Almighty God on our exertions to properly direct the affairs of a free and Christian people. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) who so much rejoices at the House of Lords having given their consent to the admission of Jews to this House by a simple Resolution, has not made one word of objection to the Reasons which came down from that House for having rejected that clause of the Bill which permitted the Jew to take his seat in this House—which Reasons declared, in emphatic terms, that the Jew was morally unfit to sit and legislate in a Christian Legislature. I beg to express my full concurrence in those Reasons, and therefore I cannot give my vote for admitting a person whom those Reasons declare to be totally unfit for admission into this House.

I confess, Sir, I was not aware, till a few minutes ago, that this Resolution was to be proposed to-day; and having had no notice that such a course would be taken, I arrived rather hastily. It is not my intention to detain the House by any lengthened observations; but I wish to say one or two words before the Resolution is put from the Chair, in reference to the conduct of the House of Lords, which I think has been very much misunderstood. What the House of Lords have done, Sir, is this:—They have placed this matter, which affects the constitution of this House, entirely in the hands of this House, at the same time retaining the strong conviction which that noble assembly has consistently and conscientiously acted on for eleven years. They have recorded the fact that their conscientious opinion on the subject of the admission of Jews was unchanged, at the same time that they thought it quite consistent with their duty and quite consistent with the constitution of the country to cease to interfere with what concerns the composition of this House alone. I think it due to the House of Lords that their conduct should not be considered as disrespectful to this House, when they thought fit to place the constitution of the House of Commons in the hands of its Members. With regard to my own course, deprecating as I do any attempt to admit the Jews into this House, I shall continue to act on those views which have hitherto influenced me, and record my vote against the Resolution.

remarked, that the well-merited acknowledgment of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that Baron Rothschild had never throughout the whole of this controversy attempted to contravene the law, might with equal justice have been applied generally to the body to which he belonged, for it was a principle of the Jewish religion that, wherever they might be carried away captive, or in whatever country their lot was cast, they must respect the law as established, and pray for the peace and order of the country serving as their temporary home. To that rule they had always adhered. With regard to their moral unfitness he would remind the House of Lords, and those who used that argument, that the moral law of Judaism was the moral law of Christianity. For himself he would rather that this concession had been made upon the simple and broad ground of religious toleration instead of as a matter affecting the constitutional right of the House of Commons to make rules for the admission of its own Members. He concurred in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) that the question was not closed. It must again come under consideration upon the direct ground of religious toleration. But in the mean while it was most absurd to talk of constitutional government while Her Majesty remained the ruler of 180,000,000 of people, not one of whom was qualified to raise his voice in that House to state the grievances of his fellow-countrymen, They talked of the Christian character of the Parliament. There were two different ways of showing their Christianity. One way was by their words and oaths, the other and better way was by their deeds; and he was satisfied that, whatever their professions, they would never act up to the spirit of a Christian Legislature until they were influenced by feelings of toleration and respect for the opinions of others.

It is not my intention to detain the House, but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has made one or two observations which seem to call for some remark on my part. The right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, has objected to the mode in which this question has been settled by Parliament. I beg him and the House to recollect that that mode of settlement was not proposed by the advocates of the admission of Jews, by those who have rested the question upon the ground of civil and religious liberty, but by those who have hitherto been the chief opponents of the measure which has now happily proved successful. It was supposed—I know not for what reason—that it would prove more acceptable to those who still oppose the admission of Jews than any other mode that could be suggested; but, I repeat, it was not our choice, but the choice of the other House of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman made another objection. which I should be sorry to think well founded. He said that this was not the end of the question. After the discussions that this subject has under- gone—after so strong an expression of the opinion of the House of Commons as we have had during the present Session—I do trust none will hereafter attempt to deprive the Jews of the privilege which we are about to confer upon them. Undoubtedly it will be in the power of anybody to do so by moving to rescind this Resolution or by some other mode; but I trust that what we are now doing, being in conformity with the general wishes of this House as representing the country, there will be no change in the policy of Parliament upon this subject. I have nothing further to say. The right hon. Gentleman having frankly and truly acknowledged that Baron Rothschild has never attempted to infringe the law, I am hound to state, on the other hand, that those who have opposed the admission of Jews have done so from no personal or unworthy feeling, but simply in the discharge of a duty imposed upon upon them by their consciences. I rejoice at the success which has attended our efforts this question, and believe that the principle of religious liberty has made great progress.

being again come to the Table, desired to be sworn on the Old Testament, as being binding on his conscience:—Whereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. Speaker, who then desired the Clerk to swear him upon the Old Testament.

was sworn accordingly, and subscribed the Oath at the Table.

