The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-02 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY EV ENI.I, JULY • 2, 1858

had been that he bad given notice of extensive amend-
ments, which removed every objection with respect
both to patronage and to the expenditure of revenue.
(Hear, hear.) But his object in rising at prevent was to
moo: a single point with reference to the principle of
election as it stood in the clause under consideration.
Immediately after the words which the committee
had just passed, "or having been theretofore such
directors," he wished to insert the words " not being
❑ominees of the Crown." He desired that the elective
principle should be sustained as much as possible ; but
there was no security in the clause that five out of the
seven members of Council whom the Court of Directors
were to select might not be nominees of the Crown, and,
as the first vacancy would be filled up by another nomi-
' nee, it was quite possible that at the very commence-
ment 14 out of the 15 members of Council would be
nominees of the Crown. His amendment would obviate
that result, which none could desire, and he therefore
hoped it would receive the assent of the committee.
Lord STANLEY agreeei with the right hon. baronet
that the discussion the other evening upon the third
clause had been productive of advantage, inasmuch as it
had shown the necessity of providing some further secu-
rity than existed in the bill against financial abuses.
(Hear, hear.) The Government would be ready at all
times to receive any suggestion from the right hon.
baronet with that respect to which it was entitled; but
the proposition which he had now made did not seem to
be calculated to carry ont the object for which it was
intended. It was clear that the elected members of the
Council would cease to be nominees from the moment of
their election. Because a man had been once nomi-
nated by the Crown to a certain office it did not follow,
if he were subsequently elected to the Fame office, that
he would remain f)r life a nominee of the Crown. (Rear,
hear.) If the Government had not thought that the
Court of Directors were fitted to be intrusted with the
powers of electing seven independent members of the
Council they would not have conferred such power upon
them ; but, having come to the conclusion that they
ought to be so trusted, they wished to leave their dis-
cretion as unfettered as possible. (Hear, bear.)
The amendment was negatived without a division.

Mr. GLADSTONE rose to submit to the Government
the propriety of an alteration in the relative numbers c f
the nominated and elected members of Council. The
tenure of good behaviour, unless carefully watched and
guarded. had a very great tendency to lapse into sine-
care. It was proposed in the formation cf the Council
to secure somethine, like a balance between election and
nomination ; but the plan adopted in the bill might
tend to the appointment of a large preponderance of
nominees, since vacancies were to be filled up alternately
by nomination by the Crown and by election by the
Council, in which the nominee members constituted the
majority. He therefore proposed that instead of seven
members elected by the directors, the number should be
ten ; and, if that proposition were agreed to, he should
afterwards move that five members should be nominated
by the Crown instead of eight.
Lord STANLEY said that if the proposition of the
right hon. member for the University of Oxford were
carried, a small minority of the Council comparatively
would be nominated, and the majority would be elected
by the process of self-election. When it was said that,
as the bill stood, the election would be carried by per-
sons the majority of whom were nominated by the
Crown, he must remind the committee that those nomi-
nees were appointed for life, and would therefore be in-
dependent of any Minister. The object of the bill was
to strike a balance between the nominated and elected
members, and he did think that object would be attained
by the division of the Council into 10 elected and five
nominated members.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that, of curse, the desire of
the committ,4, was to have, as far as possible, an indepen-
dent Council, and he believed that the persons nomi-
nated by the Crown for life, and devoting their minds to
Indian business, would be independent of the Govern-
ment. He should therefore vote in favour of that part
of the clause which the right hon. member for the Uni-
ve.stty of Oxford now proposed to alter.

Mr-C.FORTESCUE trusted that the committee would
no: c-iudeui, Lo of the elf cted :nem-
berg.

Sir E. PERRY inquired whether the Government

would introduce into the bill a provision declaring that

none but gentlemen capable of devoting their who!e
time to the business should be members of the council?

