Commons Sitting of 22 June 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Poor Rates Assessment &c. Committee [No. 342].
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Navy and Army Expenditure *.
Ordered—Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) *
First Reading—Sale of Poisons and Pharmacy Act Amendment * [181]; Poor Law and Medical Inspectors (Ireland) * [183]: Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) * [184].
Second Reading—Lands Clauses Consolidation Act (1845) Amendment * [176]; Bank of Bombay * [178]; Prisons (Scotland) Administration Acts Amendment * [155]; Bankruptcy Act (1861) Amendment [145].
Referred to Select Committee—Prisons (Scotland) Administration Acts Amendment * [155].
Committee—Government of India Act Amendment [91]—R.P.; County General Assessment (Scotland) (re-comm.) * [172]; Entail Amendment (Scotland) (re-comm.) * [140]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 6) * [176]; Renewable Leasehold Conversion (Ireland) Act Extension [61].
Report—County General Assessment (Scotland) (re-comm.) * [172]; Entail Amendment (Scotland (re-comm) * [140]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 6) * [175]; Renewable Leasehold Conversion (Ireland) Act Extension * [61–182].
Considered as amended—Representation of the People (Ireland) [71]; Petroleum Act Amendment * [171].
Third Reading—Boundary * [165]; Courts of Chancery and Exchequer (Ireland) Fee Funds [146] and passed.

COINAGE—HALF-CROWNS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the fact that no half-crown pieces have been coined for some years past at the Mint, and if it is the intention to allow that useful coin
  1850
  ultimately to be withdrawn from circulation?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, it was true that no new half-crowns had been coined for fifteen years, but the present supply was adequate to the demand. Half-crown pieces formed about 30 per cent of the silver coinage, and there was no present intention of withdrawing them from circulation.

TENURE OF LAND (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the Tenure and Occupation of Land in Ireland; and, if so, when will the Commission be issued?
  THE EARL OF MAYO: It is the intention, Sir, of the Government to issue the Commission to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is our earnest wish to endeavour to induce some Members of both Houses of Parliament to serve on the Commission; but, having regard to the Business of both Houses and the convenience of Members, it will be impossible to appoint the Commission until the termination of the Session.

EX-GOVERNOR EYRE—PETITION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRENFELLsaid, he wished to preface his Question on this subject by a few remarks. He was a member of the Jamaica Committee, which had been subject to the unceasing persecutions of an irresponsible body of persons signing themselves "The Eyre Defence Committee."
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member is not acting in accordance with the Rules of the House in not confining himself to such matter as is necessary for explaining the grounds on which he puts the Question.
  MR. GRENFELLsaid, he did not wish to trespass on the Rules of the House, and if it were necessary he would move the Adjournment. He was a member of the Jamaica Committee, and he had taken it upon himself to ask the hon. Member for Bute, On what grounds he stated, on Friday June 5th, that the Petition which he presented praying for an early re-appointment of Mr. Eyre to Her Majesty's Colonial Service was signed by 71 Peers, 6 Bishops,

  1851
  20 Members of the House of Commons, 40 Generals, 26 Admirals, 400 Clergymen, and 30,000 other persons, when, in fact, it is only signed by 3 Peers, 1 Bishop, 6 Members of Parliament, 20 Generals, 9 Admirals, 171 Clergymen, and 10,000 other persons? He should not have ventured to ask this Question if it merely contained a Prayer that the expenses of Governor Eyre should be paid by the country, because there would be nothing astonishing in a Petition of that kind from a large number of irresponsible persons who might not have had the blue books before them, and might have signed the Petition in ignorance of the facts.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member has now stated everything necessary to give the information he desires to convey.
  MR. LAMONTsaid, he must beg the indulgence of the House while he gave a brief explanation of the circumstances attending the exaggerated statement referred to. When that Petition was given to him for presentation to the House it was accompanied by a short statement in writing, purporting to be an analysis or summary of the Petitioners. He did what he imagined the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent or any other Member of this House would have done—he did not analyze this immense number of names himself; but be accepted the written statement as being substantially correct, and he read it to the House. He had now to express his regret that he committed himself to an unintentional exaggeration of the numbers, and he trusted that the House would believe him when he said that he stated that which he believed at the time to be strictly correct. It appeared that this exaggeration of the numbers was caused by the clerk who made up the statement supposing that he was entitled to include as Petitioners all those who had subscribed sums of money, however small, to Mr. Eyre's Defence and Aid Fund. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, of which he had private notice, he begged to say that, considering the vast preponderance of opinion in favour of his distinguished friend among the educated and enlightened classes of the community, and especially among those who know anything about the colonies, he apprehended that there would not be the slightest difficulty before the prorogation in procuring a Supplementary Petition from the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent and the borough of
  1852
  Westminster alone, even more numerously signed than he stated the last to be.
  MAJOR ANSONsaid, he wished to make one or two remarks, and, to place himself in Order, he would, if necessary, move the Adjournment of the House. When the Petition was placed in the hands of the hon. Member for Bute some information was handed to him by the Secretary of the Eyre Defence Fund referring to figures which he might have to make use of in his speech. As soon as the Secretary saw the exaggerated statement in question he went to the hon. Member for Bute and told him of the mistake that had been made. None of the members of the Defence Fund Committee were responsible for the mistaken statement that had gone forth to the public.

THE CATTLE PLAGUE.—QUESTION.
SIR J. CLARKE JERVOISEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that a paragraph in The Times of the 7th of September 1867, announced that the International Veterinary Congress held at Zurich
"Determined to request the Russian Government to appoint an International Commission to consider the possibility of arresting the Cattle Plague in its place of origin—the Steppes of Russia;"
whether the statement is correct; whether this determination was carried out, and with what success; and whether the Report of the Resolutions come to by the Congress will be distributed?
LORD STANLEY: I regret, Sir, that I cannot give the hon. Member the information he requires. I have seen the paragraph in The Times to which his Question refers and I am aware that a body called the International Veterinary Congress have recently held a meeting at Zurich. No Report of that conference has, however, reached the Foreign Office, and I am not aware whether any request has been made such as is described in his Question.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, If he will lay his intended Bill for the amendment and consolidation of the Merchant Shipping Acts upon the

  1853
  Table of the House before the close of the Session, that the Country may have an opportunity of considering its provisions before the meeting of the next Parliament?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, in reply, that, when it became evident that there was no chance of passing this Bill during the present Session, the draughtsman was directed to employ himself on work of greater emergency; and therefore the consolidation of the Merchant Shipping Acts was not proceeded with with as much rapidity as before. He hoped, however, to lay the Bill on the table before the end of the Session, and to distribute it to Members sufficiently early for those who were interested in the question to express an opinion upon it in ample time before the meeting of the next Parliament.

METROPOLIS—THE RIVER THAMES AT BARKING.—QUESTION.
LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What steps he means to take with regard to the Memorial that has been addressed to him by the Vicar and other Inhabitants of Barking relative to the state of the River Thames in that neighbourhood?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, in reply, that he received on Saturday last a communication from the Thames Conservators on the subject referred to in the noble Lord's Question, stating that they had not completed their investigation; and he did not wish to take any further steps until the inquiry was complete.

POST OFFICE—LONDON LETTER CARRIERS.—QUESTION.
MR. BATHURSTsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Why a fixed standard of height is required for London Letter Carriers?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, in reply, that great inconvenience to the public service arose some years ago from the want of some standard of physical strength in the minor Departments of the Post Office. The standard of height had been altered from time to time; and he knew of no reason why the present standard should be maintained, except that an ample supply of candidates for the service could be obtained at that standard.

THE NEUTRALITY COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Recommendations of the Neutrality Commission have received the attention and approval of the Government; and, if so, whether a Measure will be introduced for the purpose of giving effect to them?
  LORD STANLEY: Sir, I have read the Report of the Neutrality Commissioners with great interest and attention, and I may say that in the general scope of their recommendations Her Majesty's Government entirely concur. But with regard to the details of those recommendations I require more leisure than I have yet had for considering them before I give an opinion upon them. In the actual state of Business I conceive that it would be quite useless to attempt to legislate on the subject during the present Session; but if I have the opportunity I shall certainly be prepared to do so when the new Parliament meets.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.—QUESTION.
MR. GROVEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the official restrictions imposed for so many years on the late Surgeon in Chief of the Metropolitan Police Force, and announced as a necessity to the candidate, on his retirement, have been entirely relaxed, notwithstanding that the strength of the Police Force has so materially increased; and, whether the present Chief Surgeon is required to visit the sick of the different divisions, and perform the other duties of his office in the same manner as his predecessor, who was prohibited from engaging in private practice?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, he found that in April 1866, while the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) was at the Home Office, the relaxation of the rule in regard to that matter was first made. Mr. Holmes was allowed to take private practice on condition that the salary, which had been £800, was reduced to £500, and that he should at all times be available for police duty. Mr. Holmes undertook so to be, and there was no complaint of his not having attended to that duty.

