Commons Sitting of 27 July 1868

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Prisons (Ireland). *
First Reading—Prisons (Ireland) * [256].
Second Reading—Woods and Game Assessment * [242].
Committee—Poor Relief [186].
Report—Poor Relief [186].
Third Reading—Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) * [210]; Marriages Validity (Blakedown) * [250], and passed.
Withdrawn—Government of India Act Amendment [91]; Governor General of India * [92].

ARMY—FORTIFICATIONS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in reference to the Fortifications Return, No. 157, of the 26th March 1867, in which it is stated that 987 large rifled guns, and 1,104 guns of 95 cwt., at a cost of £1,833,722, will be required for the armament of the said Fortifications, it is his intention to apply the Plymouth Iron Shield, said to weigh 33 tons, or the Gibraltar Shield of 32 tons, or any other

1817
Iron shield, to the embrasures of the 2,093 guns required for the Fortifications, or to what number of embrasures, and at what cost per shield, and the total cost?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, that it was not in his power to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman a decided Answer to his Question. At present no decision upon the subject had been come to, and it would be impossible to come to such a decision until the Government had received the Report of the Committee which was now engaged in considering the late experiments at Shoeburyness. Before any decision was come to it would be desirable that further consideration should be given to the invention of Captain Moncreiff, which might have a very serious effect upon the question of the adoption of iron shields in fortifications.

ARMY—M. CHARLIER'S METHOD OF SHOEING HOUSES.—QUESTION.
MR. ST. AUBYNsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has yet received the Report which he expected from the Principal Veterinary Surgeon of the Army with reference to the mode of Shoeing Horses invented by M. Charlier, and extensively adopted in Paris; and, if so, what is the nature of that Report, and what are his intentions on the subject?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, he had received the Report referred to by the hon. Member, and had given it careful consideration. The Principal Veterinary Surgeon of the Army had attended at the establishment of M. Charlier in Paris, and had watched the manner in which the new mode of shoeing horses was conducted, but his opinion was unfavourable to the adoption of the system in this country. He should not, however, regard himself as being bound by that opinion, as in consequence of the success which was said to have attended the adoption of the system in Paris, it might be desirable before coming to a conclusion upon the subject to make some trial of it in England.
MR. ST. AUBYNsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any objection to place the Report upon the Table of the House?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had no objection to do so, but thought it desirable that the Report of Captain Cockerill, which was favourable to the system, should also be laid upon the table.

NAVY—OLD UNARMOURED SHIPS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN MACKINNONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty have arrived at any decision as to the utilization or disposal of the many millions' worth of unarmoured Screw Line-of-Battle Ships now unused?
  ADMIRAL SEYMOURsaid, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, he would answer the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There were certainly a considerable number of the ships to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred in our ports, but he was afraid the hon. and gallant Member had been greatly misinformed as to their saleable value when he spoke of their being worth millions. The fact was there was no market whatever for those ships, although there was a demand for them as guard, drill, and hospital ships. The subject was now under consideration by the Select Committee upstairs, und in all probability the evidence taken before the Committee would be placed in the hands of Members in a few days.

SIERRA LEONE—APPOINTMENT OF MR. HUGGINS.—QUESTION.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Petitions have not recently been received from the inhabitants of Sierra Leone against the appointment of Sir. Horatio James Huggins as Assistant Judge of the Supreme Court of that Colony; and, if so, what course Her Majesty's Government intend to pursue relative to the facts set forth in the said Petitions; and, whether and what Correspondence has arisen on the subject-matter of these Petitions between the authorities and influential persons resident in that Colony and the Colonial Office?
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, in reply, that Memorials had been received from certain persons against the appointment of Mr. Huggins, but, as he had informed the hon. Member on a previous occasion, the allegations in those Memorials had been inquired into, and they had been ascertained to be unfounded.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he wished to know whether any fresh complaints have not been received since he had put his former Question upon the subject?
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, no fresh complaints have been received upon the subject.

EXPENSES OF WITNESSES.—QUESTION.
MR. BEACHsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the expenses of witnesses that attended in Court for the defence at the Hampshire Quarter Sessions, which were authorized to be repaid to the County Treasurer by "The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1867," have been disallowed by the Treasury?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, as this was a subject which would probably be interesting to other counties besides Hampshire, he would stale that, although the Criminal Law Amendment Act of last year had for the first time authorized the expenses of witnesses for the defence being defrayed by the Treasury, objection was taken in the House to the probable cost of such payments; and his right hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill undertook that no money should be paid on that account until a Vote for the purpose was passed by the House of Commons. A Vote for that purpose was accordingly inserted in the Estimates for the year, and the House did not pass that Vote until the first week in June. The account sent in by the Treasurer of Hampshire was presented before that time, and in accordance with what had occurred with regard to other counties, the charge made for witnesses for the defence was ordered to stand over, and might therefore technically be said to have been disallowed. There never was, however, any intention to disallow the charge further than until the House of Commons should pass a Vote approving the policy of the legislation of last year.

CLERGY ACT OF BRITISH GUIANA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Clergy Act of British Guiana has been forwarded to this Country, for the purpose of receiving Her Majesty's Assent; and, if so, whether he will lay the same before Parliament?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the Act to which the hon. Member referred had not yet been received in this country, although it was at the same time known that such an Act had been passed for the purpose of
  1820
  substituting a provision for the clergy of British Guiana upon the expiry of the present Act next December. The new Act would come into force in January next, and its object was to supply more largely funds for the maintenance of religion in British Guiana when the charge upon the Consolidated Fund of this country for that purpose should cease. The Act, so far from tending to disendow religion in that colony, would have the effect of largely increasing the religious endowments from local resources.

CLERGY ACT OF JAMAICA.—QUESTION.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there has been any Correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Governor of Jamaica relative to the renewal of the Clergy Act, which expires next year; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay the same before Parliament?
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, in reply, that a Memorial had been received from Jamaica objecting to the reduction proposed by the Government in the general religious endowments. No Correspondence had, however, been received. When Correspondence was received there would be no objection to place both it and the Memorial on the table of the House.

SPAIN—CASE OF THE "TORNADO."

  QUESTION.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Spanish Authorities have arrived at any decision in the case of the "Tornado"; whether the owners of that ship have had the benefit of "a proper judicial investigation" and an appeal, as stipulated for in his Lordship's Despatches to Sir John Crampton of 25th and 30th of May, 1867; and, whether there would be any objection to produce all the Correspondence on this subject not yet laid before Parliament?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, in reply, that he had received information that the Tornado had been condemned by the Prize Court at Cadiz, and he had heard a rumour that the decision had been confirmed by the Council of State, but he had received no official information on the latter point. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, he was waiting the

  1821
  Report of the Law Officers of the Crown, to whom the case had been referred, and until he received their Report it was impossible for him to say whether or not any irregularity had arisen in the proceedings. When he received that Report, it would be his duty to consider it, and he should then have no objection to lay upon the table all the Papers relating to the matter which had not reached his hands at the date of the last publication.

ARMY—RETIREMENT OF ARTILLERY OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it be true that £5,000, the moiety of an increase of £10,000, sanctioned by the Treasury to be applied to the Retirement of Officers of Artillery, is to be suspended until a scheme for retirement on some other basis has been substituted, while the total sum calculated to he the proportion for the Royal Engineers has been properly applied to the promotion of that corps?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, it would be in the recollection of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that a short time since the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had put a similar Question to him. As there appeared to have been some misunderstanding with respect to his Answer on that occasion, he had entered into correspondence with the hon. Member respecting it. His answer now was that he did not wish to fetter himself with any distinct engagement upon this subject at present, but desired rather to reserve to himself the power of acting in accordance with what the fair requirements of promotion in the Royal Artillery might demand, and with reference to the plan which he hoped the House would adopt.

ARMY—MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to the slow and unsatisfactory promotion which takes place from the rank of Assistant Surgeon in the Army Medical Department; and, whether he is of opinion that measures should be taken to assimilate the system of promotion in that branch of the Service to that which exists in the Indian Medical Service, where it is obtained after a period of twelve years?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, he could not help taking exception, to the first portion of the hon. Member's Question. The hon. Gentleman could, he imagined, have scarcely been aware of the fact that last year no less than sixty-five Assistant Surgeons were promoted, while in no year during the ten preceding years had the average of promotions exceeded forty. Instead, therefore, of the promotion being "slow and unsatisfactory," it had never been more rapid or more satisfactory than it was at the present time. With reference to the latter portion of the hon. Member's Question, he might remind the hon. Gentleman that the whole of this subject was carefully considered by a Select Committee as lately as 1866, and under the circumstances he did not see that any measures such as those suggested by the hon. Gentleman were required.

  FEES ON ORDINATIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MONKsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Table of Fees to be taken on Consecrations and Ordinations under the Provisions of the Act 31 Vict. c. 135, has been submitted by the Archbishops to the Lords of the Treasury for their sanction?
  MR. SCLATER BOOTHreplied that no such Table of Fees had as yet been presented to the Lords of the Treasury. Some months ago, when the hon. Gentleman made a similar inquiry, he had informed the hon. Gentleman, on the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, that such a Table was in preparation. He had, however, received no further information, and, although he had sent a communication to the Archbishop, he did not anticipate an immediate answer on account of the absence from town and the indisposition of the most rev. Prelate.

INDIA—INDIAN SERVICE MEDALS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether any decision has been arrived at as to granting a Frontier Service Medal to the Punjab Irregular Forces and Regular Troops, European and Native, engaged in important expeditions for the defence of the North West Frontier against the Hill tribes of Afghanistan since the annexation of the Punjab to British India in 1849?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEreplied that the matter was not one in

  1823
  which the Secretary of State could take the initiative. He apprehended that any steps which might be taken in the matter must be taken by the Government of India. He had no reason for stating that a proposition on the subject would be made; but he thought it not improbable that there would be, and as he was disposed to give every encouragement to the system of granting Service Medals whenever it could properly he done, if any proposition of the kind should come before him in this case he would give it his favourable consideration.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg to ask, Whether, considering that a Medal had been granted to the Troops serving in the New Zealand campaign, in 1863, it was intended to grant one to the Troops who served in the campaign of Umballah, where the loss in three months was greater than that which had occurred in three years in New Zealand?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, in reply, that he must repeat that he could not officially take the initiative, but he would communicate privately with the Governor General on the subject.

THE CIRCUITS IN YORKSHIRE.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT MILTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether considerable changes are not contemplated in the Circuits of the Judges for the Midland and Northern Districts; and whether Her Majesty's Government, in the event of any change, will consider the necessity of holding assizes at some convenient place within the Southern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, in reply, that he was not aware that any changes were contemplated, unless changes might be contemplated by the Judicial Commission now sitting. No steps in the matter would be taken by the Government without considering the Report of that Commission, which was now pursuing its inquiries.

ARMY—7TH SURREY VOLUNTEERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to a Letter addressed by him to the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Surrey, dated the 21st instant, and relating
  1824
  to a complaint on the part of the Commanding Officer of the 7th Surrey Volunteers of conduct of Colonel Colville, one of the Inspecting Officers of Volunteers, Whether it is in accordance with the rules of the Service that an Inspecting Officer should make injurious comments as to the discipline of any one Regiment, in his official capacity, to another Regiment, and that, too, without notice or intimation to the Commanding Officer of the Regiment so spoken of?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, in answering this Question, I cannot help saying that it is much to be regretted that the hon. Member in the shape of a Question has made what is, in effect, an ex parte statement; and not only an ex parte statement, but a statement in regard to a transaction still incomplete. The letter referred to in the beginning of the Question was one referring to complaints that had been made by the commanding officer of the 7th Surrey Volunteers with regard to the conduct of Colonel Colville. They were made in a very irregular manner, and the substance of my letter was to request that the Lord Lieutenant would call upon the commanding officer of the 7th Surrey Volunteers to make any complaints which he might choose to bring forward against Colonel Colville in a regular and proper manner. I have not yet received any answer to my recommendation. I have only to add that Colonel Colville entirely denies the imputations referred to in the latter part of the Question, and I am bound to say that Colonel Colville is one of the most able, valuable, and experienced of our inspecting officers.
  MR. WHALLEYattempted to offer some explanation, but was compelled to resume his seat amidst loud cries of "Order."

  BRITISH FACTORY AT ST. PETERSBURG. —QUESTION.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the British Factory at St. Petersburg is a body officially recognized by the British Ambassador?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, in reply, that the British factory was only a voluntary association of British merchants, nearly all of whom were, he believed, members of the Russia Company to which he had alluded on a former occasion. As such a voluntary association it was undoubtedly recognized.

  1825
  He was not aware that it enjoyed any peculiar rights or privileges. Any sums of money raised and administered by the society were, he believed, raised by the enterprize of the members of the factory themselves.

RELATIONS WITH MEXICO.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINGLAKEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What obstacles now impede the establishment of Diplomatic Relations between this Country and the Republic of Mexico?
  LORD STANLEY: Sir, the relations at present existing between England and Mexico are not of a satisfactory character. We have no diplomatic intercourse with that Republic, and, consequently, we have no direct means of affording that protection which we should wish to give to British subjects resident in Mexico. But I wish to point out—though I think I stated it before in this House—that though this state of things is one which Her Majesty's Government regret, it is not directly or indirectly their doing. The fact is that the present Government of Mexico, acting, as I venture to think, not very wisely, but acting, no doubt, within their right, chose to consider the recognition by England of the Mexican Empire an act of hostility against the Mexican Republic, which, they contend, was the only legitimate Government ever in existence in that country, though, of course, during the time when the Empire of Mexico was de facto established, it must necessarily have been in abeyance. They therefore upon this ground thought fit to break off diplomatic relations with this country. We cannot deny their right to do that. Neither do I think it would be—I will not say suitable to the dignity, but consistent with the self-respect of this country, they having taken that step, that we should ask them to re-consider it, and admit us again to friendly intercourse. All I can say is, that whenever they may think it right to take what I will venture to call a more rational view, and show a wish to make up this difference, they will not find any difficulty in the way of a reconciliation on our part. But I think the House will agree with me that the first overtures ought to come from them, and not from us.

  CASE OF MR. CASTLE.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is now in possession of any information respecting the circumstances under which Mr. Castle, of Melton Mowbray, was sentenced to imprisonment and hard labour for nonpayment of costs?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, I have received some information on the subject, from which it appears that Mr. Castle had taken proceedings against a man for using threatening and abusive language. The summons was dismissed, and Mr. Castle was ordered to pay the costs, or to be imprisoned with hard labour. I may mention that the Act, commonly known as Jervis's Act, gives the magistrate discretionary power to impose imprisonment with or without hard labour. Mr. Castle, it further appears, has been several times imprisoned for non-payment of costs, or things of that sort. On this occasion, however, somebody, to prevent his going to prison, came forward and paid the costs for him, and therefore he was not imprisoned at all, nor was he put to the slightest inconvenience, though he protested loudly against the interference of his friends, and professed himself very desirous of undergoing imprisonment.