Lord STANLEY said, that as members of the council

would receive large salaries .and have the disposal of a
considerable amount of patronage, it was reasonable to
expect that they would devote their time to the perfor-
mance of the public duties assigned to them. That would
be the understanding, but he did not propose to insert in
the bill any restriction en the choice of the directors.
The nominated members would be appointed on that
understanding.
Mr. GLADSTONE suggested that the Government
should take power in the bill to reduce the number of
the Council when vacancies occurred, if it should be
found that for the transaction of business so large a
number of members as was now proposed was not re-
quired.
Mr. V. SMITH observed that most of the directors
had some other business to attend to, either being
bankers or connected with public companies. With re-
gard to the salaries of members of the Council he thought
those members who were nominated, and who devoted
their whole time to the duties of their office, would fully
deserve 1,2001. a-year, while the elected members, who
would probably be engaged in commercial occupations,
would be overpaid it they received that amount. In his
opinion *mine rule should be laid down as to the time
which the elected members should devote to their duties,
instead of leaving the matter entirely to the honour of
individuals. Ile wished to know if two or three mem-
bers of the Cohn-:il died bow the vacancies were to be
supplied, because under the system proposed the proper-
tioes of the 0 nne4.4d might for a time be disturbed.
Mr. AYRTON believed that there were no statutory
regulations which prohibited persons in public offices
from engaging in other occupations, and his impression
was that the only influence which could be brought to
bear, in CAiO of any misconduct in this respect, was that
which was exercised by Parliament upon the Govern-
ment, and by the Government upon the persons who
held public offices.
Mr. W. VANSITTART hoped that if the members
of the Council were to receive salaries of 1,2001. a year
the suggestion of the hon. and learned member for De•
yonport would be adopted.
Sir G. LEWIS said that in the case of the members
of Council for India, some adequate security ought to
be taken that they would bona fide devote their whole
time to the service of the Crown.
Lord STANLEY said the understanding would be
that persons who accepted the position of members of
Counc,l should do so on condition that they devoted
their whole time to the duties which they were called
upon to discharge. He would have no objection to pro-
pose the insertion in the bill of a clause to effect
that object, if he could satisfy himself that it would be
psssible to frame a clause which would meet every case
that might arise. Many members of that house were
aware that not only subordinate officers in the Govern-
ment, but a gentleman who bad held a very important
position in a former Administration, had been partners
in mercantile establishments. He believed that the gen-
tleman to whom he referred took no active part in the
management of the establishment with which he was
connected, and that the partnership was merely nominal,
but, undoubtedly, he was a partner ; and he (Lord Stan-
ley) did not know what right the house would have to
say that a gentleman in such a position should not be
capable of bolding an appointment in the public ser-
vice. The gentlemen who might compose the Council
for India would accept their appointments on the under-
standing that they were to devote their whole time
to their official duties, and as there would be a power of
removing them for misconduct, a breach of that under-
standing would undoubtedly be held to be a violation of
of their contract under the terms of the bill. With re-
gard to the number of the Council the Government
might no doubt be empowered to reduce them if they
were found too numerous to do the work of the Council,
but such a power had better be left in the hands of Par•
liament. He did not wish to pronounce any opinion
upon the question. If a necessity should arise ifor
Making any
alteration in that respect nothing could be
easier than for the Minister to come to the house and
propose a remedy. They had been told that they ought
to insert a proviso limiting the choice of the Crown to
those who were not members of that house ; but be did
not think that that was either a necessary or an ade-
quate security. The Government would be infinitely
more injured by the appointment of a persin from un-
worthy motives than they could be benefitted by his
. _