ARMY—NON-PURCHASE CORPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government have yet decided on an amended scheme of retirement from the non-purchase corps; and if, before taking the Vote for Retired Officers in the Army Estimates, he will lay upon the Table any Correspondence on the subject between the Departments of Government, and the actuary's calculations of the cost of the plan proposed by the Select Committee of last year?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, he was not able to say that the Government had yet come to a decision on the subject, which was one that must be very carefully considered. They had a plan before them, and the Report of an actuary, and information received from other quarters; and if he could devise a plan that would receive the sanction of the Government, he would lay it on the table in the course of the Session, in order to act on it hereafter. It was more desirable that the plan should be prepared with due caution that that it should be prepared quickly. The subject was not a pressing one, and there was no immediate hurry. The really important object was to have the plan prepared with the greatest care. There was no Correspondence, and he was sure the hon. Member would not ask him to produce any Official Minutes. He had no objection to give him the Report of the actuary, if he would move for it.

ARMY—CASE OF CAPTAIN BROOKE.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true, as alleged in The Pall Mall Gazette of the 13th instant, that Captain Brooke, of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, has been under arrest for one month without being brought to a Court Martial?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, that it was quite true that Captain Brooke was under "open" arrest for nearly a month; but the course pursued with respect to him was quite in accordance with the 18th Article of War.
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copy of the Correspondence
  1856
  which has taken place beetween Colonel Peel (late of the 11th Hussars), General Wetherall, and the Military authorities at the Horse Guards, which was the original cause of Captain Brooke being placed under arrest?
  Sir JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not think it would conduce to the convenience of the Service to lay Correspondence of that nature before the House, and he, therefore, must decline to produce it. As he believed that the hon. and gallant Officer asked the Question from a regard to the character of Colonel Peel, he had great pleasure in stating that there was nothing in all these transactions at all impugning the honourable character of Colonel Peel.
  In answer to Captain ARCHDALL,
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, Captain Brooke had been placed under arrest for a month and reprimanded, but at the end of that time he returned to his duty.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACEVOYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Minister of the Crown the Question he had given notice of for Friday last, Whether he will give him an early opportunity of moving the Second Reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and whether he will state the course which the Government intend to take in regard to it?
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he did not see any Notice of the Question on the Paper.
  MR. MACEVOY: It was on the Paper on Friday.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he found it quite impossible at present to fix any day; other Business was so pressing. If he could find an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman he would; and when the time came he would state the course which Government intended to take in regard to it.

FEVER IN THE MAURITIUS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. A. SMITHsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What is the present state of the Mauritius, in reference to the disease which has been prevalent there?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, in reply, that a despatch had been received dated the 13th May, which stated that the mortality had in the previous month been 2,036, whilst in April, 1867, the mortality was 10,867,

  1857
  and only 1,216 of these 2,036, were from fever;—there was great hope that the fever was dying out. The proposed sanitary measures, if fairly carried out in Port Louis, may greatly diminish the chance of its recurrence.

SEA FISHERIES BILL— [BILL 170].
(Mr. Stephen Cave, Mr. Edward Egerton, Mr. Shaw-Lefevre.)
SEA FISHERIES BILL— [BILL 170].

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  Amendments, as far as the Amendment Leave out Clause 46, agreed to.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the Amendments which had been made in "another place." Two years ago the late Government had brought under consideration a Bill for facilitating the establishment of oyster fisheries. Lord Derby's Administration took it up, devoted much attention to it, improved it and passed it into a law. It was working well. Many applications had taken place under the Act for the establishment of oyster fisheries, and so far as he knew, the measure was giving general satisfaction. In the Sea Fisheries Bill it was thought desirable that all the statutes relating to sea fisheries should be consolidated into one, and therefore the Oyster Bill was put into the Sea Fisheries Bill as a matter of consolidation. Important Amendments had been made in the Bill in the House of Lords, which, if adopted by Parliament, would go far to defeat all the main objects of the measure intended to encourage the establishment of oyster fisheries. It might be right enough to amend, but it was not the proper way of doing it in a Consolidation Bill without notice or discussion. If the Oyster Fisheries Act was to be repealed, it should be brought under the consideration of Parliament; the object should not be effected in an indirect manner by the insertion of Amendments in a consolidating Bill by the other House of Parliament. The Bill enabled persons to appropriate unproductive, useless areas on the sea-shore for the cultivation of oysters; but care was to be taken that al! proprietary and other rights should be respected, that all parties concerned should have due notice and an opportunity of being heard against any such appropriation of the sea-shore—not only before the Board of Trade, but if they thought fit before a Select Committee of the House, as in the
  1858
  case of a private Bill. There were many parts of the sea-shore which might be appriater to oyster beds without injury to anybody; but unless private rights, frequently of undefined and valueless character, were barred, after persons had received a grant and gone to a great expense in laying down oysters the persons who had rights of dredging might come and dredge them all up. He would bar any such right; but he would not do so without notice, and consent or compensation. What, then, had been done? The House of Lords said that it was right that areas of the seashore should be appropriated to oyster fisheries; but they inserted clauses to the effect that the Board of Trade Order should bar no rights except those of parties who had given their consent. Now, what would be the effect of this? There might be the inhabitants of a village who might have undefined prescriptive rights though of no real value, whose consent could not be obtained, and they might lie by whilst the Order was obtained, and then after the unfortunate grantee had invested his money they might come forward and say that their consent had not been obtained, and therefore they had the right to take the oysters. Certain Scotch proprietors appeared to think that there was some intention to interfere with their foreshore rights; but they would find that this measure for the promotion of the oyster fisheries would be most beneficial to them in the end. He thought that the Lords' Amendments ought to be rejected—in the first place, because what they proposed to do was not a fair mode of defeating the intentions of the Legislature when it passed the Oyster Fisheries Act. The clause in that Act which he supported was the law of the land. If, however, it could be shown that under the existing law adequate compensation was not given for the interference with the rights of any person where they were affected injuriously by any provisional Order of the Board of Trade, he should be ready to accede to an extension of that law in order to secure that object. The Lords' Amendments did not provide for the compensation of individuals for such an infringement of their rights, and, therefore, he moved that, instead of those Amendments, a clause be inserted in the Bill providing that the Lands Clauses Acts should be deemed to be incorporated in every Order of the Board of Trade made under this Act, and that grantees should make full compensation under the Lands

  1859
  Clauses Acts to all persons whose rights of fishing or any of whose rights were injuriously affected by any Board of Trade Order, or by any confirming Act, under the Oyster Fisheries Act of 1866.
  Leave out Clause 46, the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he could not deny that he preferred the clauses as they stood in the Bill passed by that House, and he certainly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton that this alteration would to some extent curtail and fetter the operation of the Board of Trade, and so far impede the granting of Orders for oyster fisheries. At the same time there was considerable force in the arguments which induced the House of Lords to adopt these Amendments—namely, that a Government Department ought not to have the power of interfering with or taking away any property or right, however small or ill-defined, but that such power ought to be vested in Parliament alone. Inserting the Amendments in a consolidating Act might not have been the best way of proceeding; but they knew that it was the constant practice of Parliament to unite amendment with consolidation, and he did not think that they could find fault with the House of Lords on such a ground. The House of Lords thought that the power ought to be vested in Parliament alone to take away rights, and that it would be hard to call upon people to defend their rights before Parliament because the Board of Trade had made an Order which would curtail those rights. Very high legal authority had declared that the clauses in the Oyster Fisheries Bill were hardly constitutional, and ought not to have passed in 1866. That was a question which he must leave the right hon. Gentleman to settle with a former and probably future Colleague of his own; which, if they might judge from the ordinary sources of information, he would not find a very easy task. On the other hand, it might be said that in practice the present Board of Trade had been so careful of existing interests that not only had there been no objections on that score in respect of any of the Orders already issued, but they had drawn upon themselves complaints, he might even say taunts, from people speaking and writing in the interest of applicants for grants of oyster fisheries, on the ground of their being unduly scrupulous; so that
  1860
  the Board of Trade was not such an instrument in the hands of a despotic Government for the confiscation of property as it had been represented to be. Still, it was clearly contrary to the usage of law or Parliament that the property or rights of any persons should be left to the discretion of the occupants of a Government Department, who might not always be equally scrupulous. The effect of the Lords' Amendments would doubtless be that the only cases in which they would be able to grant oyster fisheries would be those to which no opposition was made. But then they should still be able to give full protection to such fisheries when made, which was probably the original intention of legislation on this matter. He was afraid there would be a more serious impediment; thrown in the way of regulating fisheries, and especially of protecting places like Boston Deeps from wanton destruction of mussel spawn. The right hon. Gentleman proposed as an alternative the incorporation of the Lands Clauses Acts, but that would hardly meet the case, because those Acts simply provided for compensation for property compulsorily taken, whereas the objection made to the Bill was, that no power at all to take compulsorily ought to be given by it. As he had already said, he regretted the alteration which had been made. On the whole, however, he should be inclined to recommend the House to defer to the anxiety exhibited in "another place" for the protection not only of the property of great proprietors—for that was hardly a fair way of putting it—but of the rights of the general public in this matter, and agree with those Amendments, rather than run the risk of losing the Bill altogether; and then, in case the Act proved unworkable and it were found necessary to give more power to the Board of Trade, it might be done by a future substantive measure.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid, he believed that the acceptance of the Lords' Amendments would counteract the benefit conferred by the Act passed two years ago. He trusted that in all that was done with regard to this subject, care would be taken to respect in every way the rights of the foreshore proprietors.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he would support the Motion made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton. The Act of two years ago was passed in consequence of the recommendations made by a Commission appointed to inquire into the