  ARMY—STOREHOUSES FOR THE WAR OFFICE.—QUESTION.
  MR. ADAMsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Treasury have yet decided between the Admiralty and the War Office, as to the proposal to purchase land and erect storehouses for the latter Department at Woolwich, while accommodation for that purpose can be obtained at comparatively small cost in the naval property at Deptford?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, that the question was not yet decided, and up to the present time the Treasury had taken no part in the discussion. The Admiralty had offered to the War Office a spot in Deptford Dockyard; it, however, was not deemed so suitable for the purpose as the spot that had been originally applied for. It was now proposed that a joint Committee of the Admiralty, War Office, and Treasury would consider the matter, and he had no doubt that in this way a satisfactory arrangement would be arrived

  1827
  at, and that ground for military storehouses would be provided at Deptford Dockyard.

ARMY—KNAPSACKS FOR THE TROOPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WARNERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the 92d Regiment has reported favourably of Colonel Carter's Knapsack, and preferred it, after a careful trial, to the plan of equipment invented and put forward by a Committee sitting at the War Office; whether the Officer commanding the Brigade of Guards has applied to the Horse Guards, consequent upon a limited trial, to have a further and more extended trial of Colonel Carter's equipment, and the nature of the reply given to his application; and, whether the Secretary of State for War will direct that Colonel Carter's equipment, now excluded from trial, be fairly tried, in competition or otherwise, before any new equipment is finally decided upon for the Army?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I am extremely glad to have this opportunity of stating that there is not the least disposition on the part of the authorities either at the Horse Guards or the War Office to deprive the army of whatever knapsack may turn out to be the best and the most convenient. It is quite true that the 92d Regiment has reported favourably of the trials they have made of Colonel Carter's knapsack, and it is intended that the trial shall be extended to the other Highland regiments, as it appears that Colonel Carter's knapsack is better adapted for the uniform and equipments of the Highland regiments than for the army generally. It is also true that the officer commanding the Brigade of Guards has applied to the Horse Guards to have a further and more extended trial of Colonel Carter's knapsack. This, however, was before a trial had been made of the knapsack invented by a Committee appointed for the purpose. The latter, as far as it has been tried, has given great satisfaction. There is no objection whatever to a further trial of Colonel Carter's knapsack being made, if it be thought desirable, as the sole wish of the authorities is to obtain the best and most convenient knapsack for the army.

ARMY—MARCH OF TROOPS FROM ALDERSHOT TO SANDHURST.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OSBORNE: I wish, Sir, to put a Question to the Secretary of State for War respecting a statement which appears in the evening papers. It is stated that on Wednesday last, during the great heat of that tropical day, a flying column was sent out from Aldershot, that nine of the men forming part of it experienced sunstrokes, and that eighty-seven of the men had to be sent to hospital. I want to know, Whether there is any truth in that report, and if there is, whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken any steps—which he usually does in the case of flagrant outrages of this sort—to prevent troops being sent out in flying columns in the heat of the day?
  MR. BUXTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this Question, I wish to say that I have been informed that when the flying column arrived at Sandhurst there was no provision whatever to give them shelter from the intense heat of the sun. A friend of mine was present, and he states that the troops were completely exhausted when they marched on to the ground at Sandhurst, and that there was no shelter or shade of any sort provided for them; there were no tents, nor were they taken into a neighbouring wood where shade might have been obtained.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I have had no information on the subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The House, therefore, will not expect me to answer the Question now. If the hon. Member will repeat it to-morrow, I shall by that time be adequately informed of the circumstances, and will give him an answer.

SMALLPOX AMONG SHEEP IN SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council, Whether it is true that a severe attack of Smallpox has broken out among the sheep in Schleswig-Holstein; and if so, whether it is proposed to take steps to prevent the importation of sheep from that country?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUreplied that official information had been received of an outbreak of smallpox in sheep in Schleswig-Holstein, whence we were re-

  1829
  ceiving upwards of 2,000 sheep per week. An Order of Her Majesty in Council might prohibit the importation from that country, but it was feared that the sheep would still come through some of the Dutch or Belgian ports. Extra inspection had, however, been ordered, but as the disease had a period of incubation of eight days, during which it was impossible to detect that the animals were infected, this did not appear to be any security against diseased animals getting into the country. A quarantine of ton days offered more security, but it must be general, and this would be hard on importers of healthy sheep from uninfected parts of the country. The Privy Council were carefully watching the matter in order to take immediate steps to check the importation of the disease should it appear to warrant severe measures.

THE LATE LORD BROUGHAM.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. ROEBUCK, who had given Notice to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in consideration of the great public services of Lord Brougham, it is the intention of the Government to propose the erection of a monument to his memory, in Westminster Abbey? said: I feel, Sir, so great an interest in the Question that I am about to put to the Government, that I do not wish it to be put with the usual dry formality, and I will therefore conclude with a Motion, though I promise the House not to avail myself of the privilege which I shall thus obtain by indulging in any very large number of words. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his opinion, there ought not to be erected a monument to the memory of the late Lord Brougham, expressive of the admiration in which that great man was regarded by the country? I make this Motion for two purposes—one because, from my very intimate relations with that noble Lord, I have felt the greatest regard and veneration for his memory, and I therefore trust that the House will permit me to express my own feelings on the matter, and the other because it will give the right hon. Gentleman in his reply—supporting as I hope he will the proposal that I make—an opportunity of expressing in a few apt and eloquent sentences, such as he always has at his command, his own feelings with regard to that noble Lord. I have waited long—I cannot say that I have waited patiently—in the hops that some one more
  1830
  competent to perform this task—for I am fully sensible of my own inadequacy—would undertake the duty. But, Sir, no one has come forward for that purpose. The Session approaches its end, and I feel myself obliged to ask the Question of which I have given Notice, and in a few feeble words to express my own convictions with regard to this subject. The character of Lord Brougham's mind was one of vast extent and great perspicuity. He was not merely a philosopher, but a philosopher whose power of teaching was unexampled by any man of his time. He was not merely a philosopher, for as au orator he was able to guide, instruct, and I fear very often to frighten one of the first legislative bodies that now exists upon the face of the earth. And it should be recollected that those great powers of Lord Brougham's mind were always exercised for the good of mankind. It was not merely a personal object that he had in view. I have no doubt that, as is the case with every man, he had personal objects, but whatever powers he enjoyed were devoted to the benefit of mankind. It should also be remembered that when he began his career it was not so easy a task to be the friend of the people as it is now, when that character is frequently assumed as a road to wealth and popularity. At that time he who would be a friend of the people had before him a thorny path. It was Lord Brougham's lot to have frequently to contend with foes of vast power and great influence in this country, and he ran great risk, I do not mean bodily risk, but personal risk, in undertaking the cause for which he so gallantly contended. No matter in what clime oppression appeared Lord Brougham was always to be found on the side of the oppressed. Who will forget what he did on behalf of the African slave r He lent his great powers—not alone, but in companionship with other great men—to strike off the chains from the African slave; and ignorance in every part of the world, and more particularly in his own country, found in him an ever ready and unceasing opponent. There was no man who understood so completely as he did the instruction of the people. He stood alone—he towered above all the statesmen of his time—in his appreciation of the danger arising from popular ignorance, and he did all in his power to do away with that ignorance, and to support in every shape the principles of civil and religious liberty. Every person who could

  1831
  justly feel himself aggrieved knew that he would find in Lord Brougham, in Mr. Brougham, in Henry Brougham, a friend full of counsel and sympathy. I will conclude my observations by remarking that he was a wise, a great, and a good man, that he was one of England's greatest sons, and I think it is the duty of our country to pay that tribute to his memory for which I now ask, to show how greatly he was honoured and admired by his country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Roebuck.)
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER: I cannot help, Sir, expressing my opinion that in all countries the circumstances attending the funeral of the late Lord Brougham were regarded with regret, and something like humiliation. He who was the greatest man of his time as an orator, and in the extent of his knowledge and Parliamentary services, now lies buried in a foreign land, among strangers, while to men far inferior to Lord Brougham the honour of a monument in Westminster Abbey has been accorded. There is a great delicacy, I know, in interfering with the expressed wishes of one who is dead, and I am told, with what truth I do not know, that Lord Brougham expressed a wish to be buried at Cannes. That wish, if it were expressed, arose probably from feelings of humility on the part of that distinguished man, and though we are accustomed always to respect the wishes of the dead, this is, I think, one of those occasions on which the performance of those wishes might be dispensed with. I think the feelings of the nation would be gratified by the remains of Henry Brougham being transferred to this country. His wishes have been complied with, for he has been buried at Cannes; but I trust, for the honour of this country, his remains may now be translated to Westminster Abbey.
  MR. OSBORNE: No man, Sir, could, in my opinion, have given expression to remarks which would have been more acceptable to the late Lord Brougham had he now been alive than those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck); while none, perhaps, would have been more unacceptable to him than those which have fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer). I rise merely for the purpose of pointing out, though I should
  1832
  fully concur in voting any sum that might be necessary for the erection of such a monument as would form a fitting tribute of respect on the part of this House, that the country did not fail to recognize his great merits while he was living. One of the greatest marks of respect ever paid by the House of Commons to any public man in his lifetime was paid to Lord Brougham, the only other instance being, I believe, in the case of Lord Nelson. The patent of Lord Brougham's peerage was made out "for public services," and by the insertion of those words in the patent of his peerage he received a compliment which has, I believe, only been paid to himself and to Lord Nelson. No fees were demanded for that patent, the fees being paid by the country on account of his public services. The House ought to bear that in mind. The peerage was also granted on very unusual terms. I believe two elder brothers were passed over in favour of the present possessor of the title. I quite coincide in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, and I equally dissent from what has fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk. But I do trust that it will go forth to the country that the House showed in Lord Brougham's lifetime that they were not unmindful of his eminent and distinguished services.
  MR. BUXTON: I desire to say a word or two, Sir, in support of the Motion made by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), not only on account of the strong personal regard which I entertained for Lord Brougham, but because I certainly believe that he was one of the most remarkable men that this country has produced. While enjoying intellectual powers of a most extraordinary character, few men were more tenderly alive to the feelings of humanity or more uncompromising in their attempts to put down oppression and its causes. He was, if I remember rightly, I almost the only one who, having fought side by side with Wilberforce with the greatest energy for the abolition of our slave trade with Africa, was able to take a prominent part in the efforts made for the abolition of slavery throughout the whole of the British dominions; and to the latest day of his life he employed his great powers for the abolition of slavery throughout the world. No doubt he had great faults, but he was cast in a gigantic mould, and all his characteristics, whether good or bad, were striking in the extreme.

  1833
  It will not, therefore, be to the credit of the House or the country if we do not make some very decided manifestation of the great esteem in which he has been held.
  MR. DISRAELI: I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield; (Mr. Roebuck) that it is desirable there should be some public recognition of the career and character of Lord Brougham, such as is indicated by the Question he has placed before the House, one which, through the influence of art, shall produce a lasting impression upon the public mind, and keep within its continual recollection the memory of the great deeds of a man who was, no doubt, one of the most considerable persons this country has ever produced. The hon. and learned Gentleman has, with the terseness of which he is a master, but with complete propriety, placed before the House a sketch of the career of Lord Brougham, and made it unnecessary for me to dilate upon it. It may be truly said of Lord Brougham that none more completely represented his age, and no one more contributed to the progress of the times in which he lived. He had two qualities, almost in excess, which are rarely combined in the same person; one was energy, and the other versatility. The influence which creative power gave him, combined with strength of character, alone sustained him in a career which for its duration, as well as for its dazzling feats, has rarely been equalled in this Empire. But, Sir, when I have to consider on the part of the Government how and by what means we can do honour to Lord Brougham's memory in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the country—whether by raising some monument or some statue to him—I am painfully impressed with the failure of most efforts of a similar nature that have been made to perpetuate the memory of great men. Her Majesty's Government are extremely anxious if possible to avoid adding to those unsatisfactory demonstrations of which we have already had too many instances. But this subject has not really been neglected by the Government, for at the time the hon. and learned Gentleman placed his Motion on the Paper—now some months ago—I mentioned the subject to my Colleagues and there was a unanimous feeling in favour of setting up some memorial of the kind referred to if it could be done in a satisfactory manner. I would at this moment also remind the House that another great man has this year left us, whose
  1834
  merits should be recognized in a manner such as the hon. and learned Gentleman has intimated. I refer to one of a very different character from Lord Brougham, but one of whom it may be said, without disparaging the high qualities of that remarkable statesman, that he was not inferior probably to any Englishman who ever lived, but that he towers among the statesmen and poets and orators who have graced our land. I mean Faraday, the greatest discoverer since Newton. There has been a very anxious wish expressed by men eminent in science that a statue should be raised to Faraday. I have had the honour of receiving a deputation on the subject, and her Majesty's Government entirely respond to the wish. But the same difficulty has been in our path in both instances, and the consequence has been that we have not made any proposition to the House on the subject. I do not, however, despair of being able to suggest a plan by which our common object can be satisfactorily accomplished. The subject, the House may rest assured, is not thrown aside by Her Majesty's Government, especially in the case which has been brought under our notice in so striking a manner by the hon. and learned Gentleman. We shall give particular attention to the matter, in the belief that we shall be performing only a public duty, and one of no mean character, if we can in a manner satisfactory to the taste and feelings of the country propose some arrangement which shall commemorate the form as well as the character and services of men so eminent as those to whom I have referred.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we must all feel indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) for having given Members of the House an opportunity of expressing the deep sympathy and admiration with which the House regards the career of Lord Brougham. Nothing could have been more becoming and appropriate than the observations of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck). I had the high honour of enjoying the friendship of Lord Brougham during many of the later years of his life, and I very cordially echo what has been said, better than I could say it, both of his public and his personal qualities. It may, perhaps, not readily have been inferred by those who knew Lord Brougham chiefly from the part he took in the most stormy debates of his times, that there was in him,