The House might remember that early in the Session he had asked Her Majesty's Attorney General what he meant to do as regarded that Act then about to expire, and which had been deemed a failure, to which the Attorney General replied that he intended to submit it to a Select Committee; but now at the eleventh hour taking advantage of a panic caused by a stench in the Thames, of hon. Members' own creating, the Government were, to their great delight, shuffling measures through the House at double quick time, and the Attorney General's pledge has been forfeited. Now, if that Select Committee had been moved for, he should have been enabled to lay a body of evidence before it, which at once would have shown that the Bill had been a dead failure, but he believed that it had done all it bad ever been intended to do. And so thought the editor of The Times, who had published an admirable analysis of the Bill, when it first passed into a law, and pronounced it to be a "pompous profession meant to be inoperative." In 1854 he (Mr. Berkeley) had written to the late Mr. Coppock [ironical cheers]; aye, hon. Members might object to Mr. Coppock, but while they had no objection to his objectionable practices as applied to their own purposes, could they deny his great knowledge of the subject? That gentleman replies thus:—

"I have already fully given my opinion through the medium of the press as regards the Bill to which you call my attention. It is a mere tub for the whale, but you will find it greatly admired by the majority of the Members of your House, because it curtails all the legal expenses of candidates, facilitates bribery, and leaves intimidation just where it was."

Had Mr. Coppock lived, a Committee might have had that evidence, which he (Mr. Berkeley) now tendered. He would offer them the opinion of another election agent, a person of great experience and knowledge in all election matters, and registration law, well known in the west of England, Mr. Gilbert, Secretary to the Bristol Liberal Association, and the following was that person's opinion of the Corrupt Practices Bill:—

"I have carefully gone through the Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill as you have desired. Members hare taken excellent care of themselves, and of candidates generally. This Bill very properly lowers the expenses of candidates, does away with banners, bands, and colours, and appoints an officer to assess the costs. All this is good, and seems to me to be a bit of sugar held out as a bait to tempt Members to stultify themselves—I must not, I suppose, use a stronger expression—by giving their sanction to clauses which have the direct effect of protecting candidates from the effects of bribery, and facilitating the sale of votes. Under this Bill there can be no difficulty in purchasing any borough open to sale. The intimidation clause is so much waste paper,"

The opinion of Mr. Clabon, solicitor to charities for the Attorney General, of the firm of Fearon and Clabon, eminent Parliamentary agents, from a paper read before a law association, was to the following effect:—

"Parliament has from time to time set to work with much apparent zeal, to give a remedy the the growing evil, bribery. Acts to prevent bribery and treating have been followed by Acts to amend Acts to prevent bribery and treating; and Parliament has done everything but one thing, but that one thing is the one thing needful. I am under the strong impression that the Members of the present Parliament presented themselves to the constituencies under the fear of consequences which were not likely to occur. The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act was a bugbear to them; but were their fears well founded? I think they were not well founded. I believe that a candidate intending to procure his return by all means, foul as well as fair, will not, now that the meaning of the Act is well known, be frightened by its provisions. In fact, what provisions are there to frighten him? What is there to prevent the candidate from sending the 'the man in the moon' with his bag of gold? What to deter the Ministerial or Opposition 'W. B.' from despatching his emissary from the Carlton or Reform with full pockets? The arrangements are made in secret at a distance. The 'man in the moon' returns to his distant home long before the day for petitions. The candidate takes good care to know nothing about the matter. Trusty friends only ask for his cheque at a remote day."

Mr. Whitehurst, the deputy chairman of the Ballot Society, said that the society had tested the opinions of agents and reliable persons in almost all the boroughs and counties which had lately been contested, and the result was as thus described. Mr. Whitehurst says:—

"You ask me if the clauses in the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act against undue influence, as it is now called, have put down intimidation? My answer is brief but plain—Not in the least. Of course you do not expect me to give you in detail the proof of this, suffice it to say that our executive committee have carefully inquired into the intimidation practised at each election since 1854, and in no one case have we found that tenants, debtors, workmen, or other dependents, have voted more independently of their landlords, creditors, or employers, than before the Act. You of course have observed the utter failure of the remedy by legal proceedings against intimidators established by the Act. There have been three attempts to put the Act in force: one was an action—Thurston v. Sinkins—brought for the penalty for intimidating a voter at Frome: every species of intrigue was set on foot to prevent the action being tried, and successfully, for the record was withdrawn at the last moment, and what became of the action I could never make out. The Queen v. Barnwell, was an attempt to put the Act in force against a clergyman at Denbigh. There was hard swearing on both sides, and the Court of Queen's Bench refused to interfere. The last case was the Irish priests in Mayo, where in one case the jury were discharged without coming to a verdict, and in the other the Attorney General abandoned the prosecution. The Act has diminished the minor expenses of chairing, flags, music, &c., but has left untouched the greatest and most objectionable item of electioneering expenses, paid agents, especially lawyers, whose mischievous influence at elections Mr. Bright exposed in the last debate on your Motion for the ballot.