votes in that house. The Government ought to be lef:
free to choose such as they saw best adapted to do the
work of the Connell. With respect to the objection of
the right:l7on. nt rush wppweite, that no provision had
been made for the elected and the nominated members
dying alternately, he did not know how to guard against
the possible disparity of numbers suggested by the right
hon. gentleman. All that the Government could do
was to take care that at the outset the arrangement as
between the two classes—the nominated and the elected
—should be a fair one. They could not do anything
more calculated to make a Council of this kind work
badly than estab;ishing a permanent distinction between
the elected and the nominated members. (Hear.)
Sir E. PERRY understood that it was the int-ration of
the noble lord that the members of the Council should
not be engaged in any other business, but as the noble
for i seemed to think that there would be a difficulty
in framing a clause to secure that, he begged to suggest
that souse such words as those in the Act of 1793,
whereby all those employed in the service of the East
India Company were prohibited from attending to any
other business, should be added to the clause.
Sir G. C. LEWIS apprehended that the object of that
act was to prevent servants of the East India Company,
while it was a trading company, from personally engae-
ing in any other business. (Hear, hear.) If any words
were necessary he thought that those in the orders of
the Poor Law Commissioners requiring persons employed
by a Po.ir Law union to devote ail their time to its
service should be adapted to the case of the Council.
Mr. T. BARING said if any provision against the
members of the Council being employed in any other
business were inserted the noble lord might be driven to
appoint men who could do no other business than that
of the Council. (Hear, hear, and a laugh ) He did not
think that the Council should be f xcluJed from seats in
that house. Advisers and not mere clerks were what
they wanted..
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL reminded the com-
mittee that what his not le friend bad said with respect
to the employment of their time by the Council was
simply this,—that it was; expected that the time of every
person who joined the Council should be at the disposal
of the Council. But to frame a clause by which every
member of the Council would be bound to be engaged
in no trade or traffic whatever was a very different mat-
ter. Such an arrangement with regard to the Govern-
ment would have deprived the country a few years ago
of the services of one of its most able men, inasmuch as
her was a member of a mercantile firm at the same time

that be was a member of the Government. If it should
be found that a member of the Council did not
devote sufficient time to the Council the Govern-
ment could take steps to move him for misbehaviour.
Then, main, it was always in the: power of Parliament
to address the Crown for the removal of any councillo.r
who did not perform his duties, so that there wa9 a•-
donble check—one in the hands of the Executive, and
the other in the hands of Parliament. Every one must
desire to see the Council formed of men of the greate4t
experience and practical ability, and it might in some
cases be that their very connection with some other
pursuit was a guarantee for the possession of those
qualities, and he could not therefore consent to the pro-
pose'.

Sir J. GRAHAM could not understand the applica-
tion of a principle to members of the Ceuncil which it
had not been considered necessary to apply to Ministers
of State, (Hear, hear.) Speaking with accurate know-
ledge, he had known Cabinet Ministers in both Houses
of Parliament, and members holding high position, who
were partners in breweries or insurance companies, or
who were connected with some commercial pursuit.
He saw no reason for introducing any such principle as
absolutely to prohibit members of the Council from being
engaged in any other occupation. They would be al.
ways under the review of that house, and they would
be actuated by a sense of duty, and any such restriction
would probably interfere to prevent persons of the
highest qualification from undertaking the duties of
councillor. The duties of the office need certainly not
occupy the whole of a man's time, and he should cer-
tainly deprecate the insertion in the bill of any such
provision as that members of the Council should be ab-
solutely bound down not to follow any other occupation.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished
to point out that the hon. member for Davenport had
placed a very strange construction upon what had been
' said by his noble friend. His noble friend had stated,
what was the unanimous opinion of his colleagues,
that those members of the Council appointed by
her Majesty would be expected to place their whole
time at the disposal of the Secretary of State, but he did
not at all intend to say that the whole of their time
should be devoted to the duties of their office, or that
they should not be allowed to do anything else. (Hear.)
As regarded those members of the Council appointed by
election, his noble friend would not for a moment lay
down tho principle, that they should be required to
spend the whole cf their time in the fe!filment of their
duty as councillors. It was very possible that persons
might he elected from their connection with the Court of
Directors, who at the same time would be occupied with
public or private interests, but ho did not think that any
disadvantage would result from that; but, on the con-
trary, the election of such men might be the means of
introducing into the
_Council a great deal of practical
knowledge and experieuce. In effecting a transition from
a Government of an anomalous character to one which
in time would assume a more regular form, it would not
be wise to adopt a principle which would negative a prat
tice which bad in the Government that was about to be
abolished been productive of beneficial result, and it
would be highly impolitic, in his opinion, to define, by a
clause in an act of Parliament, what time the members
of the Council, who would of course be bound by their
own sense of duty, should devote to the duties of their

office. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. RICH objected to the expense •which would be
incurred for the payment of the salaries of councillors
and their retiring pensions, and gave notice that tie
would propose an amendment relating to the subject.
Mr. FITZROY intimated, from the chair, that the
discussion which was going on was most irregulP,r, the
real question before the house being whether ti''a or seven
members should be appointed by election.
Sir H.WILLOITGHBY considered
I.laat with a view to
the appointment of men in wbr„rn persons connected
with India would have confidr.,nce, it would be advisable
that the number of council'iors elected should be ten.