  1835
  as my hon. and learned Friend had said an overflowing affectionateness of character, I can testify that that is strictly true. That characteristic entered into beautiful combination with the strong, vigorous, masculine, and even ruder parts of his mental and political composition. Lord Brougham was eminently happy in the length and consistency of his career; in most of the great undertakings of his life he addressed himself to purposes in which his countrymen could not but recognize an ardent love of liberty, a determined hatred of corruption and abuse, and remarkable disinterestedness. It seemed as if a certain instinct led Lord Brougham continually to deviate from the path of mere party politics for the purpose of anticipating the wants of coming generations, and preparing the paths which after-coming men were to tread. The fame of Lord Brougham is a great and secure fame. It would be presumptuous in me to refer in detail to one point that has scarcely been mentioned; but I believe all those who take an interest in the improvement of the laws of this country will ever be glad to own the name of Lord Brougham as one among the earliest, most energetic, and most effective of all those who have laboured in that great and open field. With regard to the mode in which public feeling may be exhibited, I own to sharing the feeling expressed by the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer); and probably the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) shares it also to this extent, that it is a matter for deep regret that this great and distinguished son of our country should not have his remains deposited among us. That I entirely concur in, and without inquiring into the causes of the misfortune, I would add it must also be a subject for regret that it is a matter which has passed beyond our cognizance. With respect to the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown, I would not press upon him any proposition because, as with the prerogative of mercy so with the prerogative of honour, we, as independent Members, should put strong restraints upon our own feelings, and should not endeavour to anticipate or to direct the Advisers of the Crown regarding the bestowal of tributes of public honour. The right hon. Gentleman has adverted to a difficulty which stands in his way. Now, although I do not admit that all, at least, of the recent efforts of monumental art among us
  1836
  have been unsuccessful, because I could point to one or two erected within the last few years which have been eminently otherwise, yet no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has spoken with justice to the difficulty with which he labours when he desires to make sure the result for which he proposes to ask a grant of public money will be satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman will, I am afraid, have to take another point into consideration, and that is, the character in which a grant of public money is to be proposed for the monument of Lord Brougham. In the case of persons whose fame has been simply political every Member of this House must be aware that it has been our policy for a long time past to act with singular reserve; the cases are surprisingly few in which statesmen who have been only statesmen have had the honour of a public recognition in the form suggested for the honour of Lord Bougham. It is, however, for the Government, and the Government alone, to decide whether the fame and distinguished acts of Lord Brougham, though confined to statesmanship, may warrant them in making a proposal of that nature. The right hon. Gentleman has adverted to a very illustrious name in science—the late Professor Faraday—and, although we may not think of placing the name of Lord Brougham, in competition with that of Faraday, yet it will be right for him to consider whether the great efforts made by Lord Brougham and continued with almost superhuman energy down to almost the latest moments of his life for the public weal by means which, in many cases, were beyond the sphere of politics, do not enable the right hon. Gentleman to escape from the trammels of those precedents which impose very strict and narrow limitations with regard to the monuments of statesmen who are statesmen alone. I am sure the question will be carefully considered, and I have no doubt I shall be able cordially to concur in the proposal of the Government, whatever it may be; but in the meantime I express many thanks to my hon. and learned Friend for having offered me an occasion on which I can express my feelings regarding this most remarkable man—a man of whom I wish to take this opportunity of placing it upon record that, although he had lived a life not only of activity, but of contention, I, who knew him well, and knew him only during the years of his retirement, can scarcely ever recollect to have heard him

  1837
  mention any person, either friend or foe, except in terms either of admiration or kindness.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIA—EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.—COMMITTEE.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Mr. Dodson, I think there is nothing in the statement with which I shall have to trouble the Committee to-day which calls for any very lengthened remarks from me. I must express my obligations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) for having allowed the House to proceed with the Business of the day without raising a preliminary discussion in accordance with the Notice which he placed on the Paper. As I just now remarked, I shall have very little to say; but at the outset I must take the opportunity of expressing my regret that this is the last financial statement on which any Minister of State will have to comment which has been drawn up by my right hon. Friend Mr. Massey. As the Committee is doubtless aware, Mr. Massey has left India and returned to this country, although the period during which he might have expected to hold the position of Finance Minister of India has not yet expired. I am anxious to express my great regret that India has been deprived of the services of Mr. Massey; although, looking at the matter from a purely English point of view, I am sure the Committee will rejoice with me at Mr. Massey having again come among us, and will concur with me in expressing a hope that we may see him once more a Member of the House of Commons. I am quite sure that whenever Mr. Massey takes his place among us again, India will feel the advantage of there being present in the House of Commons another statesman who is able to speak with personal information and personal knowledge of the state of that Empire. These intercommunications between England and India are, I feel satisfied, very advantageous to both countries; and I must express a hope that in future we may have the advantage of Mr. Massey's frequent advice upon Indian affairs. I am particularly sorry, however, that Mr. Massey's retirement should have occurred at this particular moment; because at the time he left India
1838
he was engaged in prosecuting an inquiry in reference to a reform in the system of the financial arrangements between the central Government of India and the local Governments. This is a reform to which I attach very great importance; and I think he would, perhaps, have been better able than anyone else to effect it. However, the matter has been set on foot, and by-and-by I shall have occasion to refer to it more particularly. The good work which Mr. Massey has initiated will, I trust, not be allowed to fall through.
And now, Mr. Dodson, I will begin, according to the usual practice, by referring very briefly to the actual accounts which we have received for the year 1866–7—that is, the year ending on the 31st March, 1867. The Committee are aware that the statement made last year with regard to these accounts was a statement founded partly on information and partly on Estimates. It was founded on information extending over about eight months of the year, and on Estimates for the remaining four. Now that we have the actual accounts we shall, of course, find some slight difference in the results, though it will not be so striking as the difference on which I had occasion to comment last year between the actual accounts and the Budget Estimates of the preceding year, 1865–6. Last year it was estimated that the revenue of the eleven months ending the 31st March, 1867, would be, in round numbers, £42,000,000, and the expenditure £44,300,000. The actual accounts show that the revenue for that period was £42,013,000, and the expenditure, in-eluding that for public works extraordinary, was £44,530,000. Therefore, there is an excess of expenditure of £2,517,000, against the expected excess of £2,300,000; and the difference may be explained by the difficulty of making a clear estimate when one month of the year is omitted. I now turn to what is of more importance—the regular Estimate for the year 1867–8. Last year we had before us the Budget statement or Estimate for the year ending the 31st March, 1868, showing that the revenues and receipts would probably amount to £46,783,000, and the charges and expenditure of all kinds, including public works extraordinary, to £48,610,000; showing, therefore, a deficit, according to that calculation, of £1,827,000. The account which we now receive shows that the revenues and receipts are estimated at £48,258,000, being an improvement of very nearly £1,500,000

1839
upon the revenues. But, on the other hand, the regular Estimate for charges and expenditure of all kinds stands at £49,364,000, instead of £48,610,000, showing an increase of £754,000. The general result, therefore, is that, instead of a deficiency of £1,827,000, which we expected, the account for the years 1867–8 only shows a deficiency of £1,106,000. The Committee must understand that when I speak of a deficiency I am indicating the difference between the estimated revenue and the estimated total expenditure of the year, including the public works extraordinary, But it was never intended or contemplated that the revenue would be sufficient to cover all the charges for public works extraordinary. Nor has it been usual to include the public works extraordinary in these comparative statements of revenue and expenditure; but it has now been considered more convenient that I should take them in this form. I only wish to put this caution before the Committee that they may not be alarmed when I speak of deficiencies to such a large amount; for if you exclude these public works extraordinary, and charge their cost to capital, then the accounts would show a large surplus, instead of a deficiency. I put, then, the revenue as £1,500,000 better, and the expenditure as £750,000 greater by the accounts which are just received. Now, what are the items on which the improvement of revenue has taken place? There are three principal items on which almost the whole of the increase has arisen. There is, first, a better return from the Licence Tax, which was estimated to produce £500,000, but which is now estimated to produce £658,000. There is next a gain under the head of Customs of £188,000; and the last is the most important increase of the whole—on the item of opium the increase has been no less than £1,100,000. Opium is estimated to produce £8,814,000, which is decidedly the largest amount that opium has produced for a great number of years past. [Colonel SYKES: Unhappily.] The increase on the whole of these items amounts to £1,446,000, which is very nearly the whole amount of improvement on the revenue. At the same time some changes have taken place in other items; some have increased and others have fallen off—the increase and decrease nearly balancing each other. There has been an increase under the heads of "Land Revenue," "Excise," "the Post Office," "Miscellaneous," and some
1840
others; and, on the other hand, there is a decrease in "Salt," "Stamps," "Mint," "Telegraphs," and one or two others—I mean a decrease as compared with the Budget Estimate, not that the revenue itself has decreased as compared with the revenue of former years. Stamps, for instance, have fallen short by £93,000 of the Estimate of last year; but, in point of fact, the revision of the judicial stamps has proved financially a very satisfactory measure, and has led apparently to an increase in the revenue of some £400,000. The item of Customs shows, I think, a very satisfactory improvement. Comparing the revenue—as far as it has yet been estimated—for the year 1867–8, with the year 1865–6, the last complete year—for the intermediate period of eleven months was a broken year, when a change was made in the date of closing the accounts—I find that in the year 1865–6 the revenue under this head was £2,279,000, and the actual Estimate for this year is £2,545,000, showing an improvement in the recent yield of Customs of some £270,000. Considering what depression there has recently been in India, consequent upon the cessation of the cotton demand, and upon the various other troubles, of which this House is aware, I think we may consider it very satisfactory that there has been this improvement, more especially when we remember that the whole system of Customs duties has recently been revised, a great number of duties done away with, and the tariff reduced to great simplicity. It is also satisfactory to observe that the addition made to the export duty on grain—of which I expressed doubts last year—has not been attended with any evil effect. Mr. Massey, in his statement, makes this observation—
"From the accounts we have received at the Custom House, it will be found that during the eleven months the increased duty has been in operation the exportation of grain has increased from 355,000 maunds to 645,000 maunds, so that it is clear that the increased duty on exportation has not caused any diminution in the quantity exported, but that the exportation has gone on and increased very largely."
Under these circumstances, Mr. Massey naturally says that he is not inclined to take off or to alter the duty. But I feel bound to say that, upon general principles, I regret that there should be any imposition of export duties, and I hope that in process of time it may be found possible to dispense with them, and that we shall find the benefit in the encouragement of trade

1841
as soon as these duties are taken off. This, however, is matter of theory; in practice I am bound to admit they have not worked badly.
To convey a complete view of the case to the Committee, I must now inquire under what heads the expenditure has increased by £750,000 or thereabouts. Indian expenditure is divisible roughly under four heads. There are, first of all, the ordinary charges of India, including the whole of the army and public services of the country; then there are the charges for public works extraordinary; then the head for the net expenditure in England, which includes the stores sent out to India; and, lastly, the head of guaranteed interest upon railway capital. Upon three of these four heads I find that there has been an excess, and a saving only on the: fourth. I am sorry to say that the saving is upon the one head on which I would have gladly seen an excess, and that is the head of public works extraordinary. Under that head the Budget Estimate provided for a sum of £3,513,000, but the regular Estimate only anticipates an expenditure of £2,761,000, so that there is a difference of about £750,000 between the expenditure as originally estimated and as afterwards determined on. [Colonel SYKES: Is that decided on by the excess of revenue?] It has nothing to do with revenue. There is an increase in the ordinary charges in India of £265,000; there is an increase in the net expenditure in England of £580,000, and there is an increase in the guaranteed interest (less traffic receipts) on railways in India of £660,000. On these three items, put together, there is an increase of £1,400,000 or £1,500,000, which would pretty nearly have balanced the improvement in the revenue. In fact, if there had not been the reduction in the account on public works extraordinary the great increase on opium and the Licence Tax and Customs would have been entirely swallowed up by the increase in the expenditure under those three heads. That is certainly not a satisfactory statement. I have looked into the causes of this increase; and first, as to the increase under the head of ordinary charges in India, which amounts to £265,000, the increase is due, in the first place, to some considerable advance under die head of opium. The large receipts from opium may have caused some increase in the charges in respect to it. I find it stated that the increased receipt under opium is due to the
1842
sale of an increased quantity at a higher price, while the increased expenditure is due to the payment of arrears of the past year and advances to cultivators. There is also an increase in the marine charges; but it is chiefly due to expenditure in the purchase of stores at Bombay, probably for the Abyssinian expedition. That is a matter of account, and will be repaid from the Imperial Exchequer; therefore it is not of much importance. There is, however, an increase in the army charges, arising from a variety of small additions, which, I am afraid, must be taken as indicating a tendency to an increase rather than a restriction of expenditure under that head; and this is a matter which requires very carefully to be watched. With regard to the net expenditure in England, including stores sent out for the public service of India, there is an increase of £580,000. Of that, about £100,000 is merely nominal—that is, there are certain items which were formerly provided under different heads which have now been included in the payments under this head. Other sums have to be deducted, and the adjustment will be made with the Imperial Government on account of troops serving in India. A sum of £100,000 has been paid by the settlement of old claims, and there is £28,000 on the furlough allowances. There is a considerable sum—£91,000—for passages of officers and troops, £44,000 on account of the overland service, and a further sum on account of the Victoria Hospital at Suez, which are items that have been introduced by the system of overland transport. [Colonel SYKES: What is the amount paid to Lord Clive's representatives?] £23,079. The other head in which there has been an increase is the guaranteed interest on Indian railway capital, which amounts to £660,000—that is, the additional sum paid in interest and the falling off in the traffic receipts have caused the balance of the account to be to that extent against us under that head. That is mainly due to the accident on the Great Indian Peninsula line, which caused a considerable falling off in the traffic, and to the diminution of the cotton trade. There has also been a falling off on the East India line. In one way or another the result of the year has been less favourable to us in that respect, and the amount we have to pay is £660,000 more than was estimated at the time the last Budget was brought forward. Under all these circumstances, there is nothing in the out-

1843
turn of 1867–8 that we can look at with any great satisfaction. Undoubtedly the net result looks satisfactory; an Estimate was made that we should have a deficiency of £1,800,000, and we have only a deficiency of £1,100,000. That looks as if matters had improved, but we find a great increase of revenue due to the increase of that most uncertain of all sources of revenue—opium, while the increase in the expenditure is of a character which I fear I must describe as permanent; and, in point of fact, we should have had no improvement at all but for the fact that the sum we expected to spend on public works has not been spent. With regard to that non-expenditure, it is certainly not the duty of the Government of India to force any expenditure. It is better that we should be careful in undertaking projects which, however promising, may, after all, involve the State cither in loss, or in the necessity of lying out of its money for some time. It is proper to be cautious in these matters. Money will be quite quickly enough spent if it be well spent. I do not find any fault with the Government of India for not spending the whole money they had estimated to spend. I believe they were very careful in examining the different projects submitted to them, and we now find the benefit of their caution. At the same time, this is not a matter—the non-expenditure of the estimated amount on public works—on which we can look with any pride or pleasure. That, then, is the account of the regular Estimate of the year ending on the 31st of March last. The Committee understand that it is an account made up from actual information for about eight months of the year, and from a close Estimate for the remaining four. I now come to the Budget Estimate for the current year—the year which expires on the 31st of March next. I estimate the revenue and receipts at £48,586,900, and the charges of all sorts at £40,613,394—leaving a deficiency of £1,026,494. That is the gross amount, allowing all public works extraordinary to fall under the head of charge. Under the head of public works extraordinary there are charges of £3,092,090; and if that were removed from the Budget and charged to capital you might convert your deficiency into a surplus of £2,065,596, just as in the preceding year, if the same thing were done, instead of a deficiency there would be a surplus of £1,600,000. And I think
1844
it would be perfectly fair if I were to make such a statement to the Committee, leaving the item of public works extraordinary out of the expenditure, and representing to the Committee that we have a good surplus for the last two years. But I think it wiser to take the course I have adopted, and that, as prudent men, we ought not to run away with the idea that financially we are in a better position than we actually are. And I am bound to say that this distinction between public works ordinary and extraordinary is one which I view with extreme jealousy. I assent to the principle, as it was enforced by my noble Predecessor (the Marquess of Salisbury), and I have adopted it in my Budget Estimate. I entirely agree with the principle that it is a fair and right thing to provide for that class of public works which are of a reproductive character by raising money on loan. I think it may fairly be compared to the conduct of a landed proprietor who keeps his household expenditure properly within his income, but for real improvements on his estate calls in aid his credit and borrows the money which, in the course of time, the improvement itself will repay. That is a perfectly legitimate and fair operation; but he will be open to the great temptation of transferring to this land account a portion of his ordinary expenditure, which ought to be met out of the year's income. He will be inclined to add a new wing to his house, or to put a new conservatory in his garden, and thus he may go on borrowing to a greater extent than he is aware, and yet all the while he may appear to be keeping a pleasant account at his bankers. No doubt, the temptation will be equally strong on the Indian Government to charge to loans public works that are of an ordinary, or, at all events, not of a reproductive character. I observe that, under the old system, before this distinction between public works ordinary and extraordinary was made, large sums were spent on certain classes of works without having recourse to borrowing. But I find that, since this new principle has been adopted, the extraordinary public works have grown to a very considerable extent, while the charges for ordinary public works have shrunk in a corresponding degree. For instance, in the year 1865–6 we spent upwards of £5,000,000 on public works, and charged the amount to the income of the year. But this year there is put down in our statements of public works charged as