  1861
  subject, and the only complaint that had since been made with regard to the working of that Act was that the Board of Trade had put its provisions into force too cautiously. It was preposterous to imagine that the House of Lords would, if the Amendments were rejected, throw out the Bill, because by so doing they would leave the law precisely in the state of which they complained. He therefore trusted that the House would not consent to Amendments which the Vice President of the Board of Trade did not attempt to defend, and which would entirely defeat a Bill which had been very beneficial to the public, and was only objected to by certain Scotch Lords, who, not content with owning a great part of Scotland, wished to extend their imaginary rights even into the sea.
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he hoped that the House would accept these clauses which had been inserted in the Bill with the strictest attention to public rights, and in thorough harmony with the spirit of the Constitution.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that as the Bill originally stood owners of foreshore were liable to deprivation of their rights by an Order of the Board of Trade, confirmed by an Act of Parliament, and the only way in which they could preserve their rights was by defending them in the passage of the Act through Parliament. The House of Lords perceived that this was a very strong piece of legislation, and they now endeavoured by these clauses to provide a remedy; for it certainly was hard that a man who had bonâ fide rights over a fishery should be deprived of those rights, however desirous he was of preserving and exercising them, or be compelled to oppose the passage of a Bill through Parliament.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, that the working of the Act had been attended with great benefit in Ireland, and it was unreasonable that so well-considered a measure as this had proved to be should be defeated by a side-wind, as now contemplated by the other branch of the Legislature. It appeared to him that the tendency of the Amendments was not so much to protect real rights as to give a colour to imaginary rights, and thus occasion useless litigation.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Milner Gibson) as regarded oyster fisheries; but must remind him that other rights were affected
  1862
  by the clause in question. For instance, Hastings had an ancient charter giving its corporation a right to take shingle from the foreshore to mend the roads; the Board of Trade, however, instead of inquiring as to the right exercised under this charter, sent its circular ordering coastguard officers to report cases of removal of shingle, and thus interfered with the unquestionable rights of the people. The question was a serious one for Hastings, because metal for the roads other than shingle cost the corporation almost as much as coal.
  MR. COLERIDGEsaid, he feared the Attorney General argued on the erroneous basis that it was desirable to grant rights for compensation, and to treat the matter entirely as a private concern, without admitting those large considerations to which a great Government Department ought always to give due weight. The power of the Crown over foreshores had been vested in the Board of Trade, and administered by that Deportment to the general satisfaction. He highly approved the Circular of the Board recently presented to the House, because it dealt with foreshores on the principle that the public was concerned in them. The case quoted by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Waldegrave-Leslie) did not affect the expediency of issuing a general Order by the Board of Trade. No doubt a simple representation from the Corporation of Hastings would have secured a due consideration for its rights under the Royal Charter.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge) had failed to appreciate the point under discussion. The more careful legislators in the House of Lords, with whom he agreed, objected to depriving subjects by force of rights they had long enjoyed. [Mr. MILNER GIBSON: There is compensation provided for.] That was precisely what the Lords objected to. Rights were to be taken away by force and compensation given. The only argument used against the view taken by the other House was that some parties would lie by by design while their rights were being dealt with; but the Lords said that if the rights of individuals were to be interfered with it should be done by an Act of Parliament, and not by a Government Department.
  MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he trusted the House of Lords' proviso would be maintained as far as Scotch foreshores were concerned; but if the Irish Members parti-

  1863
  cularly wished to have their foreshores placed entirely at the disposal of the Board of Trade, by all means let it be so.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that parties whose rights were affected had ample means for protecting their interests. Their Lordships appeared to attach some peculiar sacredness to the rights of foreshores which entitled them to be treated in a different manner to that in which Parliament had acted in sanctioning inclosures and all public improvements.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he must complain very strongly of the language of the Circular drawn up by the Board of Trade. The Crown having always failed to establish their rights to the foreshores in Scotland in a straightforward manner, it was now sought to circumvent the proprietors of foreshores by the systematic course of action laid down for the Department.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, it was altogether a mistake to suppose that the Board of Trade were grasping at any jurisdiction. The Bill merely recited the law as it now stood; and it was the other House of Parliament who wished to alter the law, and deprive the Crown of its rights. The Crown in this case was but the personification of the public interests, and the Board of Trade, in the name of the Crown, were merely protecting the public. He recommended the House to let well alone, and not to alter the existing state of the law.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he wished to explain. He had been misunderstood by the learned Attorney General. The Motion affected no rights, altered no proprietary rights, and set up no titles. His only object was to apply to rights over the sea-shore the same formula which was applied to rights over land—namely, consent or compensation. But their Lordships would have no compensation.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 133: Majority 8.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments, as far as the Amendment Clause B, agreed to.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE, in moving the insertion of Clause B, as inserted by the Lords, said, he should like to say a few words on this Amendment. In 1839 a Convention was concluded with France
  1864
  fixing a close time for oyster fishing in the seas between the United Kingdom and France from the 30th of April to the 1st of September. The Convention was held not to apply to the sea within the three-mile limit, nor to seas beyond the English Channel. This was shown by the case of the oyster dredgers on the East Coast of England, who defied the authorities to prevent their taken their dredges out of port and fishing the whole year round beyond the three miles; and by the instance of the Ark-low Banks, off Ireland, on which, according to the Report of the Irish Fishery Board for 1856, the Irish dredgers fished during the close months, from January to September. So that the position under the old Convention was this: a close time applicable to the Channel alone, and binding only on the French and English, because, the open sea being free to all, the Dutch or Belgians might have fished there with impunity at any time. This close time, even in the Channel, was practically disregarded by the English fishermen of the East Coast, as against them it was enforced only by cruizers, which the dredgers managed generally to evade. It was operative against the South Coast fishermen, who complained grievously of the unequal treatment. For these and many other reasons this system of quasi game laws in the open sea was condemned by the Deep Sea Fishery Commisioners appointed by the late Government; and their views on this point being adopted by the present Government, negotiations ensued with the French Government, with the object of bringing about an entire abolition, or, failing that, a relaxation of the close time. It was found that the French were very unwilling to relax the rule, not because they cared about the deep-sea beds, with respect to which they to some extent shared our views, but because they hoped by these means more effectually to preserve the beds within their territorial limit. However, our Government succeeded in striking off six weeks of the close time in the Channel, leaving the law in other parts precisely as before. There was, therefore, no pretence for saying that we took care of ourselves in the sense in which that expression had been used; and, moreover, any danger there might be that the Irish deep-sea beds might be fished during the close time in the Channel by dredgers driven during its continuance from their ordinary grounds existed before this new Convention was concluded, and had been practically dimin-

