MR. BRUCE said, that nothing could be more absurd than the notion about mines being rated on profits. In his part of the country the only consideration with the Assessment Committee was the rent that a tenant would give from year to year. Question put, "That those words be there added." The Committee divided:-Ayes 119, Noes 6 Majority 113. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. MR. AYRTON said, that in consequence of the acceptance of his Amendment the other clauses of the Bill were rendered unnecessary or inapplicable. The only question that remained was as to the proportion of the rate to be paid by the landlord. This was a matter of considerable importance, and it would be better to report Progress and bring up a well-considered clause on the Report. MR. PERCY WYNDHAM stated that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), in conjunction with himself, would propose a clause on the bringing up of the Report to settle the proportion of the rates to be paid by the landlord and the tenant. Remaining Clauses struck out. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 221.] PROMISSORY OATHS BILL-(BILL 113.) [Lords]-COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. MR. NEWDEGATE said, before the House went into Committee upon this Bill he wished to draw attention to the difference between the form of Oath proposed in the present Bill to be taken by high officers of State and the Oath of Allegiance which Parliament, after twelve years' discussion, decided should be taken by Members of that House. By this Bill a very important departure was made from the terms of the Act of 1866. By that Act the Oath was as follows: “I, A. B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria; and I do faithfully promise to maintain and support the Succession to the Crown as the same stands limited and settled by virtue of the Act passed in the reign of King William III., intituled An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and "I, A. B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and will defend Her to the utmost of my Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts that shall be made against Her Power, Crown, or Dignity." The House would perceive that that Oath was a great deal fuller than the Oath which which was contained in the Bill before the House. But so little satisfactory did that seem that the following words were inserted : "And I do faithfully promise to maintain and support the Succession to the Throne as the same stands limited and settled by an Act passed in the reign of King William III., intituled An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and the better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject."" It The words with regard to the Union with Scotland and Ireland were added in the House of Lords. There was nothing in the circumstances of this Session which ought to induce the House to be less cautious in the matter of the Oaths of Allegiance than it was two years ago. might be said that the Oaths proposed in this Bill did not contain a recognition of the fact that the Crown of these realms was held by law, and that, therefore, the tenure and power of the Crown formed part of the Constitution, together with the provisions of Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights, which were embodied in the Act of Settlement. He would point, however, to the fact that the words "by law," as they stood in this Bill, might refer to any law at present existing or hereafter to be framed, whereas Parliament distinctly, two years ago, refused to be satisfied with anything less than a direct recital of the Oath of Allegiance, pointing to the Act of Settlement as forming the basis of the Sovereignty of the country. He therefore desired to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he saw any objection to substituting for the Oath proposed in the Bill the Oath of Allegiance which they, as Members of Parliament, were bound to take, whatever might be their position or creed? MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, that the form of Oath proposed by the Bill had been settled by the Commission which had sat for a considerable period to inquire into this subject and by a Committee of the House of Lords which went fully into the question. For himself, he had no objection to take the Oath of Allegiance at the table, but he did not think there was any material alteration from it in the present Bill. Both the Commissioners and the Committee of the House of Lords came to the conclusion that it was necessary to make the form of Oath as concise and clear as possible, pledging those taking it to bear true allegiance to Her Majesty and her successors, but avoiding entering into any historical matters. One objection to the present Oath taken by Members of that House, was that it declared the succession of the Crown to be based upon the Act of William III., which claimed for the Sovereign of this country a right to the Crown of France. The Oath proposed in the Bill was in fact a resignation of that claim. He could not assent to the suggestion of the hon. Member, as he thought that the form of Oath proposed in the Bill was calculated to fulfil the purpose they had in view. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Form of Oath of Allegiance). MR. NEWDEGATE said, the recommendations of the Commissioners for which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed such a preference were against the adoption of the words "the succession accord ing to law." In reference to what had also fallen from the right hon. Gentleman he had always believed that any pretension to the Crown of France had long been abandoned. If there was any doubt about the point the Government ought to bring in a Bill formally abandoning any such idea, though if that were done the lingering attachment which still existed in the minds of certain Sovereigns on the Continent, and especially at the Court of Rome, to the House of Stuart should, in an international sense, be equally repudiated. He thought that the Act of Settlement ought to be recited in the Oath taken by Members of that House, and he therefore moved an Amendment to the clause, the effect of which would be to include the recital of the words of that Act. MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, he would remind the hon. Member that the subject had been fully considered, not only by a Commission but by a Committee of the House of Lords. The present clause was quite as binding for the purposes contemplated by the hon. Member as it would be if the Amendment which he now proposed were made. MR. SYNAN contended that in promising to maintain the succession as by law established hon. Members bind themselves to the Act of Settlement, which really was the law upon this subject. SIR GEORGE BOWYER said, he wished to direct attention to the fact that the Act of Settlement stood on exactly the same footing as any other Act of Parliament, and was binding upon all her Majesty's subjects until it was repealed. Its validity required no more the recognition of an Oath than did the Statute of Frauds or the Statute of Uses. The old Oath of Allegiance was praised by Lord Hale for not being entangled with intricate clauses, and yet comprehending the whole duty of subject to Sovereign. The proposed Oath was in some measure a return to that Oath. MR. SERJEANT GASELEE said, he objected altogether to Oaths, which he regarded purely as relics of a bygone barbarism. The less a man swears the better. What was the use of this Oath? There was no doubt that Parliament could alter the succession, and was this Oath intended to burden them if they wished to do so? Besides, if a man did not do his duty, no Oath would bind him. He did not see why there should be so many dif ferent Oaths. They were so numerous that one could hardly get them by heart. He thought they should amalgamate some of the Oaths in this Bill, though for his own part, thinking Oaths entirely unnecessary, he should be glad to see the Bill got rid of altogether. MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, he thought that the hon. Member for Ports mouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) ought to strongly support this Bill if he had such an aversion to Oaths, because it proposed to repeal a large number of those at present imposed. MR. NEWDEGATE said, he would not have raised this question if he had not been supported by the unanimous opinion of Parliament two years ago. He believed there was an ambiguity in the phrase 66 according to law," while there was none about the Act of Settlement. Some years ago Mr. Dillon, a Roman Catholic Member of the House, said of that Oath, what they were called upon to do was not merely to submit and to be loyal to the Protestant monarchy of this country, but to swear to maintain an Act of Parliament which was conceived in a spirit most injurious and offensive to the Roman Catholic religion, by the terms of which a Roman Catholic was bound, if at any time the Sovereign of the country were to become Roman Catholic, to take up arms and dethrone him. Now, there was a wide difference between binding them to loyalty to the Sovereign, whatever his creed might be, and binding them by positive Oath to take up arms and dethrone their Sovereign in case he adopted the Roman Catholic creed. Now, the expression "to take up arms was merely imported into the discussion per invidiam, for the Act said nothing about taking up arms, but undoubtedly it did release from their allegiance all the subjects of this realm if the Sovereign should become a Roman Catholic. Either there was a difference between the two Oaths or there was not. If there was a difference, then he preferred the present. If there was no difference, why should they change a clear declaration for an ambig uous one. Amendment negatived. Clauses 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to. Clause 8 (Form of Oath of Allegiance in this Act substituted for Form in certain other Acta). MR. BOUVERIE said, there was a growing disposition in certain clerical quarters to dispute the supremacy of lay authority, and therefore he looked with some jealousy on the proposal in this clause to free the clergy from making the declaration as to the Royal Supremacy which was imposed upon them by the Clerical Subscription Act three years ago. He was a member of the Commission on whose Report this Bill was framed, but he did not remember that this point had come under their consideration. He was also a member of the Commission on Clerical Subscriptions, and the point was brought before them and discussed, but the great majority of the Commissioners were against it. Under these circumstances he should move that the words exempting the clergy from the present declaration be omitted from the clause. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "substituted," in line 34, to the second word "and," in line 36.- (Mr. Bouverie.) MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, he regretted that no Notice had been given of that in the Clerical Subscription Act no so important an Amendment. He believed new Oath was imposed-there was simply a reference to the old Oath, and it was that old Oath which this Bill proposed to abolish. The clergy, would, he believed, be subject to a sufficient number of declarations with regard to the Supremacy if the clause were carried in its present form. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." The Committee divided: Remaining Clauses agreed to. Ayes 79; £1,500, and would accept the increase of salary in place of the prospect of a pension. He admitted the Act of 1858 would permit them to deprive the old Councillors of their pensions, but he contended that to do so would be straining it. LORD WILLIAM HAY said, he thought it so necessary that some limit should be put to the term for which the old Councillors should serve that he was quite willing to allow them the pension. MR. HANKEY said, the time had expired for dealing with this matter. tinuing the old for another ten years. He, therefore, recommended the Committee to agree to give the old members an opportunity of serving for another five years at the increased salary, or else to grant them a pension at the end of the ten years. COLONEL SYKES said, he thought faith ought to be kept with the old Councillors, and that common honesty required it should be optional with them whether they accepted any new terms in place of those under which they took office. He did not see why the salary should be raised to £1,500, because many of the Councillors would soon have a right to a Civil Service pension on account of thirty years' service. SIR HENRY RAWLINSON said, he thought it morally out of the power of Parliament to withhold the pension, because virtually the full term had expired, and it was in consequence of that expira tion the Bill was brought in. If the old Councillors had served only five years, the propriety of granting the pensions might be questioned; but it only wanted some forty days of the ten years. MR. AYRTON said, the time had not expired. The Act under which the present Councillors were appointed expressly stipulated that Parliament should have the power of re-considering the terms on which they accepted office. This being so, he thought it monstrous that anyone should say, "The ten years is nearly up; these men have served with the prospect of a pension during these ten years; and therefore it would be unjust to step in and say, Parliament, on re-consideration, could not grant the pensions." He hoped the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India would consider the question in a reasonable and intelligent manner. It would be better even to let them serve ten years more at £1,500 than that no limit should be agreed on. He might observe that they were for the most part in the receipt of pensions paid out of the revenues of India, and incidentally he must protest against the double system of pensions now growing up; pensions were obtained for special services in India from the Indian Government in India, and then they were obtained again, on the general ground of length of service, from the Indian Revenue, through the Office in Eng-sider it, he recommended the withdrawal land. MR. J. STUART MILL said, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had forgotten one matter-namely, that the pensions from India were bought, being derived from stoppages from pay. He (Mr. Stuart Mill) quite agreed that an ample salary rendered a retiring pension unnecessary. But there would be a hardship if, when the expectation of pensions had been held out to the existing Councillors, they were deprived of pensions in the end. If an increase of salary were to be given instead, that increase should range over a fresh series of ten years. But the reason which induced the House to limit the service of future Councillors should prevent it from con MR. OTWAY said, the Act would never have passed if it had been supposed that the appointments would have the permanent character now claimed for them. He would, however, support the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), which seemed to be a fair compromise between the proposition of the noble Lord and that of the Government. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westminster could best be dealt with in a new clause. At present he was neither prepared to accept nor to reject the proposition, but desiring fully to con of the Amendment and the introduction of a new clause, to which he promised to give careful consideration. MR. J. STUART MILL said, he would be happy to bring up a new clause. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MR. OTWAY said, he rose to move that the salary of the new Councillors should be £1,200, and not £1,500. Some officers of State received no more, and members of the Board of Admiralty received only £1,000. Feeling that there might be an injustice in turning members of the Council adrift without recognition of their services, he thought that a graduated scale of pensions might not be indefensible. But there was a great danger of rushing into extremes in such a matter. He thought it very undesirable that, under pretence of introducing "fresh blood,' officials should be elected to the Council immediately upon their return from India, as any misgovernment which might have attended their administration would thereby be condoned. We were bound to consider the revenues of India even more than our own, because the people of India were not represented in that House. He thought it little creditable to the Government that, in a Bill brought forward with such a flourish of trumpets, the principal clause should be to improve the position of the members of the Council, an institution which he regarded as of very questionable utility. as he considered that they had only proved themselves obstructives. No reason had been shown for fixing these salaries at £1,500 each, and he therefore moved that they be reduced to £1,200. Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to leave out the word "five," and inBert the word "two."-(Mr. Otway.) and practical acquaintance with India, whose names and character were known to the public. It was also necessary that such salaries should be given them as would induce them to continue in their offices. Although yielding to no one in his desire for economy, he did not think that retrenchment was judicious when it took the form of stinting the remuneration for the best and most difficult work. It was possible they might get very much the same class of men for £1,200 as for £1,500; but, in the absence of a pension, he did not think the latter amount excessive. MR. THOMSON HANKEY said, that the salary of £1,200 hitherto had been accompanied with some expectation of a pension. In proposing, therefore, to fix it at £1,200, without any pension, the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) was practically lowering their position. He hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart entirely agreed with the view taken by the Mill) and thought the sum proposed by the Bill by no means too great. COLONEL HOGG said, that if it were SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, not proposed to give retiring pensions to that the proposal in the Bill was not to immen of the class whose services it was prove the position of existing members of the sought to enlist, they ought at least to Council. The increase of salary applied only pay them proper salaries. The hon. Gen- to future appointments. The House had detleman, he thought, would have shown cided that in justice Members of the Counbetter taste and more discretion had he cil should be appointed for a term of years consulted those having official knowledge only; and then came the question what of the subject about the labours which was to happen on the expiration of that members of the Council were actually called term. Clearly, it would not be right to on to undertake before submitting his lay on the revenues of India an indefinite present Amendment. The Councillors were number of pensions; but if not, they must a very hard-working body of men, and be prepared to pay the fair market value were quite entitled to £1,500 a year each. of those services which they desired to MR. J. STUART MILL said, that if obtain. The persons required were those it was not for the Council the Government whose names would carry weight, not only of India would be left wholly to the Secre- here, but in India; for if we rested merely tary of State-who before his appointment upon clerks brought up and trained in this was generally ignorant of Indian affairs-country, however valuable their assistance and to such irresponsible persons as he might choose to consult, who if he had a pre-conceived opinion would be likely to share it. The Secretary of State would be left with no regular assistance but that of the subordinates in his office. Of the latter, having himself been included in the number, he entertained, generally speaking, a very high opinion; but he did not think Parliament and the country would approve of handing over the government of India entirely to them. It was absolutely necessary that there should be associated with them some men of standing, of professional knowledge, might be, it would fail entirely to command that sort of respect which attached to the recommendation of persons whose names were familiarly known. On the other hand, by introducing into the Council men of different careers, who had served in different parts of India, and who looked upon questions in a totally different light from that in which purely official minds regarded them, very obvious advantages were gained. A discussion arose upon a recent occasion in the Council with regard to the mode in which a certain canal was to be made, and the territories through which it was to pass. As far as the correspondence went, or the |