1845
ordinary no larger sum than £3,800,000, being a difference of £1,200,000. It certainly seems curious that, whereas the system of making a charge for public works extraordinary was adopted with a view to undertaking works of a remunerative character, the charges for other works should be reduced. This year we have for extraordinary works a charge of £1,820,000 for military buildings, barracks, and embankments; £800,000 for irrigation works; and £170,000 for special fund works. With regard to the latter two classes of works, there is no doubt that they are precisely the description of works for which it is legitimate to borrow money. Irrigation works, if properly conducted, will, no doubt, in time recoup you, while the special fund works will do so directly because they are works undertaken by municipalities or other independent bodies to whom money is lent by the Government upon proper security. Therefore, as regards this sum of £1,270,000, it is perfectly legitimate to charge it to extraordinary public works in the Budget. With regard, however, to the items for military buildings, barracks, and embankments, we ought to be very chary of allowing them to be treated in the same manner. No doubt, with regard to these latter works, there is a large exceptional expenditure going on which should be included within certain definite limits, and when the contemplated works are finished that exceptional expenditure ought to come to an end. It may not be unfair that such exceptional expenditure should be provided for by a loan, so as to spread it over a certain number of years. That is a principle which we adopt in this country with regard, for instance, to fortifications. Instead of constructing such works out of revenue, we raise money by terminable annuities, which we expect to pay off within a certain definite period. That is n principle, however, which I myself have never liked, and I should be sorry to see it carried further than is absolutely necessary. But in India the safeguards that exist with respect to that system in this country are not to be found, because the money is not there raised by terminable annuities, but is treated as a certain excess over the income of the year, about which we need not trouble ourselves, and is provided for by either reducing the balances or by borrowing the money necessary without any special provision being made for the reduction of the debt. That is a rea-
1846
son for looking with jealousy upon this kind of expenditure, and another reason for doing so is, that there are items in the revenue of India—especially that of opium—which are so uncertain that it is desirable that we should be careful how we incur anything in the nature of debt. Under all these circumstances, there has been some confusion not only in this country but in India—as to what is the actual condition of our finances, and a question has arisen which has disturbed even the minds of several members of the Governor General's Council—namely, whether we can be fairly said to have a surplus or not in the present year, and the question was raised whether it was or was not necessary to have recourse to further taxation. The whole difference turns on the question what is to be reckoned extraordinary expenditure. Under these circumstances I thought it desirable in the despatch which I have addressed to the Government of India, in reply to their financial despatch, to lay down the rule that in future years irrigation and special fund works ought to be the only works which should appear as public works extraordinary. There may be good reason why, when the expenditure upon public works ordinary is very heavy, it may be necessary to meet it by a loan; but the fact should always be recognized that the deficiency to be so met is a deficiency to be provided for out of revenue. Until we lay down that rule we shall never be safe in borrowing money for public works.
I wish now to make one or two observations on the Budget for the present year as compared with that for last year. Taken as a whole, the Budget for the present year shows an increase of £328,000 in revenue, and an increase of £248,000 in expenditure over that of last year. In point of fact, however, the increase on both sides is merely of a nominal character. There is a substantial increase in the item of Land Revenue, which will be £362,000 better this year that it was last year, and this increase is owing to the improved condition of Orissa, and to some new settlements which have taken place. On the other hand, it has been thought prudent to take a reduced Estimate for the opium revenue, which is estimated at £8,385,000, being £400,000 less than the Estimate of last year under that head. The Estimate under the head of Customs duties is less by about £100,000, on account of the decline in the sugar trade in the Central and North-Western Provinces, and other

1847
causes. The total estimated revenue is about £48.500,000, of which upwards of £8,000,000 is estimated to be received from opium. Seeing that opium is estimated to produce more than one-sixth of the whole revenue of India, and seeing that that sum is considerably in excess of the average revenue it has produced during the past ten or twelve years, I think it would be prudent that we should put some limitation upon the amount that we ought to take credit for from this source of revenue, and, therefore, I have suggested to the Government of India that it would be better if, instead of forming each year an estimate of the amount which may be yielded by opium, and taking the full credit for that amount in estimating our revenue for the year, we took a certain sum to place to credit as representing the average revenue we derive from that article, and thus arrived at a fixed and reliable basis upon which to estimate our revenue. In those years in which the revenue from opium exceeds the sum so taken, the excess may go towards strengthening the balances and defraying the charges for the construction of the public works, and should it fall below that sum we might be able to draw upon the balances to meet the deficiency, or we might go into the market for a somewhat larger loan to meet the public works expenditure. I think that by adopting such a course as I have suggested we should be able to get something like consistency and fixity of taxation and of expenditure in India. By making some such arrangement, in combination with an improved system of advances for public works, and by introducing some more careful mode of keeping the accounts of the reproductive fund which we may hope will arise from these public works, we may establish a system of carrying on public works by means of borrowed money upon a solid and secure basis. At present, however, I feel considerable uneasiness with respect to that particular feature in our financial system, because, while I fully recognize as a good one the principle of borrowing for works that are to be reproductive, I am afraid that in carrying it out in detail we may lose sight of the reproductive element, and that we may carry all that comes to us from the public works to the credit of the Land Revenue; and, that so losing sight of it as belonging to a particular fund we may cease to extinguish debt, and may allow it to increase upon us to an extent that may be very undesirable.
1848
Under all these circumstances, I think the policy pursued by Mr. Massey and the Government of India on the present occasion is a perfectly sound and right one—I mean with regard to the maintenance of the existing sources of taxation. It was questioned whether, looking at the account in the more favourable aspect in which, I admit it is capable of being regarded, it was necessary to renew the Licence Tax. To have extinguished ft was a course so popular that the Government might have been much tempted to adopt it. The amount raised by its means was not a very large one—only £658,000 last year, and undoubtedly there were some features in the tax which gave annoyance and which it was necessary to alter. That alteration reduces somewhat the value of the tax, even as it exists; but I think the Government of India were perfectly right in resolving to maintain this mode of taxation. It is after all but a slight burden on the classes who have to pay it, and it maintains a sort of regard to the principle that those who are the possessors of wealth and those who are exercising profitable occupations should contribute something to the interests of the State. I would call the attention of the Committee to the progress in late years of the different branches of taxation. I have compared the taxation, of 1856–7 with the taxation proposed in the present year, taking it under three different heads. In the first place I take the Land Revenue, which can hardly be called a tax, but which is a very important—by far the most important—source of revenue to the State, and the revenue in 1856–7, from this source amounted to something less than £18,000,000, being in fact £17,900,000. In 1868–9 the revenue from this source had risen to £20,400,000, showing an increase under this head of £2,500,000, or about 14 per cent. Then I take the group of taxation which bear upon the consuming population—the Excise, Salt, and Customs. In 1856–7 these three produced £5,700,000, and in 1868–9 they had risen to £10,600,000, showing an increase of very nearly £5,000,000, or about 85 per cent, in this class of taxation. I take thirdly the class of duties which fall upon the mercantile and trading communities and upon the possessors of wealth, such as the Stamps and the Assessed Taxes. In 1856–7 there were, of course, no Assessed Taxes, and the revenue from Stamps only amounted to £612,000. The revenue from these

1849
sources in 1868–9 was £2,942,000, showing an increase of £2,330,000, or about 380 per cent. In the former year the Land Revenue yielded 53 per cent of the whole revenue, while now it produces only 42 per cent. I think, under all the circumstances, that it would have been a pity to attempt to get rid of the Licence Tax, and therefore in retaining it and depriving it, as Mr. Massey has done, of its more objectionable features, I think he has exercised a wise discretion. The Government did not think it wise to turn it into an acknowledged income tax. It is, indeed, very little else but an income tax, and I am not sure that it would not have been well to have given it that name, and to have rendered it a little more productive. But that is a matter upon which the Government of India—who ought to be better acquainted with the feelings of those with whom they have to deal than we are—can better judge than the Home Government, and I am ready to accept their opinion on this point.
I have now gone through the principal heads of the Budget of 1868–9. There is one point, however, relating to the Home charges, upon which I should wish to say a few words. I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that we have this year made an alteration, or, rather, an addition to the usual accounts which are presented to Parliament. We have added to the Return a new account, giving a comparison of the estimated with the actual receipts and disbursements of the Home Treasury for 1866–7, and another account giving a comparison of the original with the regular Estimate of the receipts and disbursements of the Home Treasury for 1867–8. I think it is very desirable that the Members of the House of Commons should have an opportunity of getting fuller information with regard to these Home accounts than they have hitherto had, and I have introduced a new form of account for the purpose of showing what are the differences between our original Estimate and the amount which is ultimately furnished, with a column giving an explanation of the increase or the decrease, so that, in point of fact, they resemble very nearly the accounts of the army and navy expenditure which are laid upon the table, and which are in the hands of hon. Members when the Estimates are before them. This account shows in what respect the expenditure has or has not exceeded what was estimated. In addition
1850
to this, we have adopted this year a new system of referring the accounts to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in the hope that they will examine them and will put any question they may think desirable to the auditor or the officers of the India Office. I am quite satisfied that it is desirable that Parliament should exercise that kind of control and criticism over the whole of the expenses. I am not, however, of opinion that it would be desirable that Parliament should take into its own hands the direction of our expenditure, or that it should endeavour to introduce a system of voting the money that we should spend. I think any system of that sort would prove not only delusive, but positively mischievous, for we all know how few Members of Parliament take a real interest in the subject or have sufficient knowledge to enable them effectively to criticize the details of Indian expense; but frequently a strong pressure would be put upon Parliament by persons having an English interest in the expenditure of Indian money, and this might lead to expenses which are avoided under the present system. I believe that the minute control exercised by a body of men like the Council of India is much more advantageous than any control exercised by this House would be; any acceptance, too, of the responsibility by Parliament which such a control entails would also, in my opinion, tend to introduce laxity into the supervision which that Council exercises in those matters, inasmuch as they would be to a great extent relieved from the responsibility which at present attaches to them.
The statement which I have now laid before the Committee is one, I think, which can excite no great amount of enthusiasm one way or the other. If there is nothing very unsatisfactory in that statement, there is, on the other hand, nothing in it of which we have any great reason to be proud. Our revenue, undoubtedly, keeps up, but it does not increase very largely, and though our expenditure exhibits no large increase, there is a tendency to creep up. We are, undoubtedly, spending a good deal of money on very beneficial undertakings, such as public works and railways; yet, on the other hand, there are many excellent works which we are unable to undertake from want of funds. In the past year I have had to lament that we have been obliged to refrain from carrying out those sanitary and educational measures which we could wish to see

1851
adopted, but the consideration of the Government has been turned to these measures, and we are, I believe, making progress. We have established a sanitary Department in our Office, and we are in communication with the Government of India in respect to improved sanitary arrangements. An impulse has been given to the educational movement, but what the result is likely to be we are not in a position to say. What we have to do is to keep our eyes upon the details of the expenditure, and that is by no means an easy thing to do in this country. It must be done mainly in India, but still we believe that much can be done even here. One step of some importance we have taken; we have put a stop to the system of sending home continually by every mail proposals for an increase of salary or expenditure in this or that Department. We have directed, instead, that all those proposals should be reserved and sent home at one time, so that the whole of them may be considered together; and though this is apparently a very simple measure, it is exactly one of those measures which are likely to tend to economy. I hope it may be found possible in the matter of civil, and more particularly of military expenditure, to exercise a more rigorous control over some details than, I think, has been exercised hitherto. At all events, that is the object to which we are now devoting our attention. I have already said, respecting public works, that we are endeavouring to devise a system by which we shall be able to discover what returns we get from the money laid out upon the re-productive principle. Respecting railways, we are now in communication with the Government of India, requesting them to lay before us a complete scheme for the further prosecution of railway works, and to state what railways should be first completed, and at what rate we can safely and properly proceed. There are some lines which must be very speedily taken up by the Government, from political motives, and there are others which it may be desirable to take up with a view to commercial improvement. I have also spoken of the advisability of establishing proper financial relations between the central and local Governments. I very much regret that more progress has not been made in that undertaking since last year, but those who are acquainted with Indian affairs will readily understand that this is a matter which gives rise to much difference of opinion
1852
and to considerable discussion between the central Government and the local Governments; and it is not surprising that although Mr. Massey prepared a plan and submitted it to the local Governments, we have not yet received the full Reports which have been sent in. We have before us the nature of the proposition in outline; we have also remarks of certain members of the Council and some influential persons upon it, but we have not yet received the views of the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras upon the subject. That, however, is a matter which will be proceeded with. Altogether I think we may congratulate ourselves upon the financial position of India, that our credit keeps good, and that there is a very fair relation between the revenue and the expenditure. Under these circumstances I will not longer detain the Committee, but I will move the Resolution I have placed in the hands of the Chairman, which differs somewhat in form from that of past years, because while it records the figures as usual, it also contains a reference to the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts for the year, and expresses the assent of this Committee to that Report.
MR. LAINGsaid, he saw very little to except to in the clear and judicious statement of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India. No one could doubt the judiciousness of the conclusion come to by Mr. Massey and the Indian Government, and which had been affirmed by the authorities in this country, that there should be no alteration in the taxation for the current year. Whatever objection there might have been to the policy of the Licence Tax when it was first imposed, it would, in his opinion, have been impolitic, without a much larger surplus, to repeal taxes simply because we had had an exceptionally good opium year. He also generally concurred with the right hon. Baronets's observations as to the danger of allowing items of expenditure on public works to be improperly carried from revenue to capital under the head of extraordinary expenditure. Such a practice resembled the condemned system of keeping railway capital accounts open. But he wished to say a few words on Indian finance generally, because it seemed to him that there still remained a disposition in the Home Indian Government to take a rather too gloomy view of the financial position of India, and that might lead to bad results. About five years ago very important

