to tell a lie hesitated before they committed perjury. That principle had been affirmed by the practice before Committees of the House. He could not agree in thinking that the law of India sanctioned perjury; but he opposed the Bill simply because it would remove a principal means of obtaining the truth from a large class of witnesses. MR. LOCKE said, that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. M'Mahon) had used the most extraordinary argument. He was ready to admit into the courts of India witnesses amongst whom, he said, perjury was an institution, and yet he would not agree to the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock, which rendered the violation of an oath, impossible. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had omitted altogether the circumstance that administration of an oath subjected the witness to the penalties of perjury, if he deposed to what was false. It was not the oath, but the penalty for perjury, that induced witnesses before Parliamentary Committees to be more careful than they were before. He hoped that the House would enable the hon. Baronet to bring in his Bill, in order that they might see how the measure was worded, because a great deal depended upon the verbiage employed. If MR. ROEBUCK said, that he wished to look on the question merely as a practical one-merely as a mode of arriving at the truth in the administration of justice. Now, if they doubted the truth of a witness, what was the first thing they did? They examined him on the voir dire. the witness was a truth-telling man, he might say that he did not believe in a future state of rewards and punishments, although he might know that it would tell against him. The witness, having thus given proof of his love for truth, would be ordered at once to stand down. But suppose he lied, and said that he believed in a future state when he did not, he was allowed to give his evidence. There were three motives which would restrain a person from bearing false witness. One was the fear of punishment, another was public opinion, and the third was religion. Now, what was the value of this last standing alone? The university oaths were an example in point. In that case there was no fear of punishment or dread of public opinion. There was no thing but the fear that Almighty God would punish them if they did not speak VOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.] the truth. Well, persons took those oaths and broke them immediately. Such being the value of the religious sanction by itself, his hon. Friend asked that a person who professed not to be influenced by it might be allowed to get into the box and tell his story. He asked the House to put aside the poor little petty feeling about civilized nations aiding and assisting perjury. Had not the whole of the people of India been indignant at the assertion of a judge, who said that perjury was the common system of evidence in their courts. At present truth was dragged out of lying witnesses by cross-examination, and it was most ridiculous that they should reject the evidence of a man whose very first answer showed that he had a regard for the truth, and yet admit a witness who had no such regard for it. He trusted that the House would offer no objection to the introduction of the measure. MR. SCULLY said, that he hoped there would be no division, and that the hon. Baronet would be allowed to bring in his Bill, in order that the House might see what it was like. His own impression was that there were very few persons who would tell a falsehood that would not also swear to the truth of it. Motion made, and Question put, allow certain Persons to make Affirmations in all "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to cases where an Oath is or shall be required." The House divided:-Ayes 88; Noes 59: Majority 29. Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN TRELAWNY and Mr. DILLWYN. Bill presented, and read 1°; to be read 2° on Tuesday next, and to be printed [Bill 166]. ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL. MR. DILLWYN said, that it was not his intention to proceed with the Bill this Session, nor was it his intention to trouble the House by raising a discussion or dividing upon it, but he would state the principles of the Bill. Having endeavoured to improve the law relating to granmar schools, he found that all his attempts at conciliation had been in vain; he had therefore drawn this Bill so as to embody the principles which he wished to carry 2 L out. As the House was probably aware, Endowed Schools were of two kinds, those with royal foundations and those founded by private individuals. A great many of those with royal foundations were founded in the reign of Edward VI. out of the spoils of the monasteries, and the principle he sought to establish with reference to those schools was that they were for the nation at large, and that no one should be excluded on account of religious belief. With regard to schools founded by private persons, he did not propose to touch them where it was distinctly proved that they were founded for any particular sect; but he proposed to make them available where there was no such restriction. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, he wished to guard himself while consenting that the Bill be laid on the table from its being supposed that he concurred in it. Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the SIR GEORGE GREY said, that although the hour was late for a Committee on a disputed Bill, he still hoped, that as the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee and fully investigated, the House might now proceed to a decision at once as to whether they should go into Committee or not. MR. COGAN said, that he protested against going into Committee on so important a Bill at half-past twelve o'clock at night, which seriously affected the rights of private property. Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned.' The House divided :-Ayes 17; Noes 109 Majority 92. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE said, it that hour. There were other orders on the was too late to proceed with the Bill at paper waiting to be disposed of, and he therefore moved that the House do now adjourn. MR. SCULLY said, that he hoped the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to hon. Member would not persevere with his amend the Law respecting Endowed Schools. House resumed. Resolution reported. Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DILLWYN and Sir CHARLES DOUGLAS. Bill presented, and read 1°; to be read 20 on Wednesday 23rd July, and to be printed [Bill 167]. DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL-[No. 145.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. COLONEL DICKSON moved that the House should go into Committee on this Bill. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." MR. SCULLY said, that he objected to proceeding with the Bill at that late hour of the morning (half-past twelve), especially as no explanation had been given on the first or second reading of the Bill. He begged to move that the debate be adjourned. COLONEL DICKSON said, the objects of the Bill had been twice explained, and it had been sent to a Select Committee. He hoped the House would consent to go into the Bill at that comparatively early hour of the morning. COLONEL FRENCH said, that he hoped the House would go into Committee on the Bill. Amendment, so that the House might be enabled to discuss a measure of that vast importance. No discussion had as yet been taken on this Bill. It was read a second time after a speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Limerick (Colonel Dickson), who had charged him with wantonly obstructing his measure. MR. BAILLIE ČOCHRANE said, he would withdraw his Amendment. House in Committee. MR. SCULLY said, that he must resume his objections to the Bill, which he characterized as a measure of confiscation. He was, however, willing to discuss the provisions of the Bill, clause by clause. Clause 1 agreed to; as were also clauses 2 and 3. Clause 4 (Constitution of Elective Drainage Districts). MR. SCULLY said, that he objected to the words "one tenth," and proposed to substitute for them "one third," having reference to the number of proprietors that provisions of the Bill. were empowered to put in operation the Amendment negatived. Clauses 5 to 12 inclusive were also agreed to. ROMAN CATHOLIC PRISONERS BILL. [BILL No. 140.] SECOND READING DEFERRED. Order for Second Reading read. MR. HENNESSY said, that he proposed to defer it till the 9th of July. Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time on Wednesday, the 9th day of July. MR. NEWDEGATE said, he would move that the order be discharged. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the words "That the" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Order for Second Reading be discharged," -instead thereof. SIR GEORGE GREY said that the hon. Member had taken a most unusual course. MR. WHALLEY begged to second the Motion, and expressed a hope that the House would at once put an end to the Bill for the present Session. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, if his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate) intended to propose that the order be discharged, the proper course would be for him to make a Motion to that effect on the 9th July. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided:-Ayes 66; Noes 26 Majority 40. Main Question put, and agreed to. Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 9th July. FORTIFICATIONS AND WORKS BILL. REPORT. FIRST READING. Resolution reported. SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY said, he thought the proposed expenditure unwise because, assuming that there was danger from our neighbours, the object of the House should have been to get an iron squadron. But if £1,200,000 was to be spent, he contended that the mode of raising the money was inconvenient; and, again, there was no sufficient guarantee how the money was to be spent. There should be in the Bill not merely a schedule, but a specific estimate with every detail, and then, if hon. Members objected to a particular fort, they could discuss it with adequate information. There should also be a provision for a proper audit. SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE said, he wished to be informed when the discussion would be taken on the subject. It was desirable that the House should have before it the results of experiments lately made, which had shown that the largest guns might be used on board Captain Coles' cupola ship without jar or detriment to the vessel, thus upsetting the theory that ships could not carry as large guns as forts. SIR GEORGE LEWIS said, that he was anxious to introduce the Bill, which would be in exactly the same form as that of 1860, and he proposed to fix the second reading for the following Monday. MR. MONSELL said, the objection to the Bill proposed was that it was exactly Bill of 1860. If the precedent were folin the same unsatisfactory form as the lowed, for instance, the twenty-two works at Plymouth would all be classed together, and there would be no separate detailed account for each of the ports. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, when the subject was last discussed, that it appeared to be the feeling of the House the schedule to the former Bill was a very unsatisfactory one, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared with a detailed estimate. Resolution agreed to. Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE LEWIS, Viscount PALMERSTON, and Lord CLARENCE PAGET. Bill for providing a further sum towards defraying the expenses of constructing Fortifications for the protection of the Royal Arsenals and Dockyards and the ports of Dover and Portland, and of creating a Central Arsenal, -presented, and read 1°; to be read 2° on Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 168]. House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, INNS OF COURT GOVERNMENT BILL. [BILL NO. 43.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. SIR GEORGE BOWYER said, that in moving the second reading of this Bill, it would be his duty to enter, in accordance with a pledge given to the Attorney General, into an exposition at some length of the facts and arguments upon which the | in London society, of considerable eminence measure was founded. It was necessary in literature, and deservedly popular with to give some account of the origin of the all those who enjoyed his acquaintance, Inns of Court, because a great ignorance was made a Queen's Counsel. In accordprevailed upon the subject. The common ance with usage, he sent his patent to the impression on the minds of several hon. Benchers of the Inner Temple, expecting, Gentlemen with whom he had conversed of course, that he should receive the usual on the subject was, that the Benchers of honour of being called to the Bench. That the Inns of Court were elected by the Bar. was not done; and as one or two other perThat impression was erroneous. There sons were called to the Bench, this gentlewere four Inns of Court, namely, Lincoln's man wrote to the treasurer, and asked the Inn, the Middle Temple, the Inner Temple, reason of his omission. To that letter he and Gray's Inn. The origin of the four received no answer, except an acknowledgsocieties was somewhat obscure, and diffi- ment of its receipt and an intimation that cult to be traced; but of that it would be it had been laid before the Benchers. Not sufficient to state that, from the first, they satisfied, he wrote again, under the reign were of the nature of voluntary societies, of a new treasurer, and as he obtained no having never received charters of incorpo- explanation of his exclusion, which had ration; nor, indeed, at the present day then become notorious, he applied to the were they incorporated, their property judges as visitors. The proceedings be being held through the intervention of fore the learned judges lasted a considertrustees. It had, indeed, been argued able time, and eventually those who had that they were private societies, and that heard the case declared their unanimous they ought therefore not to be interfered opinion that the Benchers of the Inner with by Parliament, being in the nature of Temple had a right to decide whether they clubs. The best answer to the argument was would add to their number by any election, that they were now subject to the visita- and which of the members of the Bar betion of the judges, which would not be the longing to their society they would add to case if they were merely private societies. the Bench by such election. They said, But, moreover, they had of themselves however, that the mode of election by submitted to inquiries by Royal Commis- which a single black ball excluded was sions, more especially in the year 1855. unreasonable, and strongly recommended Further, they had many important public the Benchers for the future to conduct duties to perform-they held the keys to their election on some more satisfactory the legal profession, which was an avenue principle. This decision fully established to the great offices of the State. The that the right of electing to the Bench was two Societies of the Temple stood on a as arbitrary as that vested in the members peculiar ground, because their property had of clubs. He was told that some change been confirmed to them by a charter of had been made in the mode of election in James I., which distinctly provided that it the Inner Temple, but both there and at should be held for the benefit of the mem- the other Inns the power of exclusion had bers of the legal profession, and the gene- remained as arbitrary as at the time at ral advantage of those societies. The Inns which this decision was pronounced. The of Court were governed by a sort of Com- principles of the election were absolutely mittee, called "Benchers," or "Masters arbitrary self-election, perfect irresponsiof the Bench." It did not appear how bility, and perfect secrecy. These were the Benchers were originally chosen ; but principles which were not admissible accordat the present day they were self-elected, ing to the doctrines of constitutional liberty, the body of the Bar having no share in their and such as ought not to be acted upon by appointment. It was true that it had been bodies having public functions such as usual to call to the Bench all those whom those discharged by the Benchers of the Her Majesty had made her counsel; but Inns of Court, who could refuse either to that