  1865
  ished by the new Convention, inasmuch as I the close time had been cut short by six weeks; and he need scarcely say that if the Bill were thrown out, or the Convention suspended, and the old Convention consequently ipso facto revived, the Irish banks would be exposed to the danger of which the Irish Members were now afraid, for six weeks longer. Whatever might be the ancient doctrine of mare clausum, or property in the bed of the sea, an opinion had been given by the Law Officers of both countries that the Irish Fishery Board never had any authority outside the three-mile limit; and when it was represented that the interests of Ireland were sacrificed it should be remembered that the Irish Sea was left in precisely the same position as the Bristol Channel, and the whole of the seas washing Scotland and England beyond the English Channel, in all of which were valuable oyster beds. Moreover, Ireland was left in this better position according to her own views, inasmuch as she had the power of completely regulating the fisheries within three miles. It had been asked, why should we not have a close time for oysters as well as for grouse or partridges? But oysters did not sit upon eggs, and everyone knew, in reference even to game, that close time was of no use, unless sufficient birds were left to breed. It was not dredging in close time which had diminished the supply of oysters, but partly failure of spat and partly over-dredging in open time. Hence the scarcity was felt in France, where close time was strictly observed. When oysters were taken in a sick, unhealthy state, it was when they had just spawned. Like other fish, they were wholesome shortly before spawning, when their capture, of course, still more prevented increase of brood. But he must say, with all deference, that this desire on the part of Ireland to obtain powers to which she had no claim by law, and which she had never exercised, ought scarcely to have been made a ground for impeding a Convention concluded nearly two years ago with a friendly Power—a Convention in which that Power made considerable concessions, and the principles of which had received the approbation of the late as well as of the present Government. It would not have been creditable to this country to inform France that we could not carry out our engagements because a section of Parliament endeavoured, by opposing this Bill, to obtain concessions at
  1866
  variance with the principle of entire freedom in the open sea, to which we endeavoured throughout the discussions to obtain the assent of the French Government. In order to avoid this the noble Duke the President of the Board of Trade reluctantly consented to the introduction of this clause, to which he moved that this House do now agree—
  "The Irish Fishery Commissioners may from Time to Time lay before Her Majesty in Council Byelaws for the Purpose of restricting or regulating the dredging for Oysters on any Oyster Beds or Banks situate within the Distance of Twenty Miles, measured from a straight Line drawn from Wicklow Head to Carnsore Point on the Coast of Ireland, but outside of the exclusive Fishery Limits of the British Islands, and all such Byelaws shall apply equally to all Boats and Persons on whom they may be binding. It shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to do all or any of the following things—namely, (a) To direct that such Byelaws shall be observed; (b) To impose Penalties not exceeding Twenty Pounds for the Breach of such Byelaws; (c) To apply to the Breach of such Byelaws such (if any) of the Enactments in force respecting the Breach of the Regulations respecting Irish Oyster Fisheries within the exclusive Fishery Limits of the British Islands, and with such Modifications and Alterations as may he found desirable; (d) To revoke or alter any Order so made. Provided that the Length of Close Time prescribed by any such Order shall not be shorter than that prescribed for the Time being by the Irish Fishery Commissioners in respect of Beds or Banks within the exclusive Fishery Limits of the British Islands. Every such Order shall be binding on all British Sea-Fishing Boats, and on any other Sea-Fishing-Boats in that Behalf specified in the Order, and on the Crews of such Boats."
  Clause B, the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that Ireland had great cause to complain of the three-mile limit, because the greater portion of some of their most valuable oyster beds were outside that distance, and consequently the great difficulty was how to protect that portion which was outside the municipal limit. He objected to the power of making by-laws being taken from the Sea Fisheries Commissioners and placed in the Board of Trade. At present every person interested in the oyster fishery had full opportunities of making objections, and in that respect the system had been found to work well. But it was now proposed to put an end to that system, and instead of their being one set of by-laws and one uniform limit, the Bill would create two limits, to be regulated by two sets of by-laws; a state of things that could only produce confusion. The effect of the Amendment he proposed would be

  1867
  that the by-laws for both limits should be sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Council. The hon. Member concluded by moving to leave out in line 2, the words "Her Majesty, and to insert in their place, "Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor of Ireland."
  Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out the words "Her Majesty," in order to insert the words "the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor of Ireland,"—(Mr. Gregory,)—instead thereof.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that as one of the Members of the recent Fisheries Commission, he desired to observe that, in the opinion of Professor Huxley and Mr. Caird and himself, no close season was desirable at all, and that the late failure in the supply of oysters was attributable to the exceptionable state of temperature that had been experienced, and other extraneous circumstances, and not to over-dredging or to the non-enforcement of a close season. The Commissioners them-selves were therefore willing to do away with the close season altogether. But the French Commissioners with whom they came in conference, in negotiating the new Convention, though of the same opinion themselves, represented that the French fishermen were not yet prepared for so great a change; and upon this representation the Commissioners agreed not to recommend the abolition of the close season, but that it should be shortened from four months to two and a half months. It was also agreed that the limits within which the close season should be enforced should be very nearly the same as those under the old Convention of 1844, that is to say, the English Channel only, and not the East Coast, or the Irish Channel, or the Irish Coast. The line was drawn from the North Foreland to Dunkirk, and from Land's End to Ushant. It was not therefore because they believed in the advantage of a close season that this limit had been agreed upon; in fact the close season was to be confined to as narrow limits as possible. He apprehended that the same policy which the Commissioners thought best for the East Coast of England was also best for Ireland. It could not therefore be said that they had neglected Ireland. But as there was a difference of opinion on this important subject among the Irish Fishery Commissioners, as there was a certain advantage in trying two opposite systems, it
  1868
  was not his intention to oppose the Amendment adopted by the House of Lords, giving to the Irish Commissioners the power of making by-laws as regards the three-mile limit, and also, under certain conditions, as regards the fisheries beyond that limit. He thought, however, that the Queen in Council ought to have the supervision of such by-laws.
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, that the views of the Irish people had not been adequately represented by the Commissioners. The most valuable part of the Irish fisheries was beyond the three-mile limit. Regard ought to be paid to the wishes of the people concerned rather than to the opinions of Professor Huxley and other theorists, who knew nothing of the matter. When the Lords gave the twenty-mile limit it was to have been expected that they would place the whole twenty miles within the jurisdiction of the Irish Commissioners, instead of leaving seventeen miles subject to Her Majesty in Council. Could there be anything more absurd than having two rules with regard to close time within the twenty miles? The three-mile limit was a modern invention assumed by lawyers; but the Government had over and over again exercised jurisdiction to the extent of the wider limit; and it did not follow because there were fisheries within it that they were to be open to the whole world.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he must remind the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) that some of the highest authorities on the subject—such as Mr. Barry, the Irish Commissioner, who understood the oyster question before the hon. Gentleman was born, Mr. Burchell, author of the able and valuable work, The Harvest of the Sea, Mr. Harry Long, chairman of one of the most successful oyster breeding companies yet established in England, and Dr. Frank Buckland, the eminent naturalist, agreed in thinking that it was of the greatest importance to protect the oyster fisheries during spat time. So convinced were the Irish fisherman of the same fact, that they had voluntarily established a close time, and had quite resolved not to be parties to killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. For his own part, he was inclined to think that the present want of oysters was owing partly to causes connected with temperature, but partly also to the system of over-dredging which prevailed so extensively. During the Whitsuntide Recess he had paid a