1853
practical questions were at issue, arising out of the doubt as to whether the restoration of the Indian finances after the Mutiny had been so complete that practically the equilibrium had been established. If the equilibrium had been established it would have been obviously right to incur a more liberal expenditure in useful and reproductive works than would otherwise be possible, and it was also clearly right not to impose an excessive amount of unpopular direct taxation to maintain an unnecessary surplus. On those questions he had taken a different view from that of the Secretary of State of that time. That controversy between Lord Canning's Government and the Home Government should guide them for the future. He most cheerfully bore testimony to the fact that the administration of the Home Indian Government under the right hon. Baronet and the Marquess of Salisbury had been of a much more liberal tone than the policy of earlier times; but he could not help thinking the right hon. Baronet had spoken too gloomily of Indian finance, and he (Mr. Laing) proposed to point out why a more cheerful view of things should be taken. During and after the time of the Mutiny, the financial condition of India was one of extreme distress—there was an accumulated deficit in the four years from 1858 to 1861 of £42,000,000, so that the average deficit for the four years was £10,500,000 per annum; and during 1860 and 1861, two years after the Mutiny, the annual deficit amounted to the formidable figure of £5,250,000. Great efforts were then made towards the establishment of an equilibrium, and since 1861 those efforts had been practically successful. During those six years they had been paying their way. For three years there had been a surplus, and for three years a deficit, but the six years together showed that the debt had slightly diminished; at the commencement it was £113,000,000; in 1867 it was £108,000,000. The interest paid in the year 1862 was £5,160,000, and in 1867 it was £4,829,000. It was true, however, that the cash balance in 1862 had amounted to £17,000,000, and that it stood in 1867 at only £11,000,000; so that to within a few pounds India was in the same position as regarded her public debt, less cash balances, now as she occupied in 1862. This, he thought, proved the soundness of the view entertained by Lord Canning's Government as to the preservation of an equilibrium in the Indian Budget. And he thought it right to ob-
1854
serve that the equilibrium of the Indian Budget was very different from the equilibrium of any European Budget, because in the former works were charged to revenue which in the latter would be charged to capital. From 1862 to the present year the cost of the public works undertaken in India was £28,667,000; of which no less than £16,000,000 was for original works and improvements exclusive of the cost of maintaining. Just about one-half of that £16,000,000 was for new civil and military buildings, and might be regarded as adding to the value of the public estate; the other half was for strictly reproductive works; so that £8,000,000 had been charged to revenue, which he ventured to say in the Budget of any other State in the world would have been charged to capital. In India the compensation for land taken for railways was charged to revenue, though it was as strictly a charge against capital as was the cost of constructing the railways themselves. During the last six years £15,000,000, or £2,500,000 a year, had been charged to revenue in India, which, if we took the analogy of any European State or any private railway company, would have been charged to capital. During the same period, though there had been no large war, India had not been completely tranquil and some of the military operations there had been attended with considerable expense. If there had been no increase in the cost of pay and provisions there ought to have been a diminution of £1,500,000 or £2,000,000 as compared with the military establishments of 1861–2; but, instead of a decrease, there had been a small increase. He thought, however, that the expenditure under this head would not have been an increasing one, and he believed that if peace continued, it would be possible to effect a reduction. Here he would observe that his experience led him to believe that if we wanted economy in military matters we must have a civilian primarily responsible for that expenditure—a Minister for War in England and a Governor General in India. In other words, we must not allow a Commander-in-Chief to control his own Estimates. But the Estimates being under the control of a civilian, one man ought to be made responsible for carrying out all the details; and a military man thoroughly acquainted with all the practical details of his profession, was best adapted for this latter duty. He believed that in respect of this matter second thoughts in India had been the worst. In his opinion

1855
the original plan was best, and the amendments made on it by the Treasury were not improvements in regard of economy. A point of difference between him and others who took a sanguine view of Indian finance, on the one side, and those who did not take that view on the other, was in respect of the revenue from opium. He bad heard it said that this was a precarious revenue; that it was a reed which some day or other would break in our hand, and that therefore, we did wrong to depend on it. In 1862, he had occasion to look into the matter very closely, and he arrived at quite an opposite conclusion. He came to the conclusion that there was no reason why the revenue from opium should be more precarious than any other revenue depending upon an artificial taste widely diffused among a large population. He at that time ventured to predict that there would bean increase rather than a decrease in the Revenue from opium within the next few years. He did so because having looked back for a few years he found that in China the expenditure for opium had been steadily and rapidly increasing. For the five years ending in 1857 that expenditure had been £8,000,000 per annum. During the next five years, from 1857 to 1862, it was about £11,000,000 per annum. In 1857 the gross revenue from opium in India was in round numbers £5,000,000, and the net £4,000,000. From 1857 to 1861 the average receipts from the same source were £6,080,000. In 1861 they were £6,676,000 gross, or £4,160,000. He might observe that in the case of opium the net revenue was the thing to look to, as the article was one of Government manufacture. Between 1861 and 1867 the gross revenue had risen to £7,380,000 and the net to £5,600,000. In 1867–8 the gross revenue was £8,814,000, and the net £6,951,000. That appeared to him to be as little like a precarious and declining revenue as anything could well be. The enormous population of China preferred opium to any spirit or other stimulant, and, as the experience of the last twenty years proved that, practically, India had a monopoly in the supply of that article to China, the trade in that article would increase as new communications were opened up. He was altogether unable to see why there was anything more objectionable financially in a revenue derived from the sale of opium than in one derived from the sale of spirituous liquors, or, as in Russia, from the monopoly of brandy.
1856
He was anxious to call attention to a few facts showing the progress of India; for he believed that while it was important to encourage a reasonable and prudent liberality with regard to public works, it was not less important to exercise a wholesome influence upon public opinion, which was being very rapidly created in India. He should be the last person in the world to indulge in anything like self-laudation or puffery, believing that it always defeated its own object; but, feeling convinced that our government in India was not only the cheapest and best of any oriental nation, but perhaps one of the cheapest civilized governments in the world, he felt it to be only right that the facts should be known generally, and that the Natives should not be led into the mistake of supposing that the British rule was bad, economically, or in any other respect. The first question to be considered was the intrinsic elasticity of the revenue. In 1862 Lord Canning's Government had to decide upon the important question of imposing a Licence Tax, and, accordingly, before this resolution was adopted it became necessary for him to go into very minute calculations with regard to the revenue. Excluding all those additions arising from annexations of territory, to which the right hon. Baronet had referred, and looking merely to the inherent elasticity of the revenue, he found that for the previous ten years an increase at the rate of more than £700,000 a year had been going on, and he ventured to hazard the opinion that the tendency was still further to increase. That was in 1862, and in the last six years the revenue had increased from £42,900,000 to £48,935,000, being an average increase of over £1,000,000 a year. [Colonel SYKES: From opium?] Of course, a portion of the increase was derived from opium, and he had already tried to show that this was as legitimate a, source of revenue and as little injurious as any other. But to show that opium was not the only source of increased revenue, he would investigate the progress made during the five years from 1861 till 1866, the date to which the latest complete Returns were available, which seemed to him a period more applicable to the present state of things than some of the examples given by the right hon. Baronet. By comparing the Returns of 1861 with those of 1866 it would be seen that the Land Revenue had increased from £18,500,000 to £20,478,000. Yet during that period there had been no annexations of territory and

1857
no increase in the rate of assessment; the whole of that increase, therefore, must be due to the prosperity of the agricultural interests of India, causing additional and i waste lands to be brought into cultivation. During the same period the Excise Returns showed an increase from £1,778,000 to; £2,612,000; and the yield of the salt tax had risen from £3,805,000 to £5,342,000, the Estimate for next year being even higher. The latter was a very important, increase, because the salt tax was perhaps; the only one affecting the great mass of the population of Hindustan. There was no man so poor as not to consume salt, and the progress therefore of the revenue from salt in India might be regarded very much in the same way in which the Excise Returns in this country were supposed to throw light on the condition of the great body of the people. Stamps during the same time had risen from £1,182,000 to £1,994,000. These were all items independent of opium, and they exhibited a rapid and satisfactory state of progress. The Government grants for education had increased in five years from £235,000 to £440,000; but, besides this, he found from official Returns that the amount expended upon education from local and private sources, other than grants from the State, had increased from £128,000 to £330,000—that was to say, had increased nearly three-fold in five years. The average attendance of scholars had risen from 333,000 to 559,000, or 66 per cent. The increase of intelligence was shown in another way; the number of letters and newspapers sent through the Post Office had increased from 47,077,000 in 1861 to 59,931,000 in 1866. In fact, reviewing the career of India for these six years, he knew no other country in the history of the world in which such a great material progress had been made. The increase in the imports and exports was something almost fabulous. The aggregate imports and exports which in 1861 amounted to £68,000,000 in 1866 had risen to £123,000,000—that was to say, had very nearly doubled in five years. The amount of bullion imported into India during the last six years amounted to no less than £115,000,000. The tonnage of shipping entered and cleared rose from 5,101,000 in 1861 to 7,621,000 in 1866, and the railway mileage increased from 1,028 to 3,452 miles. The gross receipts upon these lines stood at £730,000 in the former year, and £4,607,000 in the latter. Contrasting these figures with the financial
1858
working of the government of any other country in the world that he was aware of, the results, he believed, must prove most creditable to British government in India. He was the more anxious to dwell upon these points because last year an authority no less eminent than the Marquess of Salisbury expressed, in language which had since become memorable, a doubt whether, as a whole, British rule in India had proved a benefit to the Natives or not. He was very glad that doubt had been expressed, because it had led to what was no doubt a very useful inquiry, and to the production of a body of most valuable Reports, which must convey to the mind of any gentleman who read them attentively the impression that British rule had undoubtedly been of the greatest possible benefit to India. The taxation of India was lighter than that of any other civilized country in the world. There could be no reasonable doubt that the revenue raised from land there was in the nature of a rent, and that if it were not paid to the State it would be paid to private proprietors. The large revenue from opium, moreover, was not really paid by India, but by the consumers in China. If these two items were deducted, the whole amount of revenue raised in India would be only £18,000,000 a year; but even of this limited amount about £1,500,000 accrued from the tribute paid by other native princes, and for services, such as that of the Post Office, for which an equivalent was given. A careful analysis, therefore, of the taxation levied in India for the purposes of the public administrations, civil and military, would show that this did not exceed £15,000,000 a year, which would be about 2s. per head on the population of British India, numbering 150,000,000. But, even if the question affecting the nature of the land revenue were waived, and this were treated as an Imperial tax, even then the taxation of the population would be under 5s. a head. in no country in the world, making a pretence to civilization, was the taxation upon so low a scale; he did not refer merely to highly taxed countries like England or France, where the taxation was at the rate of over £2 a head, but to such countries as Turkey, Egypt, or Russia, where, with the comparative amount of civilization which they possessed, the taxation was from 15 s. to 20 s. a head. Take, again, the Public Debt of India. The annual charge was a shade under £5,000,000

1859
sterling, which was but one-tenth part of the revenue of India; and it had been stationary at this rate since 1861; whereas in other parts of the world, not only was the debt large and rapidly increasing, but the annual payment of interest upon it amounted, perhaps, to one-half, or, as in the case of England, to 33 per cent of the annual revenue. And what had been obtained in return for a portion of the obligation so undertaken? No less an amount than £65,000,000 of British capital had been expended upon the construction of railways in India. In India no less than £65,000,000 of British capital had been expended in making water communications and carrying out other invaluable and important public works. Now, while he quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet as to the importance of economy, and deprecated launching out into extravagance in small matters, yet he had come to the conclusion that, in the present condition of Indian finance we, ought not to starve great, important, and necessary public works. We ought not to mind contracting a national debt in India for purposes of primary importance. Although he was as averse as anybody could be from keeping a small capital account open, yet he could not help seeing that it was a totally different thing from contracting a debt in order to carry out public works of a political and commercial necessity, such as railways and irrigation works. It was obvious, for instance, that a system of railways leading up to Peshawur, on the frontier of the Punjaub, was a primary necessity. The political use of such an undertaking must be evident to everybody. As Russia was extending her dominion in Central Asia it was patent that our policy should be to keep on friendly terms with her, and, while allowing her to do what she liked on the north side of the range of mountains, to put themselves in an efficient state of pefence on the south side. With that object we ought to construct a line of railway to Peshawur, and to complete another up the Indus Valley from Kurrachee. He also thought that the Benares irrigation scheme ought to be proceeded with without delay. On the whole, he was in favour of the Government executing these great works, instead of intrusting them to private companies; and this opinion was, he believed, shared by most of the Indian authorities. At all events, he was anxious that there should be no delay; because, while we were higgling with the company which had pos-
1860
session of the field, we might lose the opportunity of raising the money when the money market was in an easy state. Indeed, he particularly wished to impress on the right hon. Baronet the importance of taking advantage of the present condition of the money market, and of the high credit of India to make ample provision for the wants of that country for a series of years to come. It would be necessary to expend at least £20,000,000 during the next eight years or so. He did not mean to say that a sum of £20,000,000 should be borrowed at once, and then locked up to remain idle. He thought that the right hon. Baronet might very well take a leaf out of the book of some railway companies, which had been making provision for paying off their terminable debentures as they fell due over a series of years. The lenders should be allowed either to pay up in full, or leave a deposit of perhaps 10 per cent, on the remaining calls, so as to insure their being paid. Under such a system the necessity was avoided of disturbing the money market by raising a large sum in any one year, while, on the other hand, there was a certainty of getting the money year by year as it was required. By this method the right hon. Baronet might raise the money he wanted within about 5 per cent or so as cheaply as if he were to take the whole at once, and in the present state of the money market the amount would probably be advanced at a very favourable rate. So far as regarded finance. As to general questions, he should not refer to them at any length, though he must say a few words as to the measures to be adopted for maintaining in India the excellent government which she had enjoyed during the last six years. A question had been raised as to the relative merits of personal government and of Councils. In his judgment the question was one of degree. Everybody must, on the one hand, admit that personal government and personal character was the mainspring of everything in a country like India; but, on the other hand, it stood to reason that all matters could not be intrusted to individual impulse, the more especially as the Secretary of State for India in this country necessarily changed with the Ministry. It was absolutely necessary that he should have the benefit of the advice of experienced Indian officials, and he would suggest that it was of vital importance that men of eminence, like Sir Bartle Frere or Sir Robert Montgomery, should, in

