Commons Sitting of 2 December 1867

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Thomas Tertius Paget, esquire, for Leicester County (Southern Division).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Totnes, &c. Writs.
First Reading—Totnes, &c. Writs [20].
Committee—Income Tax [16]; Consolidated Fund (£2,000,000).*
Report—Income Tax [16]; Consolidated Fund (£2,000,000).*

CHURCH RATES.—QUESTION.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, that as it seemed to be understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was not likely to be in his place again before Christmas, he begged to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was perfectly competent to answer the Question, Whether, as there were two Bills before the House on the subject of Church Rates, and two others were promised, the Government intended themselves to intro-

507
duce a measure for settling this most vexatious question?
LORD STANLEYsaid, that the hon. Member had not given notice of his intention to put the Question. Till a very short time ago he had fully expected that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been in his place that evening. In the absence of his right hon. Friend, he (Lord Stanley) was not prepared to answer Questions with regard to the business of the House.

THE WRECK REGISTERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NORWOODasked the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will state the reasons why the British and Foreign Wreck Registers for 1866 have not yet been printed and delivered to the Members of this House; and, whether the version of the British Wreck Register that has appeared in the newspapers has been communicated to the press by the authority of the Board of Trade; and, if not, whether he will state by whom it was communicated, or by what means it got into the papers?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE: The Wreck Registers have usually been delivered to Members much earlier in the year. This year much additional work has been thrown upon the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, to which the task of compiling the Register is committed, in connection, with the preparation and passing through Parliament of the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill, as well as in framing regulations for carrying its provisions into effect after it had become law. There has been an unhealthy time in the office, temporarily depriving it of some valuable services; and lastly, the Foreign Wreck Register, which was first added to the British Wreck Register last year, has been made more complete at the expense of much additional labour. These are the causes of the Register being issued later than usual. It is in the printer's hands, and will, I hope, be delivered to Members this week. But in truth the postponement even to the autumn of the publication of the Wreck Register, of the year before very much impairs its value, and it is very desirable that it should appear by March at the latest. Mr. Gray, the Assistant Secretary of the Marine Department, who, as the hon. Member knows almost as well as
  508
  myself, is not a man to raise difficulties or to shrink from work, informs me that this cannot be done without additional hands, and it is absolutely impossible, owing to the way in which the Board of Trade is cramped for room, much to the detriment of the public service and of the health of the clerks, to obtain the required assistance. No version of the Wreck Register has been communicated to the press by authority of the Board of Trade. It would, in my opinion, be irregular and hardly respectful to send for publication Returns ordered by the House before they are ready for delivery to Members. The early publication of the substance of many of these Returns in the papers is a great public convenience, but the communication of imperfect information is obviously calculated to mislead. I believe that in this instance blame has been cast upon the Office by a portion of the press for carelessness in issuing incomplete Returns, when, in point of fact, one of the causes of delay has been anxiety to make the Register as complete as possible. The Secretary of the Lifeboat Institution has been in the habit of obtaining assistance from the Board of Trade in the preparation of a portion of his Report. This is derived from a crude and imperfect version of what appears in a complete form in the Register. This communication, the strict propriety of which may, perhaps, be questioned, and which costs no little time and labour, is made to him for one purpose only. The use of it for any other would be a breach of confidence. But, of course, when the report of the Institution comes out, as it has done this year, before the issue of the Wreck Register, that information becomes public property, and a fresh complication arises owing to the Register being referred to in the Report, as if it had been already published. Arrangements have been made in the Office to prevent for the future the premature and unauthorized publication of Returns ordered by the House. In this particular instance, provided we can obtain space equal to our rapidly expanding work, I hope that an earlier issue of our own Register will be the solution of the difficulty.