Col. SYKES concurred in that opinion. He thought
also that when a person accepted an office, who himself
intended to do hie duty, he would not engage in
multifarious occupation which would interfere with the
f-4 (Infi9q, but at the same time he
would not bias p iaOG.. i y a b.LIOL LL:t: t. -
liament. It was absurd to say that men engaged to hte-
rary or scientific pursuits should not be eligible for the
Council. Such a rule might exclude some of the best
men.

Mr. D. SEYMOUR was decidedly opposed to ren-
dering persons eligible to be on the Council who at the
same time were engaged in large contracts. What would
the country think of the First Lord of the Admiralty
being a timber merchant as well t (Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. HUDSON hoped the committee would con-
fine the discussion to the real question before them, viz.,
whether the number should be seven or ten.

The amendment was then negatived without a divi-
sion

It was then proposed by Lord STANLEY to add
words to the clause, enabling her Majesty to fill up va-
cancies in the Council in the event of their not being
filled up within a specified time by the Court of Direc-
tors. The proviso was added after a brief discussion.
Clause 8 was then agreed to.
On clause 9,
Lord A. V. TEMPEST moved, in line 4, after " fiiled
up," to leave out the remainder of the clause, and add,
"by persons, to be elected as hereinafter mentioned,
from among persons who have been ten years at least in
India, in the service of her Majesty, or of the Govern-
ment of India, in any department, whether legal, civil,
naval, or military, or who have been 15 years resident in
India; and the parsons qualified to vote in the election
of such members shall be proprietors of capital in Indian
stock, or of paid-up capital in railways or other public
works in India, of the amount of one thou,and pounds ;
or of persons who have been ten years in the military,
naval, or civil service of the East India Company, or of
her Majesty, provided always that no person shall be
entitled to vote in the election of such members as afore-
said unless he shall have been qualified as aforesaid for
six months before the election, and be registered
according to the regulations hereinafter to be men-
tioned." The noble lord contended that his proposal was
in strict accordance with a principle which had already
been sanctioned by the committee, and also in conformity
with the sixth resolution.

Lord STANLEY thought the house had already de-
termined that such a constituency as that implied in the
amendment could not be found—(hear)—and without
detaining the committee, he should simply confine him-
self to stating that the Government would adhere to
their original intention. (Hear.)
Mr. AYR,TON quite concurred in the resolution of
the Government.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY believed that by the intro•
duction of the necessary safeguards such a constituency
might be obtained.

The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause was agreed to.
On clause 10,
Mr. V. smut' reminded the noble lord the President
of the Board of Control that he had promised to consider
the question of constituting two-thirds of the members
from persons who had been ten years in India.
Lord STANLEY said the subject had been carefully
considered, and the Government proposed that the
"major part" of the members should be chosen from
persons who had bad this Indian experience.
The words " majoor part" were then inserted.
The clause as amended was then agreed to.
On clause 11,

Mr. GREGSON proposed to leave out the words
"good behaviour," and insert " five years, and to be re-
eligible for election."
Lord STANLEY said this que3tion had already been
debated at length, but the committee had determined
that tenure for life would be the most advantageous
arrangement.