1861
returning from India, receive a kind of official retainer to give advice lo the Secretary of State for India. In conclusion, he wished to state that he had listened with great satisfaction to the statement of the right hon. Baronet, whose administration had been on the whole a very enlightened, a very economical, and a very successful one.
MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, I should have been sorry if this conversation had come to an end, without my having had an opportunity of expressing my very great regret that one of those untoward accidents, to which the House is subject, should have prevented the hon. and gallant General, the Member for Frome (Sir Henry Rawlinson) bringing before us a subject, which will, I fear, however favourably matters may turn out, exert a sinister influence on many future Indian budgets. I allude, of course, to the recent advance of Russia on Central Asia. I am as far as possible from being an alarmist on this question. Some who have given much attention to it say that I am too little of an alarmist; but I do think that even in this crowded Session this matter should not have been passed by. There is a difference between panic and wise foresight. A discussion, inaugurated as it would have been by the hon. and gallant General, with whose views some of us do and some of us do not agree, but whose acquaintance with a certain portion of the subject we all admit to be great and almost unique, would have enlightened opinion in Europe, strengthened the hands of the Viceroy in what I consider his wise policy, and above all calmed opinion in India. Far be it from us to wish to see a revival of the anti-Russian feelings of thirty years ago; but let us not deceive ourselves. This is a grave matter. It is for the interest of all of us, and above all for the interest of the Government for the time being that all the best information and all the best thought about Russia, which exists in Western Europe, should be called out for our guidance, and it is known to everyone that the most sovereign means of calling out all the best knowledge and all the best thought existing in Western Europe on any political subject is a discussion in the British House of Commons.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, the right hon. Baronet had brought forward the Indian Budget in a spirit of great fairness. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) that great progress had been made in the trade of India, seeing
1862
that the exports and imports showed a great falling off. It appeared from the official Progress Report of India recently printed that the export trade between 1865–6 and 1866–7 had diminished £17,453,698, and that the import trade, including treasure, for the same period had diminished £ 10,919,196, in all£28,372,894, or 23 percent on 1865–6, and 19 per cent on 1864–5. The number of sea-going vessels had diminished 917, with a tonnage of 227,547, and the coasting trade 11,555 vessels, with a tonnage of 318,907. This was matter for serious consideration. He would urge the desirability of a more speedy issue of these Returns. He thought that the House should not, at the end of July, 1868, he called upon to discuss the Budget and policy of India only up to the 31st March, 1867. In his opinion, the revenue derived from opium could not be a source of gratification to the moral sense of this country, since it rendered us responsible for the destruction of the physique and morale of the Chinese, who were the chief consumers. It was satisfactory to find that education was making rapid strides in India. There were 17,117 schools in India in 1864–5, with an attendance of 435,818 scholars, at a cost of £613,000. In 1866 there were 18,562 schools, with an attendance of 559,317 scholars, at a cost of £770,834. The Government Colleges and private institutions had increased; the Colleges from 295 in 1865–6 to 305 in 1866–7, and the institutions from 2,266 to 2,602 in 1866–7, and other schools from 197 to 425—in all from 2,758 to 3,332, and the scholars in these schools from 121,286 to 134,640, and in the private schools from 7,433 to 13,460. The number of Colleges was increasing; but he must point out that the Natives, who received a superior education at these institutions, would expect employment in positions suited to their attainments, and that, unless such employment was provided for them, they would naturally become discontented. They would not be satisfied with small Government clerkships. In illustration, he would take the number of scholars in the University of Madras who had gone up for matriculation examination. In 1857 there were only 41; but in 1866–7 there were 895, and the total number in ten years was 3,161—of these there had graduated in degrees and honours in the different faculties from 1857 to 1867:—Bachelor of Arts, sixty-three; from private tuition, twelve, Bachelor of Civil

1863
Engineering, five; Bachelor of Laws, twenty-three; Fine Arts examination, 168; and from private tuition, ninety-seven. One candidate has taken the degree of M.D., and three others have passed preliminary examinations. The successful scholars of the Calcutta and Bombay Universities are even more numerous. With regard to finance, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) in thinking that a distinction should be drawn between extraordinary public works, whether remunerative or otherwise, and ordinary annual works. If this were done, instead of throwing extraordinary public works upon revenue the Budget would show an annual available surplus, and this surplus, if devoted to extraordinary public works, would enable us to make considerable progress, particularly with regard to irrigation; for completing extraordinary works recourse should be had to loans. There was a growing feeling of dissatisfaction and discontent with reference to the prospective state of the Indian army. Before the transfer of that army to the Crown regimental bonuses for senior officers on retirement were subscribed to by the officers; but those who have joined the Staff corps have no longer any motive to subscribe, being promoted for length of service alone; the consequence was that the bonus system fell through in all Native regiments, and officers who had expected to retire with a bonus of £5,000, or £6,000, were still kept in the service and deprived of every shilling they had subscribed. Committees had sat in India upon this subject, but with what result? In a literally trading and huckstering spirit the officers had been asked how much they had received in additional pay at every previous step of promotion in their career, and they were told that so much should be deducted from their bonus—that is to say, from the money they had actually subscribed. This had created great dissatisfaction and resentment, and could not have been intended by the kind liberal spirit in which the despatches of Viscount Cranborne and the right hon. Baronet on this subject was conceived. He was glad to observe that the health of both European and Native troops had been very satisfactory—the death-rate of Europeans which formerly was 10 percent, including invaliding, being in 1865, 64,405, 2½ per cent for the death-rate. And in 1866, on 59,941, it was no higher than 2 per cent. The invaliding in 1865 was 4·4 per cent, and in 1866 it was
1864
3·4 per cent. The rate of deaths in the Native army in 1866, on 99,036, was only 1·2 percent, and the invalided were only 1·7 per cent, the happy results, it is to be hoped, of sanitary measures for the European and Native troops. He observed, however, that while the number of troops had diminished by 183,023 officers and men since the Mutiny, the expense had increased by £5,000,000. This opened a wide field for inquiry, and, he hoped, for reduction. While the cost of the Company's army had never been more than £10,300,000 a year from 1851 to 1857, except on two occasions, in 1854 and 1855, when it rose to £11,000,000, the cost of the army in India now was £15,825,791—with an increased number of Europeans it was true, from 42,000 in 1857 to 59,941 in 1868, but with the Native force reduced nearly two-thirds, from 300,000 men to 99,036. Upon the whole the prospects of India, he was glad to think, were not unfavourable. He entreated his right hon. Friend to consider the question of the Native regiments being without officers. In the late Abyssinian expedition some of the regiments had not one of their own old officers. If it were resolved to have only six officers to be named by the Commander-in-Chief with a regiment, surely he would have the common sense to keep the old officers with the men with whom they had served, and between whom and themselves a feeling of sympathy had grown up. To put strange officers with the men was decidedly impolitic and even dangerous.
MR. BAZLEYsaid, while thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India for the statement which he had laid before the House as to the Indian finances, he felt it was deeply to be deplored that the interests of 200,000,000 of men should come on for discussion only at the very eve of the prorogation of Parliament; and he trusted that in future the subject of India would be brought before the House at a time when it could be really discussed. Nothing would contribute more to the prosperity of India than attention not only to the rights of labour, but to proper investments in public works. A large amount of money had been expended that would be really unproductive; but he did not know that too much had been laid out upon productive works. They wanted in India supplies of water, not only for irrigation, but also for communication. The Punjaub furnished an example that

1865
might be followed with advantage in every part of India. With regard to railways, it was to be observed that, while we in this country had about 14,000 miles of them laid down, in India there were not, probably, 4,000 miles. In the United States of America there were probably 40,000 miles of railway. He submitted that in India, instead of 4,000 there ought to be 40,000 miles of railway communication. He congratulated the right hon. Baronet on the prospects connected with the thirty years' tenure of land. It was very probable that there would every year be an increasing revenue from a continually increasing rent; and he was glad to hear that land, in an uncultivated state, was let at as low a price as 1½d. per acre per annum for a certain number of years. At the end of thirty years it would let for 1s. an acre. He rejoiced to hear that efforts were being made to increase the quantity and improve the quality of the cotton, and that, according to the gentlemen who had traveled through the cotton cultivating districts, that there was an improvement in the crop. He would be glad to see an agricultural inspection of cotton through the whole of India, and also that there should be a system of agricultural statistics. By that means India would attain a state of prosperity to which she had hitherto been a stranger. One great proof of the progress that had been made was that the price of labour had been considerably increased. He wished very much to see a remission altogether of the duty upon salt, as no greater boon could be conferred upon the inhabitants of India, He trusted that every effort would be made to develop the resources of the country; and in that case he thought that India had a great future before her. In a word, he asked for no favour for our Eastern possessions, he only demanded that justice should be done them. To see palatial structures rising and costly entertainments given at the expense of India was not creditable to us. We should not only give the people of India our language and civilization, but in all our intercourse with them we should be careful to do them justice.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that it was only because he believed that British rule, as had been proved to demonstration by the speech of the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) had done good to India, that he rejoiced that we were placed there. He rejoiced also that there was an increasing number of Natives coming to this country,
1866
who would learn to value our institutions; and he believed that history would yet do us justice, and show that there never was a nation in the world that had won a country by arms which had so applied itself to promote the interests of the people as we had done. He had been very much gratified to hear from the right hon. Baronet that it was the intention of the Government to increase the amount devoted to education. Such was the appetite the Natives had for education, and such their desire to improve themselves, that it would be found to be a wise economy to increase the grant for education that had been made. By means of grants in aid much had been done in this country, and much, too, had been done in India already. He entirely concurred with the hon. Member for Wick in what had fallen from him on the subject of irrigation, and he hoped the wise advice that hon. Gentleman had given would be followed. He hoped, too, if they were to meet in another Parliament, the right hon. Baronet would grant him the Committee which he had moved for this Session. With regard to opium, he would suggest whether there were not moral considerations which outweighed the financial advantages of the revenue from this article, and upon this subject his right hon. Friend had promised to lay before Parliament some valuable Papers which had not yet reached the Home Government. He thought that with regard to another point alluded to by his right hon. Friend, it was a mistake to suppose that Mr. Massey had defrayed the sanitary expenses and barrack charges out of loans; injustice to Mr. Massey it should be understood that they were really defrayed out of revenue. The only other point to which he need allude had reference to the Council of India, and he believed that, in withdrawing the Bills which he had introduced on this subject, his right hon. Friend would explain that next year, if in Office, he meant to move for a Select Committee to go into the whole question with reference to the Council. The subject was certainly one requiring grave consideration, for the Council as now constituted did not command out-of-doors the confidence which it ought to inspire. There was a general feeling that it did not contain sufficient new blood, and that most of the members had left India so long that they were not acquainted with the existing wants of the country. When the Bills were introduced he had suggested the appointment

1867
of a Select Committee, and he hoped that next year this course would be followed.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that it was a little disheartening to a Minister, who took an interest in the Government of India, to address empty Benches on this subject. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Hear !] The dozen Members present constituted a sorry display of the interest felt in the welfare of 150,000,000 of human souls. He thought that the Indian Government should advertise for tenders whenever they wanted freight or stores. The chain cables and anchors sent out to India should be the subject of public competition. He noticed that estimates had been given at £37 5s., but those which had been taken were at £85 and £90. And so with provisions. He had been told that a gentleman recently offered to send out coals to Annesley Bay at 10 s. a ton cheaper than the Government were being supplied, but that the offer was declined.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in reply, said, he took the criticisms of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) in good part. It was very useful for India as well as for England, that a check should be placed upon expenditure by such criticisms; but he believed that the principle upon which the Government went on supplying stores of a naval character to India was to go to the Admiralty contractors and adopt the Admiralty scale of prices, feeling that on this point the Admiralty were better judges than the India Office could be. In the case of the chain cables and anchors alluded to by the hon. Member, he believed that there was a special reason why a patented article was necessary, for serious losses had arisen from the drifting of vessels in a cyclone, and it was thought advisable to have a certain description of anchor which would hold more firmly than the ordinary description. With regard to provisions, he knew nothing, but he remembered a gentleman coming to him and offering to send coals to Annesley Bay at a lower rate than that at which the Government were being supplied. At that time, however, the arrangement had already been made with the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and he believed that the offer made applied only to a very limited quantity of coals—one or two ship-loads, which would: have been insufficient for the purpose, He was sorry if he conveyed the impression that Mr. Massey had this year thrown the barrack charges upon loans. What
1868
he meant was that Mr. Massey had put down barrack charges in the category of public works extraordinary, and that the principle recognized was that you might provide public works extraordinary by loan. It was not so on the present occasion. It happened that there had been no loan in India this year, for last year a larger loan than was required had been raised in anticipation of public works, and the balance was available for use in the present year. He would not follow the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Sykes) into all the points he had named, which, no doubt, required attention. With regard to trade Returns, it was rather discreditable that we did not get them of a later date. He was not cognizant of the deficiency until the other day, when, in preparing what he had to say, it occurred to him to make a comparison, and he found that the Returns did not come down later than April, 1867. He thereupon gave instructions that they should be sent within a much more reasonable time; and he did not see why we should not get them quarterly, if not monthly, so that we might know what was going on. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bazley) made a large call upon the Government of India when he asked for the remittance of the salt duty, which produced £6,000,000. A question had been raised as to the propriety of making any addition to the salt duties in Bombay and Madras, in order to bring them up to the Bengal standard; that, however, was prevented by remonstrances that were made, and he was glad that it was. The whole question of the salt duties was being considered with a view to an arrangement. He thanked the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) for the kind way in which he had spoken of the financial statement. That of the hon. Member might be taken as a counterpoise to the insufficiently sanguine view which he had taken; but it was better for one in his position not to be too sanguine and not to encourage expenditure and the increase of debt. He admitted that the hon. Member's picture of the finances of India was, upon the whole, a very fair one; and there was one point he was glad the hon. Member called attention to—namely, the importance of developing the railway system in the direction of the North-West. He already concurred in the importance of that policy. He regretted, as much as his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Grant Duff) did, that the hon. member for Frome (Sir