The permission to candidates to name their agents, and the provision that none others could affect their seats by bribery but those named, was directly facilitating bribery. Brown, Jones, and Robinson, might be the named agents, and of course would keep themselves clear of bribery, but Hopkins, Simkins, and Perkins, the agents without a name, would do all the bribery requisite, and if found out would suffer the penalty, but the candidate's seat would be safe nevertheless. As for attempts to so legislate as to make a man keep his butcher and baker against his will, or retain a tenant, it was too gross a farce. Such attempts must fail; all that was requisite would be caution; a customer or landlord would not be fool enough to say to his tradesman or tenant, 'I'll get rid of you because you voted against my orders:' but he would say, 'your articles don't please me, I found alum in your bread;' or, 'you are a bad farmer:' or it would be sufficient to say, 'you are an ugly man and a bad Christain; I have done with you;' or to say nothing, and then how can you prove that a man is discharged because of his vote? If you were to make it penal for a customer or landlord to ask a tradesman or a customer for his vote, even that would be evaded, he would ask through somebody else. Legislation of this kind is founded on a rotten principle, and the promoters were not in earnest in their desire to put down corrupt practices. This was a Bill "How not to do it." Hon. Members in truth had been caught, many of them, by the bait that they were to save their pockets. Bands, banners, cockades, were put down and an auditor appointed. All very good, but while they served themselves in this way they ran into a danger more concealed but of greater import. They handed themselves over to the "man in the moon," who would descend upon their boroughs with Ids money bag, bribe the electors, and either compel them to put their bands deeply into their pockets, or turn out of their seats. Let them remember that the next election would be a regular Tugging and riving election of the old sort, the lords, lawyers, and squires, the outs trying to force themselves in. Ministers might be beaten at any moment, and then they might be sure that the truthful description of Dickens would be realized:—"My Lord Doodle would throw himself upon the country in the shape of sovereigns and beer," and the acts of the Doodles would be well emulated by those of the Foodles, the whole scenes of de-moralization and debauchery would be renewed, for which this Bill would be their warrant—their Magna Charta. With agency by this Bill let loose, because defined, he cared net whether they legalized travelling expenses or not. They might be sure those expenses would be raid, whether legal or illegal—not by named agents, but by nameless agent—and the candidate for counties who did not bring in the out voters, would have a poor chance with the candidates who did. The Bill was a snare and a delusion, and he felt it to be his duty, even at the eleventh hour, to denounce it.

said, he wished to enter his protest against the Bill, as being a retrograde and reactionary measure, inasmuch as it sanctioned expenses by Act of Parliament which even before the passing of the Reform Bill were contrary to law. He believed there was a much higher feeling prevailing among the constituent body than formerly existed; they had a far more correct appreciation of their duty, and of the responsibility resting upon them as electors; and if the House of Commons, on their part, fostered that feeling by doing their duty when they were elected, and preserving the purity of election as Members of Parliament, they would do more to put down corrupt practices than any measure of this kind.

contended that the Bill introduced no new law, but made the existing law clear, while it limited election expenses and controlled the expenditure of money for election purposes. He could not understand, therefore, how such a measure could be said to increase corruption.

said, that it was easy to talk of the improved tone of electors; but the fact was, that if the payment of travelling expenses were prohibited, it would in many counties be physically impossible for a large number of voters to go to the poll in consequence of the distance of the polling places from their dwellings. On the other hand, he would admit that the effect of the present Bill, legalizing the payment of those expenses, would be considerably to increase the expenditure for election purposes; for he thought that henceforth the payment of travelling expenses would be exacted as a right by the voters. The whole of the evil arose out of a persistence in the antiquated plan of carrying the voter to the poll, instead of the poll to the voter. The latter result might be attained by collecting the votes at the houses of the electors by means of voting papers, due precautions being taken against fraud; or by enormously multiplying the polling places, so that each elector should only have a limited distance to walk to the poll; or by enabling magistrates and certain officials throughout the country at present holding appointments under the Court of Chancery to receive the votes. Such means as these, which he had just indicated, would constitute the only solution of the dilemma which was pressing upon them.

remarked that the Bill would prove very prejudicial or at all events very expensive to candidates for large boroughs, and especially to candidates for counties. He anticipated that many country gentlemen would be ruined by the clause legalizing the payment of travelling expenses, and that the longest purse would henceforth carry the day in elections. It was said that without that clause the poor voter would be disfranchised, but that was a mere pretence, for the men whom it was difficult to get to the poll were not the poor voters, but those who were not allowed to vote conscientiously for the candidates of their own choice—namely, the £50 tenants at will. If the Bill became law the voters would require something more than the Bill gave them, and would say to the candidates, "As you have brought me all this way, you must give me something to eat." Thus the election expenditure would be still further increased. The clause he had referred to would throw the ballot back many years, because the candidates, who were compelled to convey voters to the poll, would naturally insist upon knowing how they voted. This was an important question, and there was no reason why it should not be deferred till next Session, a short, continuance Bill being passed in the meantime. Just as the three branches of the Legislature were about to adjourn to Cherbourg, the Commons were going to send the present Bill up to the Lords; but were the Lords to have no voice in the matter, and were they merely to register the decrees of the Commons, without discussion? He hoped and trusted that the Lords would understand that they could, do nothing more agreeable to the country at large, or more calculated to promote the purity and freedom of election, than by ejecting the measure.

said, he wished to, know why the fourth clause which, was a very important one, and had been carried, in Committee by a majority of four to one, had been withdrawn. The right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) was reported to have withdrawn it because it was not introduced by himself, but that was hardly a valid reason for the withdrawal of the clause, which would have afforded relief to one class of the community hardly dealt with by recent legislation—namely, returning officers. They were obliged to provide polling booths, clerks, and the necessary paraphernalia of an election, and were enabled to recover the amount of the expense from the candidates. Formerly, when the candidates possessed property, the returning officers, had something to fall back upon, but now that the property qualification was abolished it would be competent for any elector to propose a pauper in the workhouse or an insolvent debtor in gaol.