  1869
  visit to two or three of the best oyster fisheries in the kingdom; he found at all of them a great want of spirit, and he was convinced that unless the oyster fishery was properly protected by legislation its deficiency next year would be felt even more severely. Ireland was better adapted than any other country for the successful culture of oysters; but if the beds were dredged without being replenished they would soon be exhausted. The Irish Members were evidently unanimously in favour of a closer season, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would yield to their united opinion.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, it was shown in 1856 that the Irish fishermen did not observe close time. But the question really before the House was this, whether Her Majesty should or should not be ousted of her authority over the Irish seas; and whether the Lord Lieutenant should for the first time in history be endowed with an authority extending beyond Ireland? That would be the practical result of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite. It should be remembered that the Bill only proposed that by-laws enacted by the Irish Fishery Commissioners should be subject to the sanction of the Queen in Council. There could be no conflict between the authorities, for it was provided that the close time should be the same both within and without the three miles limit, within the lines laid down in the clause already adopted by the House, and the by-laws, when sanctioned by the House, would be enforced within the whole area by the Irish Commissioners.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes: 46: Majority 29.
  MR. GREGORY MR. GREGORY moved to increase the penalties to a maximum of £50 and a minimum of £10.
  Amendment proposed, in line 13, to leave out the word "twenty," in order to insert the word "fifty,"—(Mr. Gregory,)—instead thereof.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that if anything, £20 was too much, as under the Act 5 & 6 Vict. c. 106, the Irish Fishery Commissioners could only impose a penalty of £5 for such offences within three miles; and it would be most unreasonable that they should be allowed to impose ten
  1870
  times that amount outside the three-mile limit.
  Question, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Clause B agreed to.
  Subsequent Amendments to be taken into Consideration upon Thursday.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 91.]—COMMITTEE.
(Sir Stafford Northcote Sir James Fergusson.)
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
LORD WILLIAM HAYsaid, he wished to offer some general remarks on the measure, having been prevented from doing so at an earlier stage. There was a general agreement that some change should be made in the constitution of the Council, and he offered no objection to the second reading. The principal clause in the Bill was to alter the tenure of the Council from a tenure for life to one for twelve years. That was a great improvement; but it was the only change of importance proposed by the Secretary of State to be made in a Bill passed ten years ago for the better government of India. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that no other change was necessary, and that, with the exception of the tenure of office the constitution of the Council was just what it ought to be. To that proposition he would not assent. He thought that several changes might be made in the constitution of the Council, especially in regard to the power possessed by the Council of overruling the Secretary of State upon matters affecting the expenditure of the Indian revenues. That was a very unfortunate defect, because it placed the centre of power and real authority regarding the government of India in the hands of the Council. It was wrong in principle, and it was opposed to the opinion of those whose opinion was best worth having, among others of Lord Macaulay, who was not only well acquainted with the details of Indian administration, but had also had the advantage of having spent several years in that country; and who said in 1853—
"India is, and must be governed in India. That is a law we did not make, which we cannot alter, and to which we should do our best to conform our legislation."

1871
But the existence of this power in the hands of the Council had a directly contrary effect. A Secretary of State for India was not chosen for his fitness to govern India, but because of his ability to manage his Council. This was a great misfortune, and one remedy would be to take away from the Council the power they possessed in respect to Indian expenditure, and to give the Secretary of State the same power on this as on other subjects that came before him, and which were scarcely of less importance. The Secretary of State had the power of giving away a country like Mysore, which was almost as large as Scotland; yet when the question arose of an expenditure of a few hundred pounds he was liable to be over-ruled by a body that ought to be purely consultative. The result of such a state of things was that, instead of accelerating the dispatch of public business it lowered the position of the Governor General of India. He feared that there was a tendency, owing to the facility of communication, to interfere with the Governor General of India, and this tendency was increased by throwing so much power into the hands of the Council. He did not believe that the influence they exercised had accomplished the object which Parliament had in view—the control of the Indian expenditure. He believed that it had led, on the contrary, to great extravagance in our expenditure that never would have been tolerated if the chief and main power had been left in the hands of the Governor General of India. This was not his own opinion merely, and he was surprised that the Secretary of State for India had asked the House to agree to the second reading of an Act to amend the Act passed a few years ago without giving the House the slightest opportunity of forming an opinion how the Act had operated. Lord Cranborne, in his speech last year upon the Resolutions moved by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) said—
"We all know that this Council was constituted at a time of considerable difficulty, and that it was the result of Parliamentary compromise. Therefore, we cannot expect that it will work as well as a scheme matured under better auspices."
And Lord Cranborne added—
"You cannot always expect, if you choose to place extravagant powers in a particular body, that those powers will not be sometimes misused."—[3 Hansard, clxxxix. 1380.]
1872
The Session was so far advanced that it was too late to appoint a Select Committee, who might have taken evidence upon the subject. He might be told that Indian authorities were in favour of the Act; but these authorities were usually men who had been, who were, or who hoped to be themselves Members of the Council, and their opinions must therefore be taken with very considerable allowance. The witnesses who ought to be examined before such a Committee would be persons who had lived in India for the ten years during which the Act had been in operation. For instance, he should like to have had the evidence of Mr. Massey, who had just returned from India, on the subject. He would change the Council into a purely consultative body, still leaving to its Members the power of dissenting from the recommendations of the Secretary of State, and recording that dissent in a Paper to be laid upon the table of the House, He would, however, take away the power of over-ruling the Secretary of State, and then the Council would become what they should be, a body for the control and supervision of the Government of India. At present the Secretary of State must have a Council, but the day might come when it would not be necessary to have a Council at all, and when he would be able to obtain the information of a local character which he might require from Members of that House and others. Until then he admitted it was necessary the Secretary of State should have a body to advise him more independent than Under Secretaries of State. It was said that it was unadvisable and unconstitutional to give the Secretary of State the sole control over a revenue of £50,000,000 a year. But a Secretary of State would take a strange course if he went against the opinion of the majority of his Council without very good reason. He had not the control over the whole revenue of India, but only over the portion of it which was spent in this country. That question might be regarded from two points—first, from the Indian taxpayer's point of view, and next from what might be called the constitutional point of view. In the first place, what the Indian taxpayer thought of was the best guarantee he could obtain for the proper expenditure of the Indian revenues. As an Indian taxpayer himself, though not a very large one, he believed he spoke the opinion of the great majority of the taxpayers in

1873
India, both English and Native, when he said they would prefer the guarantee that would be afforded them by a Secretary of State, independent of his Council, whom they could question in that House about everything connected with Indian expenditure. That was preferable to the guarantee afforded by the check given to a body of gentlemen who were wholly irresponsible to any human being, and only responsible to their own consciences. The noble Viscount proceeded to say that the Council were at present practically irresponsible—
"I think, therefore, the protection of a Council which has power to limit the expenditure is desirable, and should be sustained; but the point to which I take exception is that the responsibility for that expenditure is not thrown on the Council.… Remember that the Council have every item of expenditure, large and small, under their control, and every act of the Government which can involve expenditure—that is to say, the vast majority of its acts. But you never blame the Council if the Government of India goes wrong. You blame the Secretary of State; he is the figure that stands before Parliament. … What I wish to do is to impress upon the House that you hold the Secretary of State responsible for a policy in India and what it produces; but you never know whether he carries out his own policy, or a policy imposed upon him, either by the absolute votes of his Council or by a clear indication of their will."—[3 Hansard, clxxxix. 1381.]
Lord Cranborne, therefore, argued that, if the Council was to control the Secretary of State, it ought to bear the responsibility; and he must confess that noble Lord also expressed the opinion that it was necessary the Council should have the power to which he was now objecting. But Lord Cranborne had not then before him the important alternative suggested by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton)—namely, that the expenditure, which was really in the hands of the Secretary of State, should be submitted to that House in the shape of Estimates, and that, therefore, the check should be transferred practically from the Council to that House. He thought the constitutional objection that the Secretary of State ought not to have the power of dealing with the revenues of India would be entirely, or at least practically, met if that suggestion were carried out. But Lord Cranborne, when he said last year that the Council should have that power, seemed to assume that the Council was altogether free from those temptations to misspend money to which the Secretary of State was supposed to be so open. It
1874
was thought that the Secretary of State was ready to be drawn into every rash or extravagant scheme which might be brought before him, and that he required to have several Councillors to step forward and prevent him from committing indiscretions of that sort. Now, those who took that view assumed that the Councillors themselves were exposed to no temptations of the same description; but he held that the contrary was the case, and that with a body of men responsible only to their own consciences they had no guarantee whatever against all kinds of jobbery and mal-administration. If the House had an opportunity of examining the Estimate every year with respect to the portion of the Indian revenues that was spent in England, this great advantage, as it appeared to him, would be secured—that the House would be induced to take a deeper interest than it took now in Indian affairs. The First Minister of the Crown once said—
"We have heard over and over again that India never could command attention here, however great the magnitude of the subject. The explanation is simple, if humiliating: Englishmen have never yet had to pay for India. That is the reason why India never has produced any interest in this country."
It might be humiliating that they should take no interest in India because they did not pay for India; but it was far more humiliating when they considered that India paid for them in many respects, and that they did not even then take the slightest interest in her. He said that India paid for us; at least there were many items of a doubtful character for which many plausible reasons might be advanced why they should come out of the English Exchequer rather than the Indian. Take, for example, the expenditure on the Abyssinian War and the late Entertainment to the Sultan. Assuming that both that war and that entertainment were necessary, the matter ought to come before the House in this form—"Which of the two taxpayers is to pay for them, the English or the Indian? How were such points settled at this moment? In the case of the Abyssinian War the question how much India was to pay was really decided in the English Treasury, which made up its mind that India should bear a certain portion of the expenditure and that England should bear the rest. As to the Ball to the Sultan, the question was no doubt decided by the fifteen Gentlemen who sat in the Council. On every occasion in which any expendi-

1875
ture was involved which might be referred to either of those two Exchequers the question ought to come before the House to be decided in this shape—" Shall this expenditure, which everybody admits ought to be incurred, be paid by England or by India?" He ventured to think, if that were done, that in nine cases out of ten India would gain very largely by that arrangement. If all that category of items, of which the portion of the Indian revenue expended in this country mainly consisted, came before the House as proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) in the form of an Estimate, they would have what was so desirable—namely, at least one night in the year that was devoted to a real and not to a sham debate on Indian affairs. The opinion the House took on that question had a very important bearing on every clause of the present Bill. The 1st clause related to the length of the tenure of office in the Council. If the House agreed with him in thinking that the veto should be taken away, and that the Council should be reduced to a consultative body, they might feel that they could very well reduce the term of Office down to seven or perhaps even five years. On the other hand, if they were really to make the Council the rulers of India, objectionable as, in his opinion, that would be, still he must admit, as a consequence of that arrangement, that they must have a more permanent body of men in that position. With regard to the admission of members of the Council into that House, there were, he was aware, many objections to it; and if the vetoing power was retained he should object to it himself. But if they were to alter the constitution of the Council he could see considerable advantage in having some of its members sitting in that House. As to any objection that might be made on the ground of their being placemen, he did not think it of much weight; because, as was proposed by the Bill, they would hold Office only for a certain number of years. There was no doubt that the people of India took the deepest interest in this matter, and would be very much pleased to see one or two members of the Council with seats in that House. He could not understand, however, how that was to be done if the Council should remain constituted as it was at present. But, whatever view the House might take on that point, he hoped that they would proceed to deal with the Bill, bearing in mind those two
1876
very important maxims, that they should do all they could to strengthen the powers of the Government in India and also to induce the people at home to take more interest than they did at present in that country.
MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord that it was most important that India should be governed in India, and that there was a great tendency in the change of circumstances which had rendered communication with India so much easier to lead to over-interference on the part of the Home Government. But, after all, they could not altogether abdicate their control, though the best way in which that control could be exercised would be to send out men to represent us who could be relied upon to perform their duty well. Since there must be a controlling power here, the question was between placing it in the Secretary of State alone or in the Secretary of State and the Council. On that point he did not think the noble Lord had said anything which tended to show that it was better to place that control in the Secretary of State alone rather than in the Secretary of State and a Council which had an effective power. The noble Lord had admitted the absolute necessity of the Secretary of State being assisted by persons who had acquired a knowledge of India. About that there could be no difference of opinion between the noble Lord and himself. But if the Council did not possess some substantive power, if they were made a consultative body only, they never would have that degree of weight which they ought to possess; they would be a mere superfluous wheel in the machinery. If they had only the power of giving their opinions they would never be so powerful with the Secretary of State as his own subordinates in Office. If the House did not think that the Council as at present constituted was the best controlling body, they could try to improve it; and various modes of doing so had been suggested, some of which he thought were improvements. Perhaps it would be an improvement if a portion of them were allowed to sit in that House. He confessed he was surprised, however, when the noble Lord said that if the present powers of the Council were continued he would be against its Members being admitted to seats in that House; but if their powers were taken away then he thought it would be of advantage that they should have seats. Now, such an expression of opinion appeared to

1877
him at variance with the whole course of the noble Lord's argument, because he had contended that the Council were irresponsible, and that the Secretary of State was the only one who had any responsibility. But what responsibility had the Secretary of State? It was that he could be called to account in that House, and if he did not succeed in defending his measures he could be turned out of Office. But the same thing would happen to the Council. They could be turned out after a period of trial, because the proposal of this Bill was to make the duration of Office as a matter of course shorter. But of all the surprising things in the speech of the noble Lord that which had surprised him most was that the noble Lord should have brought forward the tendency of this country to throw all expenditure, when any excuse could be found, on the people of India, as a reason for asking the consent of England, not India, when such expenditure was in question. If there was one thing which might be held absolutely certain, it was that the majority of a body constituted like the Council would in such matters be on the side of India. The Court of Directors had always been so, and many a battle to his knowledge had been fought by them with the Board of Control, in order to prevent such expenditure from being thrown upon India; and they often succeeded, but, he was sorry to say, still oftener failed. Now, if the power of sanctioning expenditure were taken away from the Council, which represented India, and given to that House, which did not represent India; and which seldom troubled itself about India at all, but which did care about England and its burthens, and if the noble Lord believed that the House would be actuated in such matters by a generous and chivalrous spirit and would take the burden from India to throw it upon their own constituents, he must say that the noble Lord had a far higher opinion of the virtue of that House than his (Mr. Stuart Mill's) experience had taught him to have of that or perhaps any other public body in similar circumstances.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that nothing had surprised him more than the assertion of his noble Friend (Lord William Hay) that the Government was impeded by the power of the Council of India. Why, the Council were the mere agents of the Secretary of State, with the exception of the control of the finances of India, which his noble Friend would do away with. The power
1878
which the 41st clause of the India Act gave the Council of controlling the expenditure of India was the only power which they possessed. They could not see a despatch unless it were referred to them, by the Secretary of State. They were little more than automata, except in financial matters, and were on an entirely different footing from the Directors of the East India Company who had as much freedom of action as a Member of the House of Commons, and he spoke from nineteen years experience. The Secretary of State, much to his credit, upon his own authority, had restored to the Prince of Mysore the dominions which had been taken from his family, and that was a power which the Secretary of State, under the circumstances, ought to possess; but he ought not to have the sole control of £50,000,000 of revenue, or the power of guaranteeing £60,000,000 of money—he believed it was now £80,000,000—for railways. That was a power he would give to no man, inasmuch as the House of Commons did not allow a Secretary of State to spend a £100 unless it had been placed at his disposal by a previous Vote of the House. Neither would he allow an individual to lend £500,000 for irrigation works, without the advice of those who had had experience of the necessities and advantages of such works in India.
SIR HENRY RAWLINSONsaid, he regretted that means had not been taken to furnish the House with reliable and authentic information with respect to the working of the Council of India. There was a vast number of points on which such information was needed before Parliament proceeded to legislate further in the proposed direction for that country. The very question involved in the financial power of the Council, for instance, was one which it was very important should receive elucidation. How had that power operated? Had the Council assisted or impeded the Secretary of State with reference to financial operations? How often had they exercised anything like a veto on financial measures? Did the Secretary of State over-rule their decisions in matters not connected with finance? So far as he had an opportunity of obtaining information, his opinion was that the Council were in reality a very great assistance to the Minister for India; that they were, in a word, an auxiliary, and not an obstructive body. But the subject was one on which adequate knowledge could be secured only

1879
by means of fin inquiry before a Select Committee empowered to examine those who, from the position which they occupied, were most conversant with it. The Session was, however, now too far advanced, he was afraid, for the appointment of such a Committee, but he trusted the Secretary of State for India would throw some light, before the House proceeded further with his Bills, on the working of the present system.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE,in reply, said, that after what bad fallen from one or two hon. Members whose opinions on Indian matters deserved the greatest consideration, he felt it to be his duty to make a few observations on the subject. The hon. Member who had just spoken seemed to think it very desirable that the present measure should be preceded by some kind of inquiry before a Select Committee. Undoubtedly in former times it was the practice to institute an inquiry into the mode in which the East India Company used to conduct the affairs of that country, and the terms on which their charter should be renewed at the expiration of the several periods for which it had been granted, and some might think that that formed a precedent for inquiry in the present case. The old and the new systems of government for India were not, however, exactly parallel. Under the former, Parliament delegated to a body extrinsic to itself and peculiarly constituted—for it was originally nothing more than a private company—certain functions of an Imperial character. It was therefore only reasonable and proper that Parliament should from time to time review the proceedings of that body. But the present Government of India was in the main neither more nor less than one of the branches of the Executive, and under those circumstances he did not think there was any standing occasion primâ facie for a review of its working beyond that which existed in the case of the Admiralty, the War Office, or any other public Department into whose affairs the House might, when it deemed fit, order inquiry to be instituted; while, upon the other hand, those who were responsible for the transaction of its business would very properly, in the event of setting about making any alteration in its Constitution, submit their proposals to the consideration of a Select Committee, or even move for a Select Committee to investigate the whole subject before proposing any such change. It was not, however, the opinion of the present Government, nor
1880
so far as he knew of their predecessors in Office, that the Constitution which had been adopted for India in 1858 had, upon the whole, worked ill. They were, on the contrary, satisfied with that Constitution, believing it to be as good a one as could well be devised. There were certain points it was true with respect to which they deemed it desirable that amendments should be introduced, and to those the attention of the House was invited in the Bill under discussion. They were points which in his opinion might very fairly be dealt with by the House itself; but if it were deemed right that they should be more closely investigated before a Select Committee he should not, had not the Session been so far advanced, offer any objection to that course being taken. He very much doubted at the same time whether a good case had been made out for any inquiry of the sort. It was by no means a difficult thing to give the House a general idea of the way in which the present Constitution worked without such an investigation. It was not true, as the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) seemed to imagine, that the Council were mere automata, doing the bidding of the Secretary of State. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, in putting forward that view, seemed to have lost sight of the phraseology of the Act under which the Council was constituted, and which rendered it incumbent on the Secretary of State to submit to them every despatch or Order which he might have occasion to send out to India, with the exception of the very few which might happen to pass through the Secret Committee. In the event, too, of any sudden emergency arising, the Secretary of State might proceed to act without consulting his Council; but then it was his duty to give his reasons for the course he proposed to take, and to lay those reasons before them. [Colonel SYKES: Such as he pleases himself to submit to them.] The words of the Act had reference to every Order which was about to be sent out to India. Every Member of the Council had full power to record his dissent from the policy about to be adopted, and each of those dissents might be moved for and laid before Parliament. The Secretary of State, indeed, might take no notice of communications from India; but when anything was going to be done the matter was always brought before the Council. So much was that the case that only two letters had, he believed, been sent out to India through the Secret Department