Mr. LINDSAY believed that ultimately India would
be be better governed without a council at all. Elect
members for life, and they would naturally vote in favour
of vested interests. If the hon. member pressed his
amendment, he should assuredly vote with him.
Mr. D. SEYMOUR asked whether in the event of
the Government desiring at a future period to diminish
the number of the council, the retiring councillors were
to receive life pensions ?
Sir H. CAIRNS said the question of the Govern.
meat was that the council would be the permanent
mode of governing India, and if hereafter the number
was found too great, it would be open to the Secretary
of State for India to come down to the house, and say
that he did not think it necessary to fill up the vacancy.
Lord PALMERSTON- said that this point was of
great importance. He lamented that the house had de-
terntiued to make the council so numerous, it being hie
decided opinion that several of them would turn out
sinecures with retiring pensions. What was the object
of the committee in regard to the formation of the emen-
d' —that ehey should be independent—net for action,
for the Chancellor of the Eischequer had denied that they
were an executive council. The fundamental principle
established was that it should be a council for advice,
and that it should be rendered independent in order to
give sound advice. It wee thought that the members of
the council should hold office for life, and if rendered
unable to perform their duties they were to have retiring
pensions of 6001. or 8001. a year. He (Lord Palmerston)
proposed a much shorter way of making them iudepen-
deet, namely, that they should hold office for ten years.
Tney would then be quite independent, for it was barely
to be expected that they could hope for favour from a
Government in ten years. In addition to that he pro-
posed that they should not be re appointed or re-elected.
(Hear.) Could anything be more objectionable than that
they should be appointed for life ? If Indian experience
was to be of value, it must be the exeerie,,ce of this day.
Any other experience woald be worse than useless, be-
cause it would only lead to error. Tne experience of 15
or 16 years, considering the rapid advances making in
India, would be of little use. He was met by an ohjec•
tion that the delineator would gain more knowledge of
India in the council-room at home than if be were
in India. If that were PO, why tie up the choice of men
passing their lives in India? Why not have a series of
Secretaries of State ? Tney would get in all probability
men of advancing years—losing activity of mind and
body. They would thus have an effete council. He
should support the amendment now proposed, and should
afterwards propose the amendment of which he had
given notice.
Mr. MILLS said the case of the noble lord himself
was one of those who was a proof in his own person that
the country should retain the services of those who in
early life had served it well.

Sir E. COLEBROOKE supported the amendment.
He admitted that by au-expensive system of pensions
they might get rid of th'e difficulty with respect to the
individuals forming the council, but there was another
question more difficult connected with the patronage, and
they would find that the families of the councillors would
be very unwilling that they should retire.
Mr. A.YRTON thought it would be highly inexpe-
dient to be constantly shifting the counoil. The executive
council was a phantom that had flitted before the eyes of
the noble lord, and bad dooeiveLl him. With regard to

retirements, he thought they should be gradual, because
he saw great dangers in sudden changes.
Mr. W. EWART said in order to have an indepen-
dent council there must be a limit of five years with a
prospect of re-election,which would be an ample security.
Mr.......jlollhought.a periodical infusion of new blood
into the council was necessary. Persons who held ap-
pointments for life were always found to be listless,
while those who bad to go out at a certain time were al-
most invariably energetic. Re thought a superannuation
fund to secure the retirement of members would be a
most unjust thing to India, by creating a very serious
charge. Appointments for life would not therefore be
so beneficial as appointments for a term of years, what-
ever the limitation might be.
After a few words from Mr. LINDSAY,
The committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against

- -
Sir G. LEWIS asked whether there was any necessity
for that part of the clause which referred to criminal or
disgraceful conduct. It appeared to cast an unnecessary
stigma on the councillors. If any member of the conned
was guilty of criminal conduct he would be liable to be
treated by the criminal law, and would be committed by
the magistrates; so that by the very necessity of the case
prevented from attending the meetings of the council.
As for disgraceful conduct, he could not conceive how
any such emergency could be expected.
Sir. J. GRAHAM said the members of the court of
Directors were removable for "incapacity or misbeha-
viour," and suggested that a similar clause should be in-
troduced in this bill.