1869
Henry Rawlinson) had not had an opportunity for bringing forward the whole subject of the foreign policy; but he was quite certain that the true policy was that which had been indicated—that we should abstain from any action which would provoke collision or would produce complications on our frontier, and that we should take all the means in our power to develop our system of communication. This year steps have been taken which would make a considerable stride in the development of communication in the North-West. The Government of India had been called upon to give a general view of the railways with which they thought it best to proceed—keeping separate the commercial system from the political railways, especially on the North-West. In regard to the political railways, the Government had said that, without waiting for anything further, steps ought to be taken for proceeding with, at all events, a portion of them. The Government of India were about to undertake, at Government expense, the construction of a railway from Lahore in the direction of Peshawur, though not further than Rawul Pindee. Commercially it would be a long time before this line would pay, but it was to be constructed for a great political object, and, therefore, it seemed to be an undertaking for Government rather than for a private company. To guarantee a company was a good system when there was a probability of a line paying, but where there was no reasonable probability that it would do so, it seemed desirable to try the experiment of Government making the line. The surveys were being commenced and arrangements made for bridging the rivers and opening up a communication with the salt mines of Rawul Pindee. He attached great importance to the missing link on the Indus Valley system; but it was best to do one thing at a time, and in this case a great deal depended upon the report to be made respecting the harbour of Kurrachee. Sir Seymour Fitzgerald had made a visit to Kurrachee, and sent home a very good report on the state of the works. They had consequently sent out Mr. Parker, an engineer, to see what was the effect upon the bar of the monsoon wave; upon his report it would depend whether Kurrachee was made a first or a second class harbour, and that would determine the direction of the railway. The suggestion to borrow £20,000,000 was not one to be passed over slightingly; but he thought it was a
1870
bad principle to borrow money merely because it was cheap, and that it was just as advantageous in the long run to go boldly into the market when money was wanted. There would be no indisposition on the part of the Council of India to raise money for useful works, whether of irrigation or communication.
Resolved, That it appears by the Accounts laid before this House that the total Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March 1867 was £42,122,433; the total of the direct claims and demands upon the Revenue, including charges of collection and cost of Salt and Opium, was £7,637,527; the charges in India, including Interest on Debt, and Public Works ordinary, were £29,848,640; the value of Stores supplied from England, was £873,363; the charges in England were £5,549,345; the Guaranteed Interest on the Capital of Railway and other Companies, in India and in England, deducting net Traffic Receipts, was £731,049, making a total charge for the same year of £44,039,924; and there was an excess of Expenditure over Income in that year amounting to £2,517,491.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 91.]
(Sir Stafford Northcote, Sir James Fergusson.)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 91.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in moving that the Order of the Day to go into Committee on this Bill be discharged, said, he had hoped up to a late period that the Bill might have been more fully discussed. He fully understood that it was to have been put down for Tuesday last, which would have given him an opportunity of carrying it through Committee; but by mistake another Bill was put down before it, and it did not conic on at all. He might have found a later day, but he had previously said that Tuesday was the last day he could bring it on; and the noble Lord the Member for Taunton (Lord William Hay) had left town on the understanding that the Order would be discharged. Apart from that, he doubted whether he should be justified in proceeding with the measure, seeing that several points of considerable importance remained to be discussed. He was not sorry, however, that he had brought forward the measure, as an opportunity had been afforded to the House of expressing a decided opinion upon two material points of the Bill with respect to

  1871
  the status of the present members of the Council. The House should understand that the Act of 1858 merely enacted that in the event of any change being made the; members of Council should not be entitled to compensation until they bad completed ten years of service, and therefore when the matter was re-opened next year the, only difference in the state of affairs would be that those members of Council who bad completed their tenth year of service during the present year would be entitled to compensation. He thought that the best plan would be when the Bills were introduced next year that they should be referred to a Select Committee. Under these circumstances he begged to move that the Order of the Day for going into Committee upon the Bill should be read and discharged.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged. Bill withdrawn.

POOR RELIEF BILL(Lords.)

  [BILL 186.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 10 (Minister may, subject to Regulations, visit and instruct Inmates registered as of his Religious Creed).
  MR. POWELLsaid, he rose to move the addition of words providing that any inmate in a workhouse, above the age of twelve years, should have the right to refuse to be instructed by such minister, after having been once visited by him. He thought that paupers ought not to have forced upon them the ministrations of persons to whom they objected. He fixed the age at twelve years, because in two other clauses of the Bill the age was named as equivalent to years of discretion.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 28, to add the words—
  "Unless such inmate, being above the age of twelve years, and after having been visited at least once by such minister, shall object to be instructed by him."—(Mr. Powell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would suggest to the hon. Member to insert fourteen instead of twelve in his Amendment, in accordance with the age prescribed in the Industrial Schools Act.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he was willing to insert "of fourteen," absolutely.
  Amendment amended, by leaving out "twelve," and inserting "fourteen."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  Question proposed,
  "That the words 'unless such inmate, being above the age of fourteen years, and after having been visited at least once by such minister, shall object to be instructed by him,'
  be there added."
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he considered it a farce to suppose that a child of twelve or fourteen years of age could form an opinion upon religion, unless it was influenced by some person who had the opportunity of speaking to it on the subject. He thought that some persons competent to examine the child should first say whether it was fit to decide for itself upon the point of religion.
  [Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,]
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) whether he would have any objection to the children being examined by the Poor Law Inspectors before requiring them to declare what particular religion they professed?
  MR. POWELLsaid, that while he had no desire to proselytize, he was anxious to prevent any undue interference with the religion of the inmates of the workhouse.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he wanted the opinion of the House of Commons on this important question, but he could not hope to obtain it at that period of the Session, when the attendance of forty Members could scarcely he secured. This was not merely a question whether a young child should be the judge of his religion, but whether a person of any age, being an inmate of the workhouse, should be compelled to submit to the religious ministrations of any clergyman who might be forced upon him. The Bill required, in the first place, a Creed Register to be kept of every inmate; secondly, that such register might be inspected by the ministers of any religious denominations connected with the churches and chapels in the neighbourhood; thirdly, any such clergyman might, in accordance with the regulations of the workhouse, visit and instruct any inmate, whether he were seven or seventy years of age, whose name appeared on the register. And all this was done, forsooth, in the interests of religious liberty! He

  1873
  contended that it was an outrage upon the principles of religious liberty. And those who opposed such interference with the religion of those poor people were charged with intolerance and a determination to oppress their consciences. The noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord Edward; Howard) had used many hard words respecting him on a previous occasion, because of the course he had pursued respecting the; Bill. But he (Mr. Chambers) had the testimony of a leader among the Roman Catholics of the House that he had not said one unkind word of any of his opponents. Now, he asked the Committee to say frankly, whether the Bill savoured of religions liberty or of religious coercion. He, for one, did not believe that any religious minister had a right to force his religious ministrations upon him, if he had the misfortune to become a pauper and to enter a workhouse. In opposing those provisions he felt that he was the friend of religious liberty. He would not allow any man to coerce even a criminal to submit to ministrations of religion which he did not desire. He believed that the law at present did all that was required, and that the alterations were not for religious liberty, but against it. They were conceived in the spirit of intolerance, and it was attempted to pass them at the fag-end of a Session when forty Members could not be kept together.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he thought there would be no objection to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) if it were coupled with the qualification that in the case of every such child the Poor Law Board should direct an inquiry to be made whether the child was competent to form an opinion on religious matters.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he would object to that qualification in the name of his constituents. They were already too much hindered with the control of the Poor Law Board. They were saddled with enormous taxation, and were left with no power but to carry out the decrees of the Board. It was not a case of opposition to Roman Catholics alone. They objected to the coercion of any class of people, of whatever religion.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would remind the Committee that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) had stigmatized the objections to this Bill as hypocritical. He could assure the right hon. Member that he was lately in conversation with an eminent member of the
  1874
  Bar, not in that House, who would not believe it when he (Mr. Newdegate) told him that the substance of this Bill was that any person in a workhouse must—whether he liked it or not—receive the visits of a minister of religion. It was to-night admitted by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers) that this was the substance of the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman approved of it.
  MR. REARDENsaid, he thought it would be decidedly wrong to intrust power to the local vestries, which had proved—as in the case of the St. George's Vestry, of which he was a member—that it was a power capable of being abused in their hands. The powers conferred by the Bill ought to be in the hands of the Poor Law Board.
  COLONEL HOGGsaid, this was not the first time that the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Rearden) had had the audacity to make a charge against St. George's Vestry, Hanover Square.
  MR. REARDENrose to Order, and called for the withdrawal of the word "audacity."
  COLONEL HOGGsaid, he would use the word boldness instead.
  MR. REARDENsaid, that was equally offensive. He must call on the hon. Gentleman to apologize. ["Order !"]
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Athlone had objected to a particular expression, which had been withdrawn.
  COLONEL HOGGsaid, that, as far as his personal experience of the Vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square, enabled him to do so, he gave the most unqualified denial to the charges of proselytizing tendencies which had been made against that body. Any Roman Catholic child subject to their authority had ample opportunities of being visited by the minister of their own persuasion, and Roman Catholic adults were not only allowed to go out on Sundays, but also upon what the Roman Catholic Church considered to be holydays as well. He hoped that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) would be accepted.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, experience had shown, and that in the very case referred to, that it was ludicrous to suppose children of such a tender age could decide authoritatively as to their own religion. Before they were allowed to decide upon so serious a question there ought to be some inquiry into their mental condition, and as to whether anything in the nature of inducements or other influences of an

  1875
  organized system of proselytism bad been brought to bear. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) would fix the age at fourteen, and allow somebody to examine the children.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, as amended, to add, at the end thereof, the words—
  "And who shall be considered by the Poor Law Board to be competent to exercise a judgment upon the subject."—(Mr. Villiers.)
  MR. POWELLsaid, he would resist any such inquiry if the child's age was to be fixed at fourteen years. At the same time it would be for the Committee first to vote upon the age of fourteen, and after that to say whether or not they would have an inquiry
  SIR. HENRY WINSTON-BARRONsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) had given no reason whatever for objecting to an impartial inquiry by the Poor Law Board. Sic volo, sic jubeo was his tone. But were the Committee to be bound by it?
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, the Poor Law Board was not a competent or impartial tribunal. This was a Bill brought forward by the Poor Law Board in opposition to the wishes of every Board of Guardians in the country. Its object was to prevent as far as legislation could do it, the children of the poor from being brought up in what, at any rate, was a loyal religion, and to leave them by accident as it were, to become members of a religion which, as far as the teaching of its priesthood was concerned, was a religion of disloyalty and sedition, opposed to the historical spirit, and to every instinct of this country.
  SIR HENRY WINSTON-BARRON: I call that an insult to my religion; and I call upon the hon. Member to apologize.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) has made use of some terms which are not very common in this House, and which are certainly calculated to give offence to a body of Members in this House.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he was always desirous of conforming to the opinion of the great majority of hon. Members, and although he felt that in doing so he was somewhat curtailing the liberty of speech to which private Members were entitled, he was willing to withdraw the statement, retaining, however, the opinion to which he had endeavoured to give expression. This Bill had been brought forward by the Poor Law
  1876
  Board at a time when their views upon religious matters possibly differed in some respects from those which they now entertained. But, whatever the origin of the clause, its operation was plain. In large towns it was invariably found that the children of the working classes had been surreptitiously baptized into the Roman Catholic faith. Through the willing agency of the public Departments; therefore, this Bill would enable the Roman Catholic priesthood to kidnap the children of humble Protestants and enroll them in their own communion. The House of Lords had condemned the Poor Law Board by striking out the clause.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, he hoped that children would not be allowed to change their religion without being examined by the Poor Law Board.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the question of religion did not arise on the present clause, but on Clause 12. The present clause merely said that in the case of children who were, say, Baptists or Roman Catholics, the nearest minister of their faith should be allowed to go in and instruct them. If, as suggested by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell), a child, on being visited by a minister of religion, objected to being instructed by that particular individual, that was not a religious objection, but a personal objection, and it did not seem necessary that a child should have more liberty in choosing any particular person to instruct him in his own creed than in the selection of his schoolmaster.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he must repeat that the clause providing for the Creed Register related not merely to children, but to all inmates of workhouses, and a minister of religion, coming in and finding a person seventy years of age registered as belonging to his creed, would have the power of inflicting his visits on the pauper. He quite agreed that a child of immature years should not have the power of saying that he would not have a particular minister and would have another; but he objected in the strongest possible manner to the Poor Law Board arbitrating in such a matter. He remembered the Poor Law Board being very unpopular in this country, and he should see it so again on account, among many other reasons, of the passing of the present Bill.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, be had hoped that they might have come to a compromise on this clause by means