said, he was sorry that the Bill had reached its present stage in its present shape. He thought it would have been far better to have a mere continuance Bill than to have raised this question as to the conveyance of voters. He should object to a clause strictly prohibiting the conveyance of voters, because he thought that it would be evaded; but at the same he conceived that if the Bill had been sent to a Select Committee, several means might have been suggested by which the conveyance of voters would have been rendered almost unnecessary. He doubted whether there was any necessity in boroughs for the conveyance of voters at all; and with respect to counties, if there was, as the noble Lord opposite had suggested, a limited distance to each polling place, which the voter might walk, the providing conveyances for county voters would not he requisite. However, so long as there existed only the present limited number of polling places conveyance could not be strictly prohibited. He did not wish at the present stage of the Bill to throw an obstruction in the way of the continuance of the Corrupt Practices' Prevention Act, and therefore he should give his vote for the third reading of the Bill; but he wished the Government had confined themselves to the proposition of a simple continuance Bill for one year.

said, he understood that the Bill was intended not to extend the law but merely to remove certain doubts, and to continue the existing Act. That was the reason, he thought, for excluding the fourth clause, which went to add to the law. But would the Bill render the law more certain? If a voter were conveyed to the poll a distance of ten miles, he would, of course, wish to be conveyed home again; but under the Bill he could not be conveyed home again by the candidate. [Cries of "Yes!"] That question would be contested, and an uncertainty was created. It was alleged that the clause providing for the conveyance of voters was a provision in favour of poor electors, but it would increase election expenses to a fearful extent, and render it imperative upon every candidate who contested an election to carry up every voter to the poll. This would very much increase the difficulty of the poor man who aspired to a seat in that House. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Knightley) was a rich man, that was evident. The hon. Member did not, perhaps, think that any poor man ought to sit in that House. [Mr. KNIGHTLEY: No, no!] There were rich men in that House, but they were not its ornaments. If they excluded poor men they would exclude a great deal of common sense.

said, he trusted that the Government would give way to the objections made to the clause respecting the conveyance of voters, and substitute a simple continuance Bill for the present measure. He believed that the Bill, as it stood, would legalize treating. [Cries of "No, no!"] Conveyance was nothing but treating. It was treating the voters to a ride, and that might have the effect of gaining votes. He should, therefore, vote against the Bill in its present form.

said, he omitted the fourth clause, not because it was not introduced by himself but because he was much pressed in debate not to introduce any material alterations in the law except such as might be absolutely necessary. He originally proposed the Bill as a continuance Bill, together with a declaration of the existing law, so that the law might not remain in uncertainty; but he added at the same time that the whole question must be brought under the consideration of the House very early next Session, and he should then be prepared to support such a clause as that which was now withdrawn, because he thought it an extremely good one. In reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) lie had hoped to bring in a Bill on the whole subject in time to refer it to a Select Committee, but as the Session was drawing so near to a close he thought it better to defer doing so until next Session, when he would undertake to lay on the table a proposition for a permanent measure, and refer it to a Select Committee. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London wished that the present Bill was a mere continuance Bill; but it was not right that the law should remain uncertain, and, unless the law were made in conformity with public feeling, it would only be evaded. Therefore the only alternative left was to declare, under proper guards and restrictions, that those expenses which no one could contend would corrupt a voter, and those only, should be allowed. At the time the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act was passing the noble Lord himself proposed a very similar clause, which was carried in that House, but rejected by the House of Lords. This matter had now been amply discussed, and the sense of the House had been taken upon it in several divisions, and it would be disrespectful to the House rather than otherwise if be at the last moment declined to persevere in the course so sanctioned.

said, he wished to inquire whether the clause would be sufficient to allow the payment of the voter's expenses of conveyance from the polling place to his home as well from his home to the polling place?

I believe the words are quite sufficient for that purpose.

said, he could not but object to the introduction of an important clause legalising expenses which were now contrary to law in what they were told was a mere continuance Bill.

said, he could not but express his surprise that the noble Lord the Member for London should have voted for the Bill after having objected to it. If the noble Lord thought the Government was in danger and wanted to save them, he might have recommended them to adopt Resolutions. He wished to state that the reason why the Opposition threw out the clause from the noble Lord's (Lord J. Russell) Bill in 1854 for legalising travelling expenses was that it was opposed to the opinion of all the great legal authorities of the Lords. Lord Mansfield had ruled that the payment of travelling expenses was bribery, and that ruling had had never been contravened. He could not understand why the Bill had been brought forward in its present shape. At an earlier period of the Session he had inaugurated an opposition to Her Majesty's Government, but since then that Government had done very great things. He was serious. He wished to give honour to those to whom honour was due. The right hon. Gentleman, the leader of that House, deserved the highest credit for the temperate, able, and judicious course he had pursued in office, and for the reforms which he had instituted since he had taken his seat on the Ministerial bench. He (Mr. B. Osborne) did not believe that the leader of the House would have allowed this conveyance clause to be inserted in the Bill if his attention had been called to it; because he did not think the right hon. Gentleman wished to legalise refreshments. He had observed the high spirit displayed by Her Majesty's Government on several occasions. They had passed many good measures; and he could not but have good feeling towards a Government which not only advocated, but what was much better, passed into law measures which he himself supported. He thought, however, that the present measure detracted, in some degree, from their merits. They were in this matter entering on a retrograde course, which he trusted the House would not sanction. At all events he would give the House another opportunity, by opposing the Motion for the passing the Bill, of expressing its opinion.

said, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. B. Osborne) in the opinion he had expressed of the present Bill. He thought that unless travelling expenses were allowed they would, in effect, disfranchise the poor voters. He had voted, by mistake, in the last division with his hon. Friends near him, he should now have the opportunity of repairing his error, by voting against them.

remarked, that they could not have a better test of the qualification of the voter than his going up to the poll without assistance. He recommended the consideration of this point to the Government in their promised Reform Bill.

said, he thought if the Bill had not been brought in at so late a period of the Session it would not have passed so readily. The Secretary of State had given an incontestable argument against the Bill when he admitted that the measure was incomplete, and that he intended next Session to deal with the whole question.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary for the Home Department whether, as he has stated that it is his intention to refer the whole question of Corrupt Practices at Elections to a Select Committee next Session, he will have any objection to state whether he will refer the subject of Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections to the same Committee?

said, he wished that there should he no misunderstanding on this subject. What he had stated was, that a permanent measure dealing with the subject of Corrupt Practices at Elections would be brought in early next Session, and would be referred to a Select Committee. He did not use the words, "the whole question." Whether the Bill would include Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections as well as at Parliamentary Elections, he could not now say; but his own opinion was, that the questions should be kept distinct.

said, he rose to ask whether Mr. Ramsay is still Superintendent of Clothing and Stores in the War Department, and retains his full salary and title; also, whether Mr. Webster, who was sent to Rencoi as Accomptant to the Hospital there, but who was sent back by the doctor, there not being anything for him to do, is still retained at a salary of £300 a year?

replied, that Mr. Ramsay never held the office of Superintendent of Clothing and Stores, but he had been Assistant Director of Stores and Clothing. In consequence of some changes which had recently taken place, Mr. Ramsay had, for a time, been removed from the Department, but he still retained the office of Assistant Director of Stores at the same salary. With regard to Mr. Webster, he understood that on his return to England he was employed in examining certain accounts which were in arrear, that he was still so employed, and that whatever he might have had to do at Rencoi there was work enough in the office in which he was now engaged.

said, he rose to ask whether it he the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recommend to Her Majesty the conferring of some signal mark of favour on Sir John Lawrence, in recognition of his long and distinguished services in India; and the more so, after his successful administration of the Provinces under his care, and the effectual aid which, by his instrumentality, was given to the capture of Delhi?

It will, Sir, probably be remembered by the House that in November last Sir John Lawrence received the distinction of the Grand Cross of the Bath, and at the same time he received the thanks of Parliament by Resolution of both Houses. Since then a Despatch has been sent out by the Directors of the East India Company, directing that his salary of £7,200 a year as Chief Commissioner should be increased to the same amount as that of Lieutenant Governor—namely £10,000 a year, and that its receipt should date from the 1st of January last. I mention these circumstances to show that the distinguished and invaluable services of Sir John Lawrence have not been overlooked by Her Majesty's Government. Whether any further recognition of his services should be conferred on Sir John Lawrence is a question at present under the consideration of the Government.

said, that it was an unpleasant thing to be obliged to trouble the House again upon a subject which they had already so amply discussed, and which, being connected with a Scotch matter, was not likely to command any strong interest; though possibly, as the question now raised involved a general principle, it might prove an exception. But if the task were irksome to the House, how much more so must it be to himself? Being under impression that, so far as the Government were concerned, no alteration would be made in the Bill in the House of Lords, he had gone down to Scotland with his mind perfectly at rest on the subject, when, to his surprise, he found not only that alterations had been made in this clause, the Government having opposed in this House, they were equally entitled to oppose in the House of Lords, but that Clauses and Amendments—which had been accepted by their own Lord Advocate, and agreed to unanimously by this House, bad been rejected by the House of Lords upon the Motion of the noble Duke who had conducted the Bill through that House on the part of the Government. Now, with regard to these Clauses and Amendments—not the particular clause before the House—he thought that the Government having accepted them, and hon. Members having gone to Scotland relying on the good faith of the Government, it was not a proceeding that was calculated to ensure the confidence which was essential to carrying out the business of the House for the Government afterwards to consent to their omission. Reverting, however, to Clause 3, that clause, as it left this House, was as follows:—

"The Principals in the Universities of Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, appointed in time to come, shall not, as such, be or be deemed Professors of Divinity; nor shall it be a valid objection to any person appointed to the office of, Principal in any of the said Universities that he is a layman; and no such office of Principal therein shall fall under or be included in the terms 'Chair of Theology' as used in an Act passed in the sixteenth and seventeenth years of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria (chapter eighty-nine), intituled 'An Act to regulate Admission to the Lay Chairs in the Universities of Scotland.'"