POST OFFICE—THE ISLAND OF ST. THOMAS.—QUESTION.
MR. GILPINasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, considering the effects of the recent destructive storm in the Is-

509
land of St. Thomas, in which the wharf of the Royal Steam Company is stated to have been destroyed, and the deplorable loss of life both from this cause and the pernicious effects of the climate of the Island, it is the intention of the Post Office authorities to continue to sanction the Island of St. Thomas, as the chief Postal Station of the West India Mails?
MR. HUNTsaid, that private communications between the Government and the Royal Mail Steamship Company on this question were in progress, and he could not give any further answer at present.

HOUSE OF COMMONS' ARRANGEMENTS COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
MR. BAZLEYasked the right hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne, Whether it is his intention to move for the re-appointment of "The House of Commons' Arrangements Committee" during the present Session; and whether, since the termination of the labours of that Committee in the last Session, he has obtained any information which he could communicate to the House?
MR. HEADLAMsaid, of course he had no intention to move the re-appointment of the Committee for the short period that Parliament would sit now; but immediately after the Christmas recess he would certainly do so; and he would also take an opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the evidence given last Session. He supposed the last part of the hon. Gentleman's Question alluded to a wish expressed by himself and others that information should be obtained as to the size of other Houses of Legislature on the Continent. He had not himself been able to make inquiries; but he had communicated with the Board of Works, suggesting that the desired information should be obtained through diplomatic agency, and that it should be available on the re-assembling of Parliament after the holydays. He understood that that suggestion had been entertained and acted upon.
LORD JOHN MANNERSwas understood to intimate that this was correct.

SUEZ AND INDIA SUBMARINE TELERAPH.—QUESTION.
MR. O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he will place upon the table of the House a Copy of the Memorial lately presented by Bankers and Merchants of the City of London, recom-
510
mending the laying of a Submarine Telegraph between Suez and India by the Red Sea, with a Copy of the proposal made by the Submarine Telegraph Construction and Maintenance Company upon the same subject?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, there would be no objection to produce the paper if the hon. Member would move for it.

MARRIAGE LAW COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Marriage Law Commissioners have agreed on their Report; and, if so, when it will be laid before Parliament?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had received a letter from the Secretary of the Marriage Law Commission informing him that it was probable that their Report would be in the hands of Members in the commencement of next year.

  METROPOLIS—HACKNEY CARRIAGES LAMPS REGULATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHwished to put a Question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on a domestic subject. He wished to know whether his attention had been called to a placard which had been placed on Hansom as well as ugly cabs, threatening a strike at four o'clock to-morrow. He begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he had any power of revoking the licence or otherwise to prevent such an occurrence?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had no information as to any threatened strike of cabmen more than the hon. Member himself. He was not aware of any new power which had been granted to the Home Secretary or any Member of the Government to control them.

ARMY—CONVEYANCE OF TROOPS—THE 40TH REGIMENT.—QUESTION.
SIR ROBERT COLLIERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a statement which appeared in the Western Morning News is correct, to the effect that on the removal of the 40th Regiment from Plymouth to Aldershot the troops were kept on board Her Majesty's troop ship Simoon for three days, without bedding