. _
Mr. CAIRNS said her Majesty could have no power
to discharge those who were not servants of the Crown.
Sir G. LEWIS said that the directors were not remov-
able by the Crown on an address from this house. They
were not servants of the Crown. The members of the
council were servants of the Crown, and that they should
be removable by the Crown on an address from this
hou-e, was consistent with the whole scheme.
After a iew words from Mr. GURNEY and Sir H.
WILLOUGHBY,

Mr. WARREN said that county court judges were
removable for misbehaviour or inability.
Lord STANLEY said that under this clause there
would be the power to remove a member of the council
in the case of insolvency or bankruptcy. Ae to the ob-
jection that persons would be removed for inability,
though arising from no fault of their own, the provision
of a retiring pension met that point.
Lord J. RUSSELL said there bad been instances of
judges retaining office after they were unable to dis-
charge their duties, and the case might be the same with
the councillors under this act.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that there was nothing so difficult to define es inca-
pacity, and every attempt tee define it would trench on
the independence of the council. He therefore hoped
that the amendments i:vhich had been suggested would
not be pressed.
Clause 11, '.a amended, was then agreed to.
On clause 12, which provides that members of the
council shall not sit in Parliament,
Sir B. "PERRY said it was desirable that the mem-
bers of. council should not be engaged in trade. He
had understood that this was the opinion of the Go-
v. ernment ; if so, a provision to that effect should be
introduced into the clause.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL raid if a member wail
appointed on the understanding that he should eive
the who!e of his time to his duty, and if he did not
do so it would be a breach of the understanding, and
wenn come under the definition of misbehaviour.
Sir E. PERRY urged that the words "or concerned
in any trade or traffic whatever" should be introduced
into the clause. It was well known that a late Presi-
dent of the Board of Control had been engaged as a
sleeping partner in a large commercial concern; and
I he wished to prevent anything of this kind occurring
with tlze new council.
Mr. LIDDELL thought that, considering how useful
the presence ( f East India directors in that house bad
been, it was very desirable that the house should not
few thP future deprived of that advantage by the ex-
. frnm ti,,q hwiqp.
By that exclusion they would deprive the Indian Graver n•
men`, of some of the fittest persons for the -council. He
proposed to omit the word "no," and add "8" to the
word "member."
Mr. ELLIOTT said that all the information they were
able to obtain in Indian debates was derived from Ea,t
India directors. Why should the house deprive them-
selves of the advantage of that information which was
thought so necessary for the Indian Government
Mr. GROAN said that if the clause were carried
they would have no authoritative informant on In-
dian affairs in that house except the president.
Sir E. COLE BROOKE supported the amendment.
Mr. CLAY was far from undervaluing the assistance
of the directors, at the same time he thought that from
the wealth and position of many gentlemen who had
lived in India, they need not apprehend any dearth of
information.

Lord J. RUSSELL was averse to putting any re-
straint upon the choice of electors unless on very strong
arguments. The principle of exclusion had been carried
too f:tr. There were few men who had afforded so much

information on Indian topics as Sir William Grant, whose
speeches had been heard with great admiration by that
house. The objection that the debates of the council
would be reviewed reminded him of the story of a Welsh
magistrate, who, when he had heard one side of a case,
and the counsel for the other side was about to address
him, stopped the learned gentleman by saying, " When
I have heard one side of a case I can decide easily
enough, but if I hoar both sides I am always puzzled."
(Hear, and a laugh.) As the council was now constituted
there was ❑o fear of an Indian " agitator" becoming a
member of it. (Hear, hear.) At present, also, the
opinions of the East India Company were well known
in the House of Commons, and due abatement made for
them. He thought the balance of advant;To was in
favour of members of the council sitting in Parliament.
Lord STANLEY agreed with the noble lord that there
were advantages and disadvantages in members of the
council having seats in that house, but the advantages of
their being excluded, in his opinion, prevailed, and he
should therefore resist the amendment. He would re-
mind the noble lord that there were already many classes
excluded from Parliament by reason of their office.
There were judges and others, and there was no class of
men who would feel the hardship less than those men
who, having spent their lives in India, had no social ties
at home. Give these men seats in Pailiament,Eand it it
were not a disability, it might be made by the Govern-
ment of the day a condition that they should get seats in
Parliament to support the Minister. He thought they
should be kept, if possible, free even from suspicion. The
mutual confidence which should exist between a member
of the council and a Secretary of State would, in his opi•
nion, be much impaired, by the former having a seat in
that house, and connected with some political party.
He thought a councillor could not discharge his duties
as a member of Parliament and a member of the council
in an efficient manner, and he should therefore oppose
the amendment.

Sir J. ELPHINSTONE thought the reasons given by
the noble lord who had just sat down were totally without
foundation, and believing the exclusion of members of the
council of India from that house most mischievous, he
should support the amendment.
Mr. V. SMITH asked what it was they required in
members of the council but to be independent. But surely
after their experience of the Board of Directors, who were
said never "to ba guilty of au indiscretion," they could
not but see that it would be most inconvenient to have
members of the council in that house, for unseemly con-
tests must arise between them and the Secretary of State,
which would be most injurious to India. By admitting
them into that house, they would either be the creatures
of the Minister of the Iday, or obstructives, and in either
case it was not advisable to admit them.
Mr. PULLER supported the amendment.
Mr. RIDLEY could not see why members of the House
of Commons should not be eligible as well as members of
the House of Lords.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against
Majority —124
The clause, after some conversation, was agreed to.
The CIIAIRUAN then reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again to-morrow (Friday) morning.
The Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Bill passed through
committee.
CHELSEA•BILIDGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion that this bill be now read a second time.
Mr. BLACKBURN moved that the bill be read a second
time that day six mouths.
The house, after a few words from Lord J. MANNERS,
divided—

For the second reading
For the amendment 96
Majorityfor the second reading -'.;5
Mr. BLACKBURN' then said the bill had been rejected
three weeks ago, and was now brought on after 12 o'clock
at night; but he hoped it would be rejected upon ,going
into committee.
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.

SALE AND TRANSFER OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
The house. ent into committee on this bill, and, having
passed some clauses,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that
the chairman report progress.
The CHAIRMAN accordingly reported pr.,gress, and the
house resumed.

LONDON CORPORATION REGULATION BILL.
On the motion that the adjourned debate for going into
committee on this bill be resumed,
Mr. WALPOLE moved that the order be discharged,
and it was discharged accordingly.
CLERK OF PETTY SESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, and, after a
few words of conversation, the Chairman reported progress,
and the house resumed.

COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS BILL.

The house then resolved itself into committee on the
Copyright of Designs Bill.
The bill passed through committee.
BISHOPS TRUSTS SUBSTITUTION BILL.

This bill ;;;;C;;;;;;;dtime.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT
AMENDMENT BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in reply to Mr. GLAD-
STONE, sail he would, on Monday, name what day he
would bring. on tha socond reading of this bill.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. BILL.

Oa the motion that this bi.l (Lord Palmerston',-) be
read a second time,

An Hon. 111E1113Eu, amidst the laughter of the house,
said, " Next session."
Lord PALMERSTON.—This day week. (Laughter.)

MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

On the motion that this bill be
Lola BURY moved that nothing herein contained shall
render valid any uuniago
with the sister of a deceased
wife, if either of the parties to such marriage shall, after
having contracted such marriage, and before the passing of
this act, have inarxicd any other person.
After a short discussion, the clause was agreed to.
NORTH AMERICAN TERRITORIES.
_ _

Sir E. B:t-fT1-76-1sFbio-oght in a bill to provide for the

.. _.. ,
e ~'Y r

government of certain territories in North America situate
between the Pacific and the Rocky MountainE.
JUDGMENITS ACT (IRELAND) AMENDMENT ACT.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND brought
in a bill to amend the laws concerning judgments in Ire-
land.

DETACHED PARTS OF COUNTIES.
Mr. WALPOLE brought in a bill to amend the law
concerning detached parts of counties.
SUPERANNUATION LAW AMENDMENT.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought in
a bill to amend the laws concerning superannuation and
other allowances to persons having held civil offices in the
public service.

ADMIRALTY COURT.
Mr. WARREN brought in a bill to enable sergeants and
barristerslat law, attorneys and solicitors, to practise in the
High Court of Admiralty.
The house adjourned at a quarter past one o'clock.