The effect of this clause was that the Principals of the three Universities of Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, should not be required to sign a religions test, as holding the creed and profession of the Church of Scotland, and as Members of that Church; and what he now proposed was, that the House should disagree to the Lords' Amendments to that clause, and restore it to its original position in the Bill. In England the Universities were so essentially ecclesiastical, that English Members were apt to be carried away with the idea that the Scottish Universities were of the same character; but the Commissioners who were appointed under a Conservative Government, in 1826, who were men of very high standing, the most of them being Judges, noblemen, and persons held in great estimation, and whose tendencies and feelings were certainly not opposed to the Established Church, stated that the Scottish Universities were not then of an ecclesiastical character, or, in the ordinary sense and acceptation of the term, ecclesiastical corporations. It was true that the Scotch Universities were entitled to send a member to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which at first sight might appear to be the exercise of a function which was of an ecclesiastical character, but when he stated that that was a privilege enjoyed by the Town Council of any Royal Burgh in Scotland which had nothing ecclesiastical in its constitution, the House would at once see that that did not support the theory of the Scottish Universities being ecclesiastical institutions. The Commissioners also stated that the Universities of Scotland were not more connected with the Church of Scotland than any other profession; that they were intended for the general education of the people, and, in truth, possessed scarcely any ecclesiastical feature, except that they had a certain number of professors for the purpose of teaching theology in the same manner that the other sciences were taught. That being the character of the Universities in the year 1853, an Act was passed which relieved all the Professors of Divinity from taking the religious test which bound them to be members of the Church of Scotland, with the exception of the Principals of St. Leonard's, St. Andrew's, and Marischal Colleges, Aberdeen, but he presumed that it was never intended to bind the House for all time to come to maintain these Principalships as Chairs of Theology, provided circumstances rendered it right and proper to place them in a different position. He would now show the House why they should not be considered as Chairs of Theology. None of the Principals of the Scotish Universities had taught theology for two centuries, save in one single instance, in which it had been taught up to within a century and a half. They were nominal heads of Colleges. To be the Principal of Edinburgh, for instance, he was not required to be a clergyman; he was not a Professor of Theology at all. He held in his hand a Report of the College Committee of the Town Council of Edinburgh in 1847, when no question of test had arisen with regard to their powers in appointing laymen to the Principalship of the College of Edinburgh. The history of it was this, that in 1585 a gentleman was appointed as Principal of the College to teach philosophy, but not to teach theology, the appointment to which chair was an extra one; but in 1587, after giving a course of philosophy for two years, the Town Council gave him the additional appointment of lecturer on theology and an increase of salary. That continued until the year 1620, when they appointed a Professor of Theology and a Principal, who was Professor of Divinity, and this had been the practice ever since, the Principal having no charge in matters of theology and the Professor of Theology being the teacher of divinity. This was proved by the fact that in 1702 the Crown appointed an additional Professor of Theology, who, if the Principal were Primarius Professor of Divinity, would have been a third Professor of Theology. Again, at Aberdeen there were two Colleges,—that of Marischal College and King's College. In King's College, originally, the Principal was appointed to teach theology, but he had never done so until lately, when the present Principal was made Professor of Divinity. By this Bill King's College and Marischal College were to be united, and there would be only one Principal. The result would be that the Principal of the united College would be included in the term "Chair of Theology," as used in the Act of 1853, although by that Act, Marischal College and St. Leonards alone were included, and the Principals of all other Colleges, embracing King's College, were excluded. Then with regard to the Principal of the University of Glasgow, he (Mr. Dunlop) admitted that he was originally a Professor of Theology; but the Commissioners stated in their Report that, from the begining of the eighteenth century until now, he had not taught theology; but was merely the nominal head of the College, and not a Professor of Divinity at all. He submitted that the office of Principal ought to be open to men of eminence in any faculty, whether it were divinity, philosophy, medicine, or art. It was a high honour and dignity, and the more eminent the man the better was he entitled to the seat. When distinguished foreigners came into the country, they naturally communicated with the heads of colleges; and when they did so, they ought to find them the most eminent men the country can produce. Whilst, then, he would not exclude Professors of Theology from the office of Principal, he would throw it open and not keep it exclusively for Professors connected with the Church of Scotland. In conclusion he should therefore move that the Amendment of the Lords be disagreed to.

seconded the Motion.