  1877
  of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridge, the age of fourteen being inserted instead of twelve. Perhaps it might meet the objections of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord Edward Howard) if the age of sixteen were inserted.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, be thought the age of twelve quite sufficient. He knew many children of that age who would puzzle some hon. Members in that House on religious subjects. In Scotland a person of fourteen years of age was able to make a will, or appoint a manager of his property. The Marquess of Bute at that age chose a person to manage his vast estates.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, he must remind the Committee that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) applied to children in workhouse schools, and the children in the minority had no chance against the majority, but were jeered at and laughed out of their religion. It appeared from the third Report of the Poor Law Commission that a Guardian in one of the largest parishes of the metropolis stated, in answer to questions put to him, that the Guardians there never recognized any children as Roman Catholics. He really must say it was perverting common sense to assert that poor children of a tender age in workhouses made choice of a religion through conviction. He had great difficulty in assenting to the compromise which had been suggested.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the noble Lord denied that children under fourteen years of age had any religion of their own. That, to a certain extent, was the doctrine of the law of England.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDbegged the hon. Member's pardon. His observation on the subject had reference to children in the disadvantageous position of the children in our workhouses.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he (Mr. Newdegate) was referring to children in that disadvantageous position. The law of this country had been that if a child became destitute it should be educated in the religion of the State. A similar law existed in certain Roman Catholic countries still. He had been told of the case of a child in a public institution who objected to be visited by a priest. The father of the child was a Roman Catholic, and he was referred to, and he did not wish that the priest should continue his visits. The rev. gentleman insisted on doing so, but a
  1878
  lawyer explained to him that he had no right to adopt such a course. What was the remark of the priest? Why, that the father of the child must be a very bad Roman Catholic. From first to last, this Bill was a violation of the law of England. It was a departure from the modification of the original law of England that the Church of England, being tolerant, should be the instructress to all who did not profess a different religion. It would make the machinery of the Poor Law an instrument for enforcing intolerance. The Secretary of the Poor Law Board had gone the length of asking the leave of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord Edward Howard) to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell). We were rapidly going from the tolerant system of the Law of England to the most intolerant system of religion ever known in the world.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he thought there was a concurrence of opinion that the clause in its present form should not stand part of the Bill. The question was as to the way in which it should be amended. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) would not substitute sixteen for fourteen years of age in the proposed Amendment.
  MR. SYNANsaid, that the opinions with which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was imbued, were very erroneous one. When listening to the hon. Member he was reminded of a story he had heard of an Irish banister. The learned gentleman had told an attorney that he must succeed in a certain action. The attorney was defeated, and meeting the barrister some time after, said to him, "I acted on your opinion and was cast." "Where did I give you that opinion?" said the barrister. "In Capel Street," was the reply. "Oh, then," rejoined the barrister, "never believe a Capel Street opinion again." He would recommend the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to remember the moral of that story. As to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell), he contended that children of fourteen years old in workhouses were not competent to select their own creed.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, that the gentlemen who called for an alteration in the existing laws were in reality the persons who would give rise to a selection of creeds on the part of children in workhouses.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he was disposed to vote in favour of the retention of the word "twelve." But he must observe that the Amendment to the clause was founded upon a mistake. It was supposed that the clause provided that a minister belonging to the creed of a child who was on the register of the workhouse as connected with that creed might insist upon instructing that child. Now, the clause merely provided that such minister "may, in accordance with the regulations of the Poor Law Board," visit and instruct such persons.
  MR. SYNANproposed that the clause should be further amended by the addition to it of the words ''and who shall be considered by the Poor Law Board to be competent to exercise a judgment on the subject," a proposal which was supported by Mr. Villiers.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he objected to the addition because the Amendment would then be applicable to the inmates of workhouses, however old they might be.
  MR. M'LARENsaid", that if the Poor Law Board were to send down an inspector to make inquiry into each individual case and report thereupon, they might as well take away all rule and control from the local authorities.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had had considerable experience in this matter, having for about eight years been a member of the Board of Supervision in Scotland. He had always stood up for the right of children to be educated in the religion of their parents, but nevertheless he should deprecate any addition to this clause, as it would, in his opinion, be for the interest of all parties that a fixed rule should be established.
  Question put, "That those words be added to the said proposed Amendment, as amended."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 66: Majority 48.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Clause 11 (Where no Religious Service provided in the Workhouse, the Inmate may, on Sunday or other Sacred Day, go to his own proper Place of Worship).
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he should not press the Amendment of which he had given Notice, as he had no objection to the clause as it now stood.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12 (No Child in the Workhouse or School visited by a Minister of its own Religion shall be required to attend any other Religious Services, unless, being above Twelve Years of Age, he shall desire to do so).
  MR. POWELL MR. POWELL moved in page 6, line 5, before "such minister" to insert "the parent or surviving parent of such child or in the case of orphans or deserted children." His object was to preserve parental authority in the case of children who were inmates of a work house.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, he thought the parent was not always competent to form an opinion, and might, indeed, be an imbecile.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that in order to make the clause conformable with Clause 10, he would beg to move the omission from the end of the clause of the words "and who shall be considered by the Poor Law Board to be competent to exercise a Judgment upon the Subject." The Board would judge by it sofficers, many of whom were Roman Catholics.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Poor Law Board to appoint Auditors).
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHproposed the insertion in line 35, after the word "do," of the words "and the provisions contained in the Poor Law Board Act, 1847, relative to the salaries of the persons therein mentioned shall apply to the salaries of the persons to be appointed as auditors by the Poor Law Board." Several Committees had reported in favour of that proposal.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the election of the auditors was now in the hands of the Guardians, and it was the accounts of the Guardians which had to be audited. It was obvious that the present state of things in that respect was anomalous, and exactly the same as if a Board of Directors were to appoint the auditors of their own expenditure.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he thought that the object should be to exclude central patronage while increasing central control. He would suggest that the Guardians should nominate three persons for the office of auditor, and that the Poor Law Board should appoint one of those three.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would remind the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish), who had given notice to move to leave out from line 30 to line 37 inclusive, that when the Guardians failed to appoint their own officers, the Poor Law Board, though they had no wish for the power, could make the appointments. The Committee of 1864, after going most fully into this matter, reported that the substitution of district auditors for auditors elected by the Guardians had led to greater uniformity of procedure, more vigilance, and more careful expenditure, and recommended that the auditors should be reduced in number and should devote their whole time to the public service. Previous Committees had taken the same view, and he hoped, therefore, that the clause would be agreed to.
  MR. HURSTsaid, he was quite satisfied with the explanation of the hon. Baronet(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and hoped there would be no opposition to the clause.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he must contend that the ratepayers, who were those chiefly interested in checking lavish expenditure, should have the appointment of auditors.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 14 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Repeal of Penalties on Parish Officers supplying Goods in Unions).
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, this clause proposed to repeal certain Acts which had been passed for the purpose of prohibiting parochial officers from purchasing goods for the relief of the poor from themselves. The overseers of the poor had to a certain extent the dispensation of relief, and therefore they should not have the power of purchasing from themselves the goods they had to dispense. He proposed to omit from the clause the words "and overseers of the poor."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the proposed Amendment was unnecessary, because though the overseers had certain duties to discharge towards the poor they had nothing whatever to do with the control of the expenditure.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
  Clause K (Interpretation of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 43, and 29 & 30 Vict. c. 113. s. 14, as to Child and Consent of Parents).
  MR. T. CHAMBERS MR. T. CHAMBERS moved to omit the words "deserted child or." The Amendment would provide in effect that a deserted child should be treated as a child of the State and should be brought up as a Protestant.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that there were in the workhouses 1,000 Roman Catholic children who were brought up as Protestants because there was no one to demand that they should be brought up in their own creed.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked whether a child which had had the misfortune to lose its parents should be handed over to the tender mercies of those who wished to kidnap children for their own creed?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that the Amendment would really reverse the policy which had been adopted for the last thirty years in this country. The law was that where a child's parent was notoriously of a certain religion the child should be brought up in that religion. That was Clause 19 in the Poor Law Amendment Act; but, in some cases, the operation of the law had been defeated by preventing the supply of the proper evidence of the parents' religion. In effect the result of the Amendment would be to bring up as Protestants the children of Catholics. [Mr. KINNAIRD: Only where the child has been deserted, and the religion of the parent is not known.] But it was much easier to ascertain the religion of the parents of deserted children than any others. The witness by whom this was stated came from Birmingham, and was now employed in Marylebone. It appeared from his evidence that in the latter place deserted and orphan children were, brought up in the religion of the parents, and that since this system was adopted better order had been kept in the House, there had been better conduct among the paupers, and the townspeople were satisfied. The Amendment proposed a refinement in intolerance which would carry us back thirty years, and it involved a principle which was quite new, that of punishing parents by choosing a religion for their children, and which might be applied to offences other than desertion.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers) had come round to the view he (Mr. T. Chambers) had advanced at first, that the Bill was not

  1883
  necessary if the provisions of the present law were carried out.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, the Amendment proposed a different law for the poor from that applied to the rich. A child possessed of property would be brought under the cognizance of the Court of Chancery, which would ascertain the religion of the parents and take care that the child was brought up in it, but because children were helpless and friendless they were to he treated in a different manner. What he asked was that all children, proved to belong to Catholic parents, whether they had been deserted or were orphans should be brought up in their parents' religion.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that the Amendment only affected "deserted"—not orphan—children, so that the appeal of the noble Lord was not in point. There was no illiberality in the State taking care of these deserted children—children picked out of the gutter—and in the State providing them with education. What was the meaning of "a deserted child?" It was a child not claimed by any one, and for whom there was no one willing to pay. All that was wanted was that it should not be assumed that such deserted children were Roman Catholics.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was proposed in the case of deserted children—on the ground that they had no person standing in a recognized relation to them, and that they were to be paid for by the State—that they should, therefore, be brought up in the religion of the State. But that was not the principle of the existing Poor Laws, which were conceived on the principle that children should be brought up in what was supposed to be their own religion—namely, that of their parents, provided it could be ascertained. Now, all that the clause would do in the case of deserted as well as in that of orphan children would be to enable the Poor Law Board not to act on the assumption that the children were of any particular faith, but to accept the evidence which a Creed Register might afford of such faith, and when that was ascertained the religion of the father was to rule the religion of the child.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the Creed Register would not prove the religion of the parents, but only the opinion on the subject of the person who made the entry. The result would be that these deserted children would be put up to auction, and they all knew who would claim them. He maintained that when the parents were not
  1884
  forthcoming the children should be brought up in the religion of the State.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he would support the Amendment. This question of the removal of children would give rise to a great deal of squabbling.
  MR. SYNANsaid, that in the majority of cases there would be no difficulty in ascertaining the religion of the parents of a deserted child.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought hon. Gentlemen were losing sight of the meaning of the clause. The gist of the alteration proposed was that the Poor Law Board, in the absence of a requisition from the parents or god-parents, might exercise the powers vested in them by the Poor Law Act, and, upon reasonable evidence of the religion of the parents, order deserted children to be sent to a denominational registered school where they would be brought up in their parents' religion.
  MR. AYTOUNsaid, he wanted to know what was the nature of the inquiry to be conducted by the Poor Law Board before taking such a step, and whether the evidence taken by the officials who made the inquiry was to be laid before the Guardians and the public? The opinion throughout the country would be that the religion to which the child would be assigned would depend very much upon the person to whom the inquiry would be committed. The public had very little faith in Boards for such purposes as these.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the whole debate had shown that all the words of the clause after "these Acts" ought to be struck out, and therefore he should move that they should be struck out. They were asked to give the Poor Law Board the perfectly novel power of sending deserted children out of the workhouse to a denominational school. Upon what evidence was the Poor Law Board to judge of the creed to which the child should be consigned? The fact was that the Guardians had no right to part with the children in favour of any denomination whatever.
  Amendment proposed, in line 17, to leave out from the word "Acts" to the end of the Clause."—(Mr. Newdegate.)
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate).
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, this was an objection against the existence of a Creed Register. There was no difficulty in the matter. It was the duty of the parochial officer to ascertain what was the religion of the parents.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, the difficulty he felt was as to how they were to ascertain the religion of the parents when the deserted child was too young to give any information.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 13: Majority 43.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. CANDLISH MR. CANDLISH moved a clause (Period for re-payment of Loans may be extended from twenty to thirty years). The object of it was to apportion the re-payment fairly between the present and future ratepayers.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he considered the clause unnecessary, as the present system worked perfectly well. Since the passing of the Poor Law Act a sum of £7,000,000 had been borrowed on a uniform plan, which it would not be well to interfere with.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. READ MR. READ moved a new clause (Payments for bastard children).
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, in the absence of Mr. T. Potter, he would move a clause (Provision for poor deaf and dumb or blind children), empowering Guardians to send deaf and dumb children to uncertified institutions.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. HARVEY LEWIS MR. HARVEY LEWIS moved the addition of a clause (Lands and buildings acquired and used under the Poor Law Acts exempted from increased assessment).
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that no such provision as that proposed by: the hon. Member was called for except by one or two of the metropolitan unions. If it should be generally demanded there would be ample opportunity for considering it hereafter.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he had given Notice of a clause of similar effect, though not going so far as that proposed
  1886
  by the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis). No injustice would be done to any locality by the adoption of the clause of which he had given notice. Its principle was that asylums, hospitals, and other buildings, and all land used or occupied therewith for the purposes of the Metropolis Poor Act, 1867, should be assessed for rates upon the annual value of the site, and any buildings on it at the time of the purchase.
  MR. H. E. SURTEESsaid, that the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill's) argument applied to a clause not before the Committee.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR MR. P. A. TAYLOR moved a clause (Any ratepayer shall, under proper regulations, have the right to be present at the meetings of Boards of Guardians).
  Clause (Any ratepayer shall, under proper regulations, have the right to be present at the meetings of Boards of Guardians).—(Mr. Taylor,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he must oppose the clause. Reporters were present at the meetings of all Boards of Guardians of importance, and that ought to be sufficient for the ratepayers.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 32: Majority 27.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with Amendments, and an amended Title; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

WEST INDIES BILL— [Bill 124.]
(Mr. Adderly, Mr. Sclater-Booth)
WEST INDIES BILL— [Bill 124.]

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, that with the view of protecting a vested interest which, in his opinion, ought to be respected by the Legislature, he would beg to move to leave out—
  "As such coadjutor, continue to act in the same manner as at present as Archdeacon of Middlesex," and insert "and exercises episcopal functions therein, continue to receive out of the Consolidated Fund the annual payment of two thousand pounds, which has hitherto been made to him in part by the Bishop of Jamaica out of

  1887
  the stipend of three thousand pounds paid to the said Bishop from the Consolidated Fund, under the before-recited Acts, and in part out of the stipend appropriated to his Archdeaconry of Middlesex out of the Consolidated Fund, under the said Acts; Provided, That during his receipt of such annual payment no payment shall be made to him out of the Consolidated fund in respect of the Archdeaconry of Middlesex."
  If the coadjutor Bishop of Kingston bad not technically a vested interest, he had a strong moral claim.
  The said Amendment being read a second time; Amendment proposed,
  To leave out the words "as such coadjutor, continue to act in the same manner as at present as Archdeacon of Middlesex," in order to insert the words "and exercises episcopal functions therein, continue to receive out of the Consolidated Fund the annual payment of two thousand pounds which has been hitherto made to him in part by the Bishop of Jamaica out of the stipend of three thousand pounds paid to the said Bishop from the Consolidated Fund under the before recited Acts, and in part out of the stipend appropriated to his Archdeaconry of Middlesex out of the Consolidated Fund, under the said Acts: Provided, That during his receipt of such annual payment no payment shall be made to him out of the Consolidated Fund in respect of the Archdeaconry of Middlesex,"—(Mr. Russell Gurney,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of The Lords' Amendment."
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he thought the chum rested neither on a technical nor a moral ground, and that the precedent which his right hon. Friend's Amendment would establish might be productive of great inconvenience hereafter. The proposal was really one for appointing a new Bishop of Jamaica after the next avoidance of the see.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he would point out that, as a new charge would be imposed on the Consolidated Fund, the matter could not be taken into consideration except under a Resolution of the House.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, the Government would accede to the proposal, on the ground that it was expedient to deal with such a claim in a wide and generous, and not in a niggardly, spirit. The clause was drawn by the late Lord Cranworth. He thought there was a fair moral claim; and that the Bishop of Kingston would be hardly dealt with if the House did not view the matter in a liberal spirit.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he thought there was much to be said in favour of the proposition of the right hon. and learned Recorder.
  MR. LOWEsaid, it appeared that a coadjutor Bishop had been appointed to assist the Bishop. The office of the coadjutor was correlative with that of the Bishop, and could not extend beyond it. When the present Bishop died the office of his coadjutor could not continue to exist. The House were asked to give the coadjutor, not in virtue of an office which he held now, but in virtue of an office which he would hold after the death of the Bishop of Jamaica, a sum of £1,600 out of the Consolidated Fund. He held with his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) that this could not now be done.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that the Bishop of Kingston had at present a life-interest in the life of the Bishop of Jamaica, and it was now proposed to give him a life-interest in two lives. The difference was just a grant from the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that no new charge on the Consolidated Fund would be created by the adoption of the proposition.
  MR. SPEAKER: The whole question seems to be whether this is a new charge on the Consolidated Fund, or a reservation from the £20,000 supposed to be given up. The Bill proposes to relieve the Consolidated Fund from the payment of £20,000, while if the Amendment be passed it would only be relieved of £18,000. I think it is a matter which is open to the decision of the House.
  MR. POWELLsaid, that as the subject appeared to be taking wider range, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The Earl of MAYO, Bill to make further and better provision for the custody of Prisoners, and to amend the Law relating to Prisons, in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by The Earl of MAYO, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 256.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock