other year. effect "To-morrow? oh that's sudden : The noble Lord had said in | racter of the policy of the Government. It He did not know on what this doctrine Froude tells con but what did the same Census show? That, it would have that effect. us, in the 10th volume of his History, of "Tros Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine agetur." Until we acted on that principle we could never expect loyalty and contentment to prevail among the Irish people. MR. GATHORNE HARDY moved the adjournment of the debate. Motion agreed to. Debate adjourned till To-morrow. MUTINY BILL.-CONSIDERATION. (Mr. Dodson, Sir John Pakington, The Judge Advocate General.) Bill, as amended, considered. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON appealed to the noble Lord (Lord Otho Fitzgerald) not to insist on the Amendment which he had succeeded in carrying on Thursday night. LORD ELCHO said, he wished to call | tation to the phrase "balance of power,' attention to an Amendment which had been but supposed that it meant the question of made in Committee by striking out of the European police and national defence. Preamble the words "and the preservation Why did our army go to the Crimea, if of the balance of power in Europe." That not to maintain the balance of power? Amendment was suggested by the hon. More recently we were very nearly going Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway), who to war in favour of Denmark, to preserve was carried away by his enthusiasm at car- the balance of power. Questions might rying the abolition of corporal punishment, arise with regard to Egypt and Belgium, and it was agreed to without a division. that might make it the duty and interest There was, at the time, a large gather- of this country to interfere. He did not ing on the Opposition Benches, but the believe that the day would come again right hon. Member for South Lancashire when England would play so prominent a (Mr. Gladstone) was absent busied, he part as she had formerly done in foreign. presumed in preparing the thunder for politics; but, at the same time, he was not to-night's debate. Now, the words they prepared to admit that 30,000,000 of struck out were of long standing. In the Englishmen were to have no voice in EuPreamble to the Act of 1689 the words rope, and that our armies were to have no influence whatever in the affairs of the Continent. This might be a mere matter of sentiment; but he felt certain that Lord Palmerston, had he been alive, would have resisted the Motion which was made on Friday night. As he felt strongly on this subject, and wished to give the House an opportunity of re-considering the determination they then came to, he begged to move the re-insertion in the Preamble of the words to which he had referred. were "Whereas it is judged necessary that during this time of danger several of the forces now on foot should be continued and others raised for the safety of the Kingdom, for the proper defence of the Protestant religion, and," he was sorry to add, "for the reducing of Ireland." In 1690, the following words were added "For the safety of this Kingdom, for the common defence of the Protestant religion, and for the preservation of the liberties of Europe." These words were repeated in the second year of the reign of Queen Ann; but in the Act of 1 Geo. I., (1714), the words used were "For the guard of His Majesty's Royal person, for the safety of this Kingdom, and the suppress ing of the present rebellion." The passage to which he now wished particularly to call attention first occurred in the Act of 1727, the Preamble to which declared "That this army is raised for the safety of this Kingdom, the defence of the possessions of the Crown of Great Britain, and the preservation of the balance of power in Europe." These words, therefore, could claim a prescription from 1727 to the present year, and to a certain extent were illustrative of the history of the country. Under these circumstances there certainly ought to be good grounds adduced for striking them out. The only reason brought forward last year by the hon. Member for Chatham was, that the words were not true, and that the army was not maintained for the preservation of the balance of power in Europe. Now he held the contrary opinion. He gave no conventional interpre COLONEL NORTH seconded the Motion, remarking that the Opposition had the other night, in the absence of their Leader, run riot. It was with the greatest difficulty that the late Judge Advocate General had obtained a hearing; and as for the present one, he had no chance. in line 7, after the word "Crown," to inAmendment proposed, in the Preamble, sert the words "and the preservation of the balance of power in Europe."—(Lord Elcho.) SIR JOHN PAKINGTON remarked that the words had been in the Mutiny Act for so long a time, and meant so very little, that he was surprised to find that the hon. Member for Chatham thought it worth his while to strike them out. At the same time, he was still more astonished that his noble Friend should think it worth his while to re-insert them. Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON moved the insertion of words empowering the military authorities in Ireland to billet soldiers in private houses. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON remarked, that, as the right hon. Gentleman had, on a former occasion, admitted that the practice of billeting soldiers in private houses ought not to be resorted to, except in the most pressing emergency, he trusted the Motion would not be objected to, as it was impossible for the military authorities in Ireland on a very short notice to make the arrangements which would be necessary in the event of a change in the existing state of things. LORD OTHO FITZGERALD said, after the remarks of his noble Friend, he would But not press the matter to a division. he hoped the right hon. Baronet would take the question into consideration, otherwise he would certainly move the Amendment next year. Amendment agreed to. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow. MARINE MUTINY BILL.-COMMITTEE. (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Corry, Lord Henry Lennox.) Order for Committee read. In reply to Mr. AYRTON, LORD HENRY LENNOX said, he assented to the introduction of Amendments similar to that made in the Mutiny Bill, and if the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) were not in his place to move the omission of the words in reference to corporal punishment, he (Lord Henry Lennox) would move the Amendment for him. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) MR. OTWAY moved the following Amendments, which were agreed to:— PRISONS (COMPENSATION TO OFFICERS) BILL. On Motion of Sir JAMES FERGUSSON, Bill to provide Compensation to Officers of certain discontinued Prisons, ordered to be brought in by Sir JAMES FERGUSSON and Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 80.] www. HOUSE OF LORDS, Tuesday, March 31, 1868. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading- Committee-Indian Railway Companies (63). EDUCATION-ANSWER TO ADDRESS. The QUEEN'S Answer to the Address of the 23rd Instant, reported. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-REPORT OF RESOLUTION. THE EARL OF MALMESBURY, in calling attention to the Report of the Select Committee on "the Business of the House," said, their Lordships would recollect that last year a noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) brought under their consideration the necessity of appointing a Select Committee to investigate two or three points of some importance with reference to carrying on the Business of the House in an Clause 27, line 36, leave out from "any to any marine to corporal punishment," in lines 39 improved form. The first point to which and 40, inclusive, and insert "no court martial the Committee directed its attention was shall for any offence whatever committed in time whether the House ought to meet at an of peace, within the Queen's dominions, have earlier hour than it now did; but, on conpower to sentence any marine to corporal punish-sideration, it was found that it would be ment." Lines 44 and 45, leave out " "disgraceful conduct or any breach of the Articles of War." House resumed. Bill reported; as amended, to be consi- peals, to call upon him at once to take his dered To-morrow. MARRIAGES (FRAMPTON MANSEL) BILL. ordered to be brought in by Sir JAMES FERGUSSON very inconvenient and unfair to the Lord Chancellor, who probably had been sitting all the morning for six hours hearing ap place on the Woolsack and enter upon the Public Business of the House without any rest or any interval whatever. The Committee had, therefore, decided not to recommend any change in the present arrangement in that respect. The question of the use of proxies, which had lately attracted attention. The privilege enjoyed by Peers, some notice, next engaged the Committee's of being represented in the House by proxies when unable to attend personally, inasmuch as those who were not present was a very ancient and historical one, it at the debates were not supposed to have had become prescriptive, and belonged to a full knowledge of the points on which the Estate of the Peerage in the same they would have to vote. On the other way as the privilege of sending their hand, there were many Members of their proxies to the other House belonged to the Lordships' House who, though prevented Estate of the Commons-for the Members from being present in the House by illness of the other House were in reality the or through employment under the Crown, proxies of the Estate of the Commons. In were yet perfectly cognizant of what was the primeval days when our Constitution going on there, and as capable of giving originated, the Estates of the Realm were an opinion on subjects brought before Parthree, or, as some said, two. First, there liament, as if they were present and heard was the Church, which was represented the debates. Such a case it would be easy by the Archbishops and Bishops, and next to find at the present moment in the late the lay Peers. Those two Estates, not Prime Minister, whom nobody could say being very numerous, could easily meet was not as capable of giving his opinion under the same roof. But of course that on a political question as if he were then was not the case with the Commons, who sitting in that House. The same remark were too multitudinous to assemble in one might apply to some of our Ambassadors place, and they according sent to Parlia- at Foreign Courts. The Committee, howment their representatives, or, in other ever, though divided in opinion, decided words, their proxies. No doubt, then, that, on the whole, it would be preferable the Committee had stated correctly that it to put an end to the use of proxies, and was a privilege inherent in the Peers to send that an Order of the House should be their proxies to that House in the same adopted to that effect. They further reway as the Commons sent the proxies of commended that, to prevent that Order their Estate to the House of Commons. The from being lightly suspended, twice the Committee, however, considered whether usual length of notice should be given of any change should be made in regard to any Motion for its suspension. The Comthat practice. It was clear that the pri- mittee also recommended that Notices of vilege of the Peers to use proxies could Questions should be placed on the Minutes only be put an end to by Act of Parlia- and not given privately, as was now often ment; but there were abundant precedents done; but, at the same time, they did not to show that the House itself could, by its propose to prevent Questions as to sudden own Orders, regulate the mode of exer- or pressing affairs being put to Ministers cising the privilege. For instance, in without notice. With respect to the the reign of Charles II. on an occasion appointment of Committees on Private when proxies were used, the Duke of Bills, the Select Committee recommended Buckingham, who was not very scrupu- that the Committee of Selection should lous, brought more than twenty proxies in exercise its discretion as to calling upon his pocket, and an Order was then made Peers to serve, although they might be that no Peer should hold more than two absent from the House. proxies. It would be seen, moreover, by the Report of the Select Committee, that no Peer could hold more than two proxies; that they could not be used in Committee, nor in judicial proceedings; and that they must be entered before three o'clock of the day on which they were to be used. These things showed that the House could by its own Orders, regulate the use of proxies. The inconvenience attending the use of proxies was much discussed in the Select Committee; and although there was some difference of opinion as to how the privilege should be dealt with, it was thought that their Lordships' House would be more popular, and would enjoy more confidence with the country in respect to its decisions, if that privilege were waived, Select Committee on Business of the THE EARL OF CARNARVON said, that his noble Friend's argument went in one way and his vote in another, for he (the Lord Privy Seal) argued in favour of proxies, while he concluded by asking their Lordships to vote their abandonment. There would not, he thought, be much difference of opinion among their Lordships on this subject. His noble Friend said the Committee had come to a resolution to abandon proxies, because the use of them was not popular out-of-doors. But his impression was that the feeling of the Committee had so not much reference to the question of |