said, the hon. Member for Greenock complained of having been put to the inconvenience of coming up from Scotland to oppose the Amendments made in the Bill by the House of Lords. Other hon. Members likewise, besides the hon. Member for Greenock, had been put to that inconvenience; but they had come up to support the Amendments of the House of Lords. The House, he was sure, would like to know what was the opinion of the high authorities who had already inquired into this matter, and the Commissioners who were appointed in the year 1826, who had inquired into the whole subject, and upon whose recommendation this Bill was founded, so far from thinking that the Principals of Colleges should not be attached to the Church of Scotland, strongly advised that they should be attached to that Church, and stated that it would be an evil if they were not. Previous to the year 1853, the Professors in the Universities of Scotland had been obliged to take the test of the Church of Scotland; but in that year an Act was passed setting free all the Chairs, except the Theological Chairs, from the necessity of taking that test. But the Principalship of the Universities bad been always held to be a Theological Chair, and the matter had been so decided after having been debated in the Law Courts of Scotland. He was sorry that the hon. Member should raise this question now; for, in the Bill as it now stood, there was not a single question of a theological nature mooted; and the hon. Member for Greenock, who was himself one of the Commissioners under the Bill, would be able, if he could get his brother Commissioners to agree with him, to lay down the rules as to the way in which these very gentlemen should teach the different branches of divinity. It was true the hon. Gentleman had brought the matter before the House when the Bill was under discussion, and had carried his clause by a majority of 58; but there was no opportunity afforded for debating it. The rights hen, Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) whose loss to this House they all so much regretted, spoke in reply; but it was not expected that there would be any debate, and hon. Members for Scotland were not prepared to speak. No opportunity was afforded for bringing forward any opposition to this. clause till the Bill reached the House of Lords, and then the clause was struck out. He thought it would be most unadvisable that the House should lay down any absolute rule upon this matter without having, full information on the subject. It would be much better to leave in the hands of the Commissioners, of whom the hon. Member for Greenock was one, to settle what should be the duties of the Principals, rather than to lay down any absolute law upon the subject. If the House should determine to replace the clause, it would be considered by the Church of Scotland, by whom the Principalship was looked upon as a theological office, as a blow aimed at her. It was agreed on all hands that the Bill was a most important one, and it would be a thousand pities if it were lost by a difference with the Lords on a subject with which the Bill in its original state, did not profess to deal. He hoped, therefore, that the House would agree to the Amendment of the Lords.

said, the Principals of Colleges were not Professors of Theology, or of any other science. They were the superintendents and heads of their respective colleges, and English Members would surely think it very absurd if it were made imperative that a clergyman of the Church of Scotland should superintend the teaching not only of divinity, but of Greek and Latin, of chemistry and mathematics, and even of midwifery. The fact was, it was never contended that the Principal should superintend any of these classes. The only reason why the Church of Scotland was so grasping in the matter was the mere selfish one of keeping the good places to themselves, to prevent them going to Dissenters, or even across the Border, where the patrons sometimes went to get persons who were not members of the Church of Scotland to fill important Chairs. He trusted that the English Members, whom the Scotch Members had assisted in resisting church rates—the Irish Members, whom the Scotch had assisted to remove many grievances, would now repay their obligations, and show that they were determined to put down this last act of intolerance.

said, he was anxious to say a few words on this question, as the terms of the Act of 1853 had been referred to, and because in the necessary absence of the Lord Advocate at that time, it was his duty, as a Member of the Government, to move the second reading of that Bill. That Bill rejected the religious test as applicable to all the chairs in the Scottish Universities except the theological chairs and the office of Principal; and, unquestionably, it was the understanding at that time that they agreed to the Bill in the light of a compromise. In proof of this, he would refer to what he said on moving the second reading of the Bill. The Bill was opposed by the late Sir Robert Inglis; but it happened that no Scotch Member opposed it, and he said he would promptly state to the House why it was not opposed by the Scotch Members. The truth was, that the measure was a compromise; and while it was opposed by the hon. Baronet, who held extreme opinions on one side, the measure was not very acceptable on the other to those hon. Gentlemen who desired the separation of Church and State. The present measure was a compromise between moderate men on both sides; and in proof that it was so, he might refer to the interpretation clause, which provided that the chairs, of which the Professors were still to take the test, would be the Chair of Divinity, Church History, Biblical Criticism, and Hebrew, and the office of Principal, with the exception of those that might at the time be held by laymen. Such was his explanation of the measure which passed in 1853. It therefore appeared to him that this clause would be a departure from what was generally admitted to be a compromise in 1853. He was still more confirmed in this when he remembered that in Committee on that measure his hon. Friend then attempted to force his views upon the House, and to open up the office of Principal to persons who were not members of the Church of Scotland, but he failed to succeed then. He was therefore disposed to resist the Motion of his hon. Friend, and to abide by the compromise agreed to in 1853.

said, before going to a division, he wished to say a few words. He agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord that in 1853 an alteration in the law took place with regard to the tests to be taken in the Scotch Universities. Before that the test was imposed upon all Principals and Professors without exception; but by the Bill of that year a new test was adopted and generally approved throughout Scotland, and was sanctioned by Parliament. The exceptions made were as to the Principals and Theological Professors; and if hon. Members would turn to the 5th clause they would find that the Theological Professorships were clearly defined to be the Chairs of Divinity, Church History, Biblical Criticism, and Hebrew, and the office of Principal; so that the Act of Parliament which settled the mode in which the tests were to be administered recognised the fact, which had always existed, that the Principals of the Universities were holders of Theological Chairs. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dunlop) had made one observation which, with all deference to his superior knowledge, he thought was inaccurate. The hon. Gentleman said that the Principals were never practically teachers of divinity. Now, he had been told—and told on high authority—that the Principals of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen were at that moment teaching, and had long taught, classes in divinity. That he had been told; and he begged the House to notice that the effect of the Amendment would be this—that the Principals of Universities virtute officii would teach divinity no longer; and to that extent there would be a diminution in the teaching of divinity in the Universities of Scotland. For himself, he must frankly say that he did not see any great objection to a layman being Principal of a University. But when he found that a settlement of the whole question had been made by Parliament so late as 1853, he thought it was unadvisable to disturb that settlement now, and for that reason he was prepared to advocate—though he did no attach much importance to it—the continuance of the office of Principal as a theological office.