511
or blankets, and were compelled to lie upon bare boards, without any covering; and whether they were kept without food from five p.m. on the 11th of November, when they left the ship, until they arrived at Aldershot at half past two the next day?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I have felt it my duty to make careful inquiry into this statement, and I hope I shall be able to convince the hon. Gentleman that the newspaper account of the matter has been characterized by great exaggeration. I find it to be true that the 40th Regiment did sail in the Simoon from Portsmouth on Saturday, the 9th ult.—and really I am inclined to believe that this was the most serious mistake that was made. Sunday is regarded as a dies non, and therefore on the arrival of a regiment at a port on a Sunday it is not allowed to land. I do not say where the blame is to fall; but I think it is to be regretted that, under these circumstances, the embarcation of a regiment for such a short passage should be allowed to take place on the Saturday, involving, as it clearly does, the unnecessary detention of the men on board ship. In consequence of the sailing of this regiment on the Saturday it was detained at Spithead during the whole of Sunday, and I believe this is what is to be most complained of. It so happened that on Monday, on account of the state of the tide, the men were unable to land in time to proceed to Aldershot that day, and therefore they were detained until Tuesday morning. It is stated that the men were kept for three days without bedding or blankets, and were compelled to lie on the bare boards. The explanation of this is very simple. In short passages the soldiers do not like to be supplied with blankets. If any are lost, the company losing them has to pay for them, and I am told that in one instance as heavy a charge as £15 was imposed upon the companies for lost blankets. So strong is the feeling among the soldiers on the subject, that on the occasion of the 13th Regiment being conveyed from Queenstown to Gibraltar last summer, although the surgeon was anxious they should take blankets, they one and all refused to do so. In this case, I believe, from the same motive, the men were unwilling to take the blankets. There were plenty of them, on board, and they might have been had if the men had desired them. Blankets were supplied to the women and children, and the men did
512
not have them because they did not wish for them. As to the men being compelled to lie on bare boards, the men are supplied with boards on an incline, and I am told that for short passages the men prefer to lie upon them wrapped in their great coats. The whole of the last part of the statement as to the men being kept without food is incorrect. The facts are that before the men went ashore on Tuesday morning they had tea for breakfast. The Quartermaster Sergeant declined a supply of biscuits because the men had plenty in their messes, and after the men had left the vessel a quantity of biscuits was found on board. They arrived at Aldershot between one o'clock and half past one, and they then found their dinners ready for them.

TURKEY—EPIRUS AND THESSALY.

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN HAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any Despatch in the Foreign Office from Mr. Elliot, dated 1862 or 1863, stating that he had intimated to Mr. Boulgaris, the head of the Provisional Government of Greece, that Her Majesty's Government would see with pleasure the annexation of Epirus and Thessaly to Greece, or words to that effect; and, if the noble Lord will lay the same upon the table?
  LORD STANLEY: I understand that an intimation of the nature referred to in the Question was conveyed to the Turkish Government at that time, but was conveyed, as I explained to the House on a former occasion, only on the supposition which then existed that the Porte would be inclined to receive favourably a proposal of that kind; and when that supposition was found to be erroneous, the proposal was withdrawn and has not been again put forward. The papers in question are of rather a confidential character, and I do not think it would be for the benefit of the public service to produce them.

ITALY—THE ROMAN QUESTION—THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE.—QUESTION.
SIR HENRY WINSTON - BARRONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has consented to have England represented at the proposed Conference on Italian affairs, and on what terms?
LORD STANLEY: I stated on the first day of the present Session the nature and purport of the answer which, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I had given to the French Government in reply to the invitation to attend a Conference upon the Roman question. To that answer I adhere, and I have not modified it in any respect.

ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION—STORES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAY, in the absence of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Anson), asked the Secretary of State for War, "Whether the Stores for the Abyssinian Expedition are to be provided by the Indian Government; whether such Stores as may not be consumed or injured during the campaign are to be returned into store at Bombay, or whether they are to be kept by us, as was the case in China in 1860; and, if the latter is the arrangement come to, whether any officers have been sent out by the Treasury to watch the expenditure and protect our interests, so as to preclude our having to pay for Stores of an obsolete pattern?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The hon. Gentleman is aware that this expedition to Abyssinia is being principally organized at Bombay on behalf of the Imperial Government. I do not quite understand in what sense my hon. and gallant Friend, whose Question this is (Major Anson), uses the word "provided." If he means to ask whether the stores are to be provided at the cost of the Indian Government, I answer certainly not. The expense of providing the whole of these stores will be defrayed from Imperial sources; but the stores themselves will be supplied in a very large degree from Bombay, either furnished by the War Department on requisition from the Indian Government, or obtained by the Indian Government in open market. The answer to the second Question is, that I have no doubt that "such stores as may not be consumed or injured during the campaign" will be returned into store at Bombay, and will not be kept by us. This is an expedition fitted out by the Indian, and not by the Imperial Government, as the China expedition was. With regard to the last Question, a Treasury officer has been sent out to audit the general expenses, but no officers have been sent out with special reference to the stores supplied. When the campaign is over, British
  514
  interests will receive ample protection. The probability is that the stores will be retained at Bombay; at all events, none of an obsolete pattern will be left on our hands.