practice was not invariably adhered call a gentleman to the Bar, or to give him, to; and even if it were, that would not by admitting him to the Bench, the prodiminish the self-elected character of the motion which was a fair object of ambition. governing body. He might illustrate Such powers ought not to be exercised in his argument by referring to particular the dark and without responsibility. The cases, although in doing so he had no de- duties which the Benchers had to perform sire to go into the merits of those cases. might be divided into two classes-first, Some time ago a gentleman well known those which related to the management of property belonging to the Inns; and secondly, others-namely the admission of students and their call to the Bar, and the maintenance of the discipline of the Bar. With regard to the management of the property, he need hardly disclaim any intention of imputing anything like dishonesty or corruption, but he was convinced that the property might have been better administered than it had been. No doubt, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill), who appeared on that occasion like Cicero, pro domo sud, would quote from the Report of the Commission of 1855 an eloquent eulogium pronounced by the Commissioners upon the Benchers; but it ought to be remembered that the Commissioners were, with one or two exceptions, either Benchers or persons entirely sympathizing with them in feeling and opinion. In the year 1854 the rents of the Inner Temple amounted to £15,227, that Inn not being in the receipt of any dividends; while in the Middle Temple there were dividends to the extent of £1,644 a year. In the Inner Temple the payments from members amounted to £5,941; and in the Middle Temple to £2,875. At that time it appeared that the total annual income of the Inner Temple was £21,168, of the Middle Temple £10,192, of Lincoln's Inn £18,242, and of Gray's Inn £8,343. Now, all that property, though honestly managed, was not managed to the greatest advantage, and to that opinion the Commissioners themselves leant; for they said— of the Church and of the Templars, whom every one knew to have been the greatest antagonists of both Church and Templars. The tiles on the floor of the church represented what was supposed to be a Knight Templar, but the figure was holding his bridle in his right hand and flourishing his sword in his left. It seemed almost impossible that on such a small building the sum of £70,000 could have been expended. [Mr. BoVILL dissented.] Well, he should be very glad to hear that was not so; but certainly, at the period of the alterations, it was generally believed that that amount had been expended. At any rate, it was quite clear, that had the church been allowed to remain as it was, it would have been an interesting monument of antiquity instead of a specimen of the modern antique. Under the charter of King James the property was intended for the general benefit of the society, but the Benchers were the only persons who benefited by it. The barristers, it was true, might dine in the hall, but that privilege was not in any way an incident of residence in the Temple, and, practically, they were as much strangers as any shopkeepers in Fleet Street who might come in and take chambers. The Commissioners had recommended that the Inns of Court should be converted into a legal university; but that had not been done. Ordinary members of the Inns knew nothing as to their management. They saw buildings arise, and a vast expenditure going on; but if they asked any questions on the subject, they would be told to mind their own business. A very costly library had been lately erected in the Middle Temple, notwithstanding the declaration of the Benchers that they had very little money at their disposal; and that library, though much larger than the old one, did not afford accommodation for the books which the former edifice had contained. Hon. Members as they passed up or down a clear intimation that there the river must have noticed the building, room for improvement. The new which was a very tall one, entirely out of buildings of the Temple had been erected proportion, with an angel standing on its in a manner which to some persons ap-front holding a paper. Opinions were dipeared to be very extravagant and quite unnecessary for the purposes of the society. The Temple Church had been so renovated, and so bedizened and bedecked that it had now very little interest for persons who were fond of historical, antiquarian, and artistic researches. The paintings inside contained most monstrous errors in history, because in them certain Kings of England were represented as the protectors "It is impossible not to feel some disappointment that such a large amount of gross revenue as arises from the other three Inns of Court should leave so small an available net revenue; and having regard to the great value of the site of these institutions, a doubt arises whether some mode might not be devised of rendering their property more productive, without departing from the purposes for which these societies were formed." That was was vided as to whether the figure was reading a brief or consulting an Act of Parliament; but some of the public had expressed an opinion, that regard being had to the site, the angel ought to be one of a different description. In honour of its principal promoter, the new library had acquired the name of "Little Bethel." It appeared to him that the great body of barristers from whom the principal resources of those |