said, he wished to say a few words on this question, which he found under discussion when he entered the House a few minutes before. He was bound to say that they were living in an age of progress. In 1846, when he was Secretary of State under Sir Robert Peel, it became his duty to resist a Motion for the repeal of these tests altogether, as regarded the Universities of Scotland. He did so to the best of his ability, urging those arguments which appeared to him the most forcible against the repeal. He had to struggle against the arguments urged on the other side by Lord Macaulay and the late Mr. Rutherford; and he was bound to state that he did not think the arguments he urged were the most cogent, though he carried his point by a small majority. In 1853, the compromise to which allusion had so often been made, was proposed when he was in the Earl of Aberdeen's Government, and the tests taken in the Scotch Universities were repealed with the full concurrence of the Government, excepting only those tests which were applicable to the divinity Professorships and the Principals. But he must frankly own he did not see on what grounds those tests could any longer be applied to Principals, or why laymen should not be Principals of the Universities of Scotland. He would not carry the discussion further. He felt bound to say that the Bill as it was sent up from the Commons to the Lords was right and defensible; he thought the alteration made in the Bill was imprudent and indefensible. He thought that Clause 3 should be restored, and he would therefore give his vote to disagree with the Lords' Amendments.

said, the right hon. Gentleman said this was an age of progress. He would use another word which perhaps meant the same thing—it was a time of change. One of the greatest changes that had ever taken place in Scotland was the change that had there occurred with respect to ecclesiastical organization. A few years ago the large majority of its population were members of the Established Church. Now the Established Church of Scotland did not number more than one-third of the population. He maintained that the institutions of the country ought to change so as to be adapted to the change in the opinions of the inhabitants. He was prepared to support the application of that principle to the national Universities. No man need tell him at this time of day that they were bound to choose the Principals of those Universities from among the clergymen of the Church of Scotland, which was supported only by a third of the population. Such a proposition was absolutely absurd. It would shut out from presiding as Principals of the Universities many of the greatest names in Scotland, and the men most worthy of the office. He would therefore oppose to the uttermost this change in the Bill which had been made by the Lords.

observed, he had one word to say in explanation. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had stated, in contradiction to a remark of his, that the Principals of the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen, taught divinity classes. That was perfectly true, but it was because they held the office of Professors of Theology separate and distinct from that of Principal, and what he said was that the office of Principal did not bind them to teach theology.

said, he did not like and could not admit this doctrine of compromise which had been laid down, founded upon transactions which took place several years ago. This Bill was brought forward on the principle of remodelling the whole system of the Universities of Scotland, and whatever might have been agreed to in former years, that agreement must share the fate of all the other arrangements, and they must consider every point of the system as equally open to discussion. Now the question had been well debated while the Bill was before the House. The Bill passed, and that clause which had been struck out by the Lords was affirmed by a majority of the House. He thought therefore the House ought to abide by the clause, and if the Lords found that this House was firm in asserting the principle contained in this clause, he had no doubt that they would not resist the opinion of this House.

said, there was another Amendment the Lords had made on a clause which was adopted in this House with the full consent of the Government. He did not know whether the Government meant now to stand by the alteration the Lords had made. It was a question which referred to the election of Lord Rector of the Universities. It was resolved that the Rector should be elected by the matriculated students. It was then proposed that the Professors should be joined with the students in the election, but it was objected that it was not desirable that the Professors should be joint electors—and often, perhaps, placed in opposition—with their students. The Government agreed that the Professors should not be joined with the students in the election, but the Professors had been re-inserted in the Lords. It was not a matter of great importance, one way or other, and he would not divide upon the question; but he hoped the Government themselves would disagree with the Amendment, as he thought it was very undesirable that the Professors should be made co-electors with the young students.

said, he wished to say one word as to this clause. When it was first brought forward in this House, it was not opposed by the Lord Advocate, and as he did not think it right to oppose the clause on its first introduction to the House, he should think it was an act of bad taste if he were to act contrary to the opinion of his learned Friend.

said, he knew how difficult it was to object, but he was sure the House was not aware of what it was doing. The Crown had raised a question as to its right to dispose of certain property, to which Glasgow College also asserted its claim. The matter had been mooted more than 100 years ago, it was raised again in 1807, and it was before the Courts at the present moment; and now the House was asked to decide in favour of the Crown a question which was actually at this moment a matter of litigation. He knew, however, it was in vain to divide upon the question, but he protested against the wrong that was done.