  HALE'S ROCKETS.—QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that £8,000 was paid, by the Report of the War Department, to Mr. Hale for the invention of the Rockets which bear his name; whether these Rockets were after severe tests finally adopted by the Ordnance Select Committee to the exclusion of Stick Rockets; whether it is to Mr. Hale's 12-pounder Rockets that the following extract from a Despatch of the Secretary of State for India refers (see Parliamentary Paper)—
  "On application to the War Office, however, it was found that there were no 12-pounder Rockets in store, and that it was impossible to manufacture the requisite quantity before the time at which they would be needed; it has therefore been determined to send for the use of the force 1,800 of the 6-pounder Rockets;"
  and, whether Mr. Hale has informed the War Department that from 800 to 1,000 of the Hale Rockets could be manufactured per week?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I have to answer in the affirmative the first two Questions of the hon. Gentleman. £8,000 were paid to Mr. Hale by the War Department for the invention of the peculiar rocket which bears his name, and it is quite true that these rockets were, after what was considered a sufficient test, finally adopted by the Ordnance Select Committee. It is also quite true that the paragraph which the hon. Gentleman has quoted from the despatch of the Secretary of State for India does refer to the rockets of Mr. Hale. But the quotation from that despatch requires some little explanation on my part. I have made very close inquiry in the War Office, and we cannot find there the slightest trace of any requisition from the India Office for a supply of 12-pounder rockets. I find that, in October, I believe, a telegraphic communication was made to the War Office from the Admiralty asking merely whether any 24-pounder rockets could be supplied. The answer to that question was, after inquiry, that there were 1,000 Hale 24-pounder rockets in store at Woolwich. Subsequently Admiral Key, the Director of Naval Ordnance, inquired whether any 12-pounder rockets

  515
  were in store. The answer was in the negative. We were not asked whether we could obtain any. We were asked how soon they could be made in the Arsenal, and the answer was that it would take some time to prepare them. No doubt we could have obtained 12-pounder rockets from the private trade, but we were not asked to do so. On the contrary, I understand that General Willoughby, the Chief Officer of Stores in the India Department, went down to Woolwich to inquire about the 12-pounder rockets, and, finding none in store, made inquiries respecting the 6-pounder rockets. He was informed that all military men were agreed that the 6-pounder rockets were the more useful of the two; he was quite content to accept a supply of them; and rockets of that description were accordingly forwarded for the use of the Expedition. As to the last Question of the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Hale has not informed the War Department that from 800 to 1,000 of the Hale rockets could be manufactured per week. I hold in my hand the only letter received at the War Office from Mr. Hale, and in this, referring to the fact that no 12-pounders were in store, he stated that this appeared most unaccountable, but that a small company might manufacture 500 in a week. He never said that he could manufacture 800 in a week.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL—PERSONAL RATING.

    QUESTION.
    MR. GOSCHENasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the provisions of the thirtieth section of the Act 2 Will. 4, c. 45, which enact that any occupiers who claim to be rated and tender the full amount of rates, if any, then due, shall, notwithstanding the neglect or refusal of the overseers to put his name upon the rate for the time being, "nevertheless for the purposes of the said Act be deemed to have been rated," have in any way been restricted or modified by the Reform Act of last Session: Whether any change in the form of such claim to be rated is rendered necessary by Section 2 of Clause 7, or by any other Clause of the Reform Act of last Session: Whether the protection afforded to occupiers who are entitled to the franchise under the Reform Act of 1832 by the provision that the claim to be rated is sufficient to convey the franchise, whether the overseers comply with the demand or not,
    516
    is extended to those who are entitled to the franchise under the Act of last Session, notwithstanding the omission of any similar provision in the Act itself: Whether Section 2, Clause 7, of the last Reform Act, lays the burden of ascertaining that all the necessary entries are correctly and fully made in the rate book on the occupier on pain of losing his vote, or whether it is only an injunction to the overseers, the non-compliance with which will not invalidate the qualification of the occupier: Whether, if the overseers neglect or refuse to enter into the rate book the separate amount of rate falling on each separate tenement of a block of buildings or a house hitherto rated as a whole, the occupiers of such separate tenements will lose their votes, or whether a claim on their part to be fully rated and to pay whatever may be their proportion of rate, though they are unable to state in their claim what that amount may be, will be sufficient to entitle them to a vote: And, if such claim is not sufficient, what powers have the occupiers to ascertain the proportionate amount of rate falling on their tenement, or to compel the overseers to rate them separately.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: In answer to the Questions of the right hon. Gentleman, I am quite willing to give my individual opinion on the section of the Act of Parliament and the law as it now stands. The first Question is—
    "Whether the provisions of the thirtieth section of the Act 2 Will, 4, c. 45, which enact that any occupiers who claim to be rated and tender the full amount of rates, if any, then due, shall, notwithstanding the neglect or refusal of the overseers to put his name upon the rate for the time being, 'nevertheless for the purposes of the said Act be deemed to have been rated,' have in any way been restricted or modified by the Reform Act of last Session?"
    As far as I can see, those provisions have not been modified in any way. The second Question is—
    "Whether any change in the form of such claim to be rated is rendered necessary by Section 2 of Clause 7, or by any other Clause of the Reform Act of last Session?"
    As far as I can see, there is no form given by the 2 Will. IV. c. 45; and if since the Act of last Session a claim is made to be rated in pursuance of that Act, that is all that is required from the occupier who desires to be put upon the rate book. The next Question is—
    "Whether the protection afforded to occupiers who are entitled to the franchise under the Reform Act of 1832 by the provision that the claim to be

    517
    rated is sufficient to convey the franchise, whether the overseers comply with the demand or not, is extended to those who are entitled to the franchise under the Act of last Session, notwithstanding the omission of any similar provision in the Act itself?"
    In my judgment that protection does continue, because it will be found that the Act of 1832 is, by Section 59 of the new Act, incorporated with that Act and made part of the Act itself. The fourth Question put to me is—
    "Whether Section 2, Clause 7, of the last Reform Act, lays the burden of ascertaining that all the necessary entries are correctly and fully made in the rate book on the occupier on pain of losing his vote, or whether it is only an injunction to the overseers, the non-compliance with which will not invalidate the qualification of the occupier?"
    The Question may be answered in this way—The 3rd section of the new Act points out who is to be entitled to the franchise, and the person entitled as an occupier of a dwelling-house must have been rated and must have paid his rates. No substantial alteration in the law is made by the Act of last Session. Certain things must appear on the rate book or else the occupier is not rated as is required in order that he may obtain the franchise. He is therefore in the same position as the occupier was before; and as regards misnomers and inaccuracies, the right hon. Gentleman knows that there is an Act, 6 Vict., which provides that many of these inaccuracies shall not vitiate the entry on the rate book. In other respects the occupier remains in the same position as before the late Act passed. The next Question is—
    "Whether, if the overseers neglect or refuse to enter into the rate book the separate amount of rate falling on each separate tenement of a block of buildings or a house hitherto rated as a whole, the occupiers of such separate tenements will lose their votes, or whether a claim on their part to be fully rated and to pay whatever may be their proportion of rate, though they are unable to state in their claim what that amount may be, will be sufficient to entitle them to a vote?"
    In reply to that, I beg to say that I believe it will be found that since the last Act occupiers of blocks are in precisely the same position as before. When owners choose to let their houses in flats, as in Victoria Street, a difficulty did before exist, and the same difficulty will exist still. However, under the 7th section of the late Act, the overseers are required to ascertain the occupiers of each separate house within the meaning of the Act, and to put their names upon the rate book. The last Question is—
    518
    "And, if such claim is not sufficient, what powers have the occupiers to ascertain the proportionate amount of rate falling on their tenement, or to compel the overseers to rate them separately?"
    My answer is that they should at once give notice to the overseer that they claim to be occupiers within the entire block, and they would have a right to appeal in the event of the overseer not rating them separately. And if complaint should be made that the overseer wilfully or maliciously refused to rate them separately, an action might lie against the overseer for so refusing. I have now answered the Questions as well as I can. These are my individual opinions on the subject; but it is difficult in a question of this kind to go into all the reasons for such opinions.
    SIR WILLIAM HUTTsaid, that in the borough he represented (Gateshead) the overseer, while rating to the poor the occupiers of those houses which were formerly compounded for, took a different course in their case from that which he pursued with respect to the occupiers of separate tenements. In respect to those houses he placed on the book not the occupier, but the owner; and under these circumstances the occupiers would not be qualified. He wished to ask the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the overseer had taken a sound view of this portion of the Reform Act?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think that the view which has been taken by the overseer is wrong; because under the 7th section it will be found that after the passing of the Act no owner of a dwelling-house shall be rated to the poor rate instead of the occupier, except as thereinafter mentioned; and the next clause is that the full rateable value of every dwelling-house, the rate, and the name of the occupier shall be entered upon the rate book.

  EXPLOSION OF THE "BUBULINA" IN THE MERSEY.—QUESTION.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been directed to the destruction of the Bubulina war steamer in the Mersey, on the eve of her departure for Greece, occasioning a great loss of life: Also, if his attention had been directed to the circumstance of the Greek Government having purchased, fitted up with warlike stores, and filled with munitions of war, two steamers which had formerly been

  519
  employed as Confederate blockade runners, the Bubulina and the Amphitryte: And, if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any inquiry from the Greek Government as to the destination of these vessels, and if they were intended to be used against a Foreign Power with whom we are on terms of friendship and alliance?
  LORD STANLEY: Sir, I have seen the account in the newspapers, as probably we all have, of the destruction of the Bubulina in the Mersey, and I understand that she and another steamer were bought and fitted up for the Government of Greece. That Government not being a belligerent, but being at peace with all nations, has a legal right to purchase and fit out ships of war in an English port or anywhere else. They are the best judges of the amount of naval force which they deem necessary for the protection of their coasts and their trade, and the British Government do not desire to interfere in such a matter. No doubt, if we thought the Greek Government intended to engage in a war with Turkey or any other Power with which we are in relations of friendship, we should remonstrate; but we are not at present in a position to think that any such intention exists on the part of the Greek Government.

  DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH SAXONY.—QUESTION.
  MR. HARDCASTLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why there was no diplomatic or consular representative of Great Britain resident at Dresden, all other Powers having recognised agents there; whether Mr. Barnard, who was properly attached to the late British Legation at Dresden, and who now resided at Gotha, might not be with advantage transferred to Dresden; and whether a British Vice Consul might not be appointed, the nearest consular authority being now stationed at Leipsic?
  LORD STANLEY: When last year I advised Her Majesty to withdraw the mission then existing at Dresden, I did so on two grounds—the first, that Saxony having joined the North German Confederation no diplomatic business of any importance remained to be transacted there, and it seemed to me that the maintenance of a mission at Dresden was an unnecessary expense. The second ground was that I wished, on the part of the British Govern-
  520
  ment, to give an early and public mark of adhesion to the policy of North German Unity. Now, however, the Union of North Germany is an accomplished fact—a fact with which no person proposes to interfere. I certainly still think that to retain at Dresden a mission, costing some £4,000 a year, would be needless expenditure of public money. But it is a fact that there is a considerable resident English population in that capital, and many complaints have been made to me at various times of the absence of any British official to attend to their requirements. I find that all the other great Powers have retained Ministers there; and though not proposing to re-establish the mission, I do intend to compromise the matter by sending a Secretary of Legation to reside there as Chargé d'Affaires. This can be done at small cost, and it will, I believe, be satisfactory to the public and meet the wishes of the British population in Dresden. With regard to the question of removing Mr. Barnard, I think the arrangement I propose would be found more convenient. I am disposed to doubt whether the appointment of a Vice Consul would be necessary; but that is a point which may be reserved for future consideration.

INDO-EUROPEAN TELEGRAPH LINES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FINLAYasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the following statement in the morning newspapers was correct:—
  "Communication by the Indo-European telegraph lines is interrupted owing to a defect in the Persian Gulf cable;"
  also, whether there was any certainty of a land line of telegraph wires from Egypt to Massowah being completed before the rainy season commenced in Abyssinia?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was true that the communications by the Indo-European telegraph lines had been partially interrupted, but it was not in consequence of any defect of the cable, but of a breakage which appeared to have taken place about 100 miles from Constantinople. That circumstance occasioned some small delay; but the communication was kept up over the injured part by means of messengers. He yesterday received separate telegraphic despatches from India which were rather behind their time, the earliest being dated the

  521
  25th and the last the 27th of November. He apprehended, therefore, that communications were still open, though messages were partially delayed in consequence of the break. With regard to the second Question, he was not aware precisely of the state of forwardness of the Egyptian land line telegraph; but he did not think there would be any means of telegraphic communication completed to Massowah before the commencement of the rainy season.
  Lord JOHN HAYIn reply to Lord JOHN HAY,
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he presumed commercial messages were forwarded by messengers over the broken part of the line in the same manner as Government messages; but he had no information on the subject.

  INCOME TAX BILL— [BILL 16.]
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Hunt.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Additional Rates of Duty to be charged on half-yearly and quarterly Assessments.)
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that this was the first time such a Bill had been introduced after the commencement of the second half year, and that there were several Indian and other securities on which both the half yearly dividends had been already paid. He wished, therefore, to know whether the Government proposed to adopt any plan for making those dividends chargeable?
  MR. HUNTsaid, the attention of the Government had been given to this point, but they were advised that the amount in question was so infinitesimal that it was not worth while to make any special provision for bringing it into charge. The amount, as they were advised, that could in any case be collected did not exceed £18,000, and they saw no method of bringing it into charge.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Relief to Persons whose Incomes are under two hundred a Year.)
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHpointed out that the effect of the Bill would be to double the tax for the last quarter of the year, which would be a serious burden on persons of limited incomes. He wished
  522
  for an explanation of this clause, which was taken from the Act of 1863, and was very obscurely worded. He believed, indeed, when first adopted, very few Members understood it.
  MR. HUNTreplied, that he was unable to say whether very few Members understood the provision when first introduced. He perfectly understood it himself, and had not till now heard it charged with ambiguity. No doubt, such provisions were often drawn in rather technical language by officials skilled in the management of the public finances; but this clause had been in operation without leading to any difficulty, and he hoped therefore his hon. Friend would not suggest any.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

TOTNES, &c., WRITS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that on a previous evening his attention had been called by the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) to the form in which the 12th section of the Reform Act had been framed, in which it was provided that the election of Members for the boroughs of Totnes, Great Yarmouth, Lancaster, and Reigate should cease and determine after the Reform Act came into operation. He had since looked into the matter, and found that it was not sufficient to meet a possible case that might arise by a Resolution of that House. He had therefore brought in a short Bill which provided that no writ or warrant should be issued for the election of a Member or Members for these boroughs after the passing of that Act, and that no registration of voters should take place in any of those boroughs.
  Bill to forbid the issue of Writs for Members to serve in this present Parliament for the Boroughs of Totnes, Reigate, Great Yarmouth, and Lancaster, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 20.]
  House adjourned at half after Five o'clock.