1881
—the one written by his immediate predecessor in Office with reference to the Mysore question, the other by himself in connection with the Abyssinian Expedition. There might be one or two other cases in which letters had been written in the Secret Department, and usually, after the immediate occasion for secresy had passed away, had been transferred to the Political Department. But, as a matter of ordinary routine, almost everything went before the Council of India. The mode in which business was done was this—The Council was divided into a certain number of Committees—the Political Committee, the Finance Committee, the Military Committee, and so forth. Every letter which came from India, with the rarest exceptions, was first opened in the Department to which it belonged. It then, if of sufficient importance, was submitted for the opinion of the Secretary of State, Afterwards it came before the Committee to which it belonged. That Committee met every week. They fully considered and discussed the subject, and prepared for the consideration of the Secretary of State the answer which they thought ought to be sent. This answer, again, was reviewed by the Secretary of State, and when approved by him was brought before the Council, where the matter was once more fully discussed and voted upon. Thus, every question underwent a careful sifting, first before the Committee, and afterwards before the whole Council, the Secretary of State being privy to the whole of the proceedings, he being in constant communication with the members of the Committee, and being able to discuss freely with them and with the Council all the business which had to be transacted. If there was an objection to this system, it was that the system was somewhat cumbrous, and that business did not proceed quite so rapidly as one could wish. But, on the other hand, when you considered what the Council of India was meant to be and what it ought to be—namely, more in the nature of a Council of Review and Control than an Executive Council, the same objection would not apply with the same force as it would to a Department which was altogether executive. He agreed entirely with the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) that the Executive Government of India must be conducted in India, and that, as far as possible, the hands of the Viceroy must be strengthened; and he
1882
thought that when the proposals in these Bills were considered it would be seen that their tendency was to strengthen the hands of the Executive in India. But you must have the power of review and control here, and the question was, how that power could best be exercised? His belief was—and it was strengthened by his experience of the working of the Council since he had been in Office that you exercised the power best by a Council constituted very much as the present Council of India was constituted. He believed that there you had the means of thoroughly discussing the questions which arose, and that the Secretary of State was thereby really put in possession of the merits of a case and enabled to exercise his discretion much better than in any other way. Possibly there were faults in this system as in all others; and one was that the members of the Council, being for the most part gentlemen who had served for many years in India, who had acquired much practical knowledge of details, were rather too prone to import their own knowledge into the discussion and into the regulation of matters decided in India. There was, perhaps, a tendency on the part of members of the Council to examine and criticize the acts of the Government of India a little more in detail than was desirable. At the same time, though that was a natural temptation to gentlemen who saw anything done with which they were practically acquainted, and who saw it done, perhaps, not exactly in the way in which they would have done it in India ten or twelve years ago, yet he was bound to say that the animating spirit of the Council of India was a desire to support the Government of India. He was not at all disposed to find fault with the Council of India for any tendency to meddle or interfere too much in petty details. He only said it was a temptation; but it was one which generally was very fairly resisted. As to the speech of the noble Lord, which was an extremely interesting one, he rather gathered from it this view, with which he agreed—namely, that the Executive Government of India should be in India; that the control should be exercised in England by the Secretary of State, using his Council simply as his advisers, the responsibility being concentrated as much as possible upon him, and he being responsible as much as possible to this House; that the control, in short, should not be that of the Council, but that of the Secretary of State

1883
informed by his Council, with the sanction of this House. The effect of such a system would be to throw a much greater amount of direct control into the hands of this House than existed at present. Now, with all respect to this House, he did not think that it would be as good a body to control the Indian Government as the Council of India. It was a great advantage to have a body independent of Parliament, which concentrated its attention on the affairs of this great dependency, which was adequately informed upon the affairs of India, and which had a direct interest in India, and the control of such a body was likely to be much more effectual than the loose control which must be exercised in this House. Perhaps there might be here twenty, or thirty, or fifty Gentlemen who understood a good deal about India; but they were always liable to be overborne by Gentlemen who knew little about it, whose ideas were crude, and who might do a good deal of mischief. Therefore he was entirely for maintaining the present Constitution of India, keeping the control in the hands of a body apart from this House, not influenced by political exigencies, and with no other object than the good government of India. It was desirable to shorten the tenure of office of the members of such a body in order that new blood might be more frequently infused into it, and newer ideas respecting India might be represented; but otherwise he should be jealous of interfering with the independence of the Council of India. He was much obliged to those hon. Members who wished to give more control to the Secretary of State, and who said they would rather trust him than the Council. But he did not desire to have for himself or his successors greater power than he now had. If the Secretary of State chose to exercise it, he now had quite as much power as was necessary. There was no doubt that upon matters not connected with expenditure he had the power of over-ruling the Council. Even in other matters, however, he had great moral power, and through Parliament and in other ways, could bring to bear so great a leverage and pressure upon the Council that he did not believe they would for a moment resist it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Frome asked whether the Council had often over-ruled the Secretary of State. He did not think there were many cases in which a direct vote had been taken, and the Council had outvoted the Secretary of State. At the same time there were many cases in which,
1884
if it had not been for the Council, the Secretary of State would have incurred expenditure which, owing to them, had not been incurred. Therefore, the Council exercised considerable influence—and, on the whole, a very beneficial influence—in checking expenditure which he would otherwise have been inclined to incur. There were some cases in which they had stopped an expenditure which the Secretary of State would think advantageous; but, looking to the spirit in which the Council had always acted, the result of their influence had not been as much of mischief on the one side as of good on the other. They sometimes heard a good deal of praise bestowed on the Secretary of State, who was told that he was a fine fellow, while the Council, it was added, stopped him from doing a great deal of good. Now, this was hardly fair. You did not hear of the mischief which the Secretary of State would have done but for the influence of the Council; you only heard of the good which the Secretary of State would have done if it had not been for the Council. In thinking over this matter, the excuse given by Adam in the 3rd chapter of Genesis always occurred to him—"The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." The Secretary of State was always tempted to say—"It is the Council that you put upon me that has caused this mischief." Now, it was really not the Council who should be blamed. If the Secretary of State were over-ruled upon any point which he thought of vital importance he ought to put it upon record and let the facts be known. He ought to take upon himself the responsibility which was properly his due, and should never shelter himself, if over-ruled by the Council, unless he was prepared to state in this House that he had been so overruled. The present system, therefore, worked as satisfactorily as you could expect it to work with a Council constituted for so peculiar a task as that which devolved upon it. If Parliament had before it the whole question de novo, he was by no means sure that there was not a great deal to be said for the old system, when there was a separate power and a separate company. However, that was all past, and we could not go back to it. Under the old system there were two powers—the India Company and the Government in this country—one balanced against the other, and the Executive in India was, in consequence, made more free and independent; and it

1885
was because a much greater force was brought to bear on the Governor General under the existing system of unity of action, and because a greater directness of control was exercised upon the Governor General through the rapidity of communication by the electric telegraph, that he wanted to strengthen the position of that functionary. That was the object of one of the Bills he had introduced.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he was of opinion that it would have been right to have referred the Bill under consideration to a Select Committee in the first instance; and he believed that great evil was being done in consequence of the restraint exercised upon the Governor General by persons who could not know so well as he the circumstances arising in India.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Members of the Council of India to be in future elected for a Term of 12 Years).
MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped some modification would be made in this clause, which was open to great objection. The clause, while it enacted that new Members of the Council, after holding office for twelve years, should not be re-eligible, said nothing about the existing members of Council, who held office during good behaviour, so that, if new Councillors should be appointed under the present clause, there would exist a Council consisting of two classes of members, and the appointment of one class would condemn the existence of the other class, for both systems could not be admitted to be right. In the Act constituting the existing Council a proviso was introduced declaring that if Parliament should think fit to reduce the number of the Councillors, or alter the terms and conditions on which they held office, no Member of the Council who had not served ten years should be entitled to claim compensation. Therefore, Parliament then concluded that it would be a proper time at the end of ten years to reconsider the mode in which the Council should be appointed, and if a change should he made in the terms and conditions of appointments to the Council for the future, the Committee was bound to apply the new: conditions to the members of the Council now existing, so that they might also be on the same footing. For what purpose was the Council formed? The Council was desirable to supply a link of connection between the Secretary of State and those
1886
who were engaged in administering affairs in India. For this purpose it was absolutely necessary that those forming the Council should have a fresh knowledge of everything that was going on in India, should have been recently in India, should know those engaged in affairs there, and be able to speak of the effect of measures which were being carried on. Another function of the Council was to prevent the Secretary of State from writing any incon-considerate despatch or sending out any indiscreet Order to India. That function could not be well and effectually performed unless the Councillors had a fresh knowledge of the immediate views with which the Government was administered. If ten years ago they had been enabled to consider this question with due regard to principle, they never could have arrived at the conclusion that the members of Council should hold their offices during good behaviour. If they were to have in the Council gentlemen of eighty years of age who perhaps had been away from India for thirty or forty years, it was quite evident that the purposes for which the Council had been established could not be fulfilled. Persons at the age of eighty were as able to receive their salary and to enjoy honours as when they were in the vigour of life; but unfortunately there was no means provided by the Act of bringing the councillors to a test of their efficiency and capacity, because they were not bound to do more than they pleased. They might remain, in point of fact, as long as they liked, until they chose to present themselves to the Secretary of State as wholly unfit for any further services. No one up up to this time had been found incapable or inefficient for the performance of the duties of the Council. Was that a state of things they should encourage? The Secretary of State would be prepared after this year to got them to retire on pensions of £500 a year; but he denied that this was the proper mode of treating this question. They should show some regard for the revenues of India. Members of Council were in receipt of very large pensions from the Indian revenues already. They had been Directors of the Mast India Company, with £500 a year and unlimited eating at the India House, and now they were in receipt of £1,200 a year. What possible moral claim then could they have to receive pensions. They were perfectly free to examine this question; he therefore urged on the Secretary of State the necessity of putting the whole of his Conn-

1887
cil on one uniform footing—a footing more consistent with the purpose for which it was intended. What was a reasonable period during which a person should hold the office of Councillor without his position being subject to review? Having regard to the fact of there being fourteen Councillors—[Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Fifteen]—he thought there should be a change of at least two every year. This would run no risk of disturbing business or subverting the policy which regulated the course of affairs, while it would enable them to introduce into the Council men who had just returned from India. The Secretary of State for India proposed that one should retire after twelve years, but that appeared an extremely long period. It did not offer sufficient rapidity of change to ensure efficiency. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would listen to the appeals which had been made to him and re-consider his proposal. It was necessary to carry this clause much further than the Secretary of State proposed. The whole Council should remain subject to legislation, and the period for which the office of member of Council was held should be shortened very considerably below that which the right hon. Baronet proposed. But the right hon. Baronet no doubt stood in a delicate position with regard to his Council. In order to bring the question properly under the consideration of the Committee, he should move the Amendment of which he had given Notice. He had fixed seven years, but there should be the power of re-appointment. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice—
"To leave out all after 'Council,' and insert 'shall continue in office until he shall retire in manner following, unless he shall by any other means previously cease to hold such office; the two members of the Council, one having been elected and the other appointed, who have been longest in office, shall retire on the first day of January in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, and in every subsequent year, but any such member may be again elected or appointed a member of the said Council; and when two or more members shall have been elected or appointed on the same day, the Secretary of State shall determine the order of retirement of such as were appointed, and the said Council shall determine the order of retirement of such as were elected."
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper limiting the term of service to five years; but he was willing to accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton). The term of twelve years was decidedly too high. If a man of forty-
1888
five to fifty, after lengthened service in India, were appointed for twelve years his mental and physical faculties might fail in the interim. In the time of the East India Company there were twenty-four directors, six of whom were obliged to go out every year. They were not eligible for re-election until after the expiration of a year, and they were not re-elected if they had not maintained the reputation they had when first elected. The term of office therefore was four years. The Governor General and the Governors of Presidencies and their Councillors held their appointments only for five years. The same principle obtained in the Royal Service, and no officer could be appointed to high command, or to the Staff, for more than five years. Why therefore adopt a different principle for the Council of India? By the more rapid infusion of new blood and ability the effectiveness and reputation of the India Office would be enhanced.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down would lead the Committee to suppose that his Amendment was identical with that of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) with the exception that the former proposed that the duration of Office should be five years, while the latter thought it should be seven years; but, as far as he understood them, the two propositions were totally distinct. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets proposed that the present members of the Council should be removed, two every year, from the 1st of next January, whereas the hon. and gallant Member proposed that the existing members should hold Office for a further period of five years from that date. Then, with respect to the question of pensions, he was in doubt as to the effect of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets. The members of the Council had now a reasonable right to a pension on retiring. [Mr. AYRTON: No!] He understood that the present members of the Council could not be displaced after ten years' service without being pensioned.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the way the matter stood was this—In the Act there was a proviso that, in the event of Parliament making any change within ten years, none of the members of the Council were to be entitled to a pension.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, it was only a fair expectation of the present

1889
members of the Council that they would not be displaced without a pension. Under the proposed system, however, the members of the Council would be appointed for a fixed term of years, and would not be entitled to a pension. The term of service proposed was undoubtedly too long, and the effect would be that there would not be an introduction of sufficient new blood.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he was glad that the principle of a limited term of service—for which he contended in 1858—was now recognized not only by Members of the House but by Her Majesty's Government. Most of the Members of the Committee were, however, agreed that the term of service proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State was too long. He thought, at all events, the term should be reduced from twelve years to ten. According to the proposal before the Committee, the members of the Council were to be nominated by the Council or by the Secretary of State; but he thought it was unadvisable that the members should feel that their re-election depended upon the good-will of their colleagues or the judgement or caprice of the Secretary of State. Balancing the advantages and disadvantages of the two terms proposed, he felt bound to support the proposal of the Government; but he should be happy to support so much of the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) as did not refer to the re-eligibility of the retiring Councillors.
SIR HENRY RAWLINSONapproved the principle of infusing fresh blood into the Council. It did however appear to him close practice that when there remained only about two months to the time when the Councillors originally appointed were entitled to claim their pensions this right should be altogether done away with. [Mr. AYRTON: That is not proposed.] As he understood the Amendment it would certainly have the effect of abrogating the right which the present Councillors would have to a pension at the expiration of ten years' service, that period having very nearly expired. He could not help regarding that as hard. He might remind the Committee that though absence from India might be a disqualification for Members of the Council, age could not be regarded as such, their functions being purely consultative. Concurring as he did in the principle that an infusion of fresh blood
1890
was advisable, he was inclined to give a preference to the suggestion that the term should be reduced to ten years.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was perfectly clear that Parliament might alter the constitution of the Council, or, indeed, abolish it altogether, without the members being entitled to any legal claim for compensation, a provision to that effect having been inserted in the Act of 1858. Inasmuch, however, as two or three members who might retire by reason of infirmity next year would be entitled—morally, at all events—to a pension, he agreed in the opinion that it would be rather sharp practice now to deprive them of that right. Those members had performed their duties to the best of their ability, and it would be hard that they should be deprived of an advantage to which they might possibly have been looking forward for some years. The recognition of that principle would not interfere with the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), because the cases to which he referred would be included in the words; "unless he shall by any other means previously cease to hold such office." He doubted, however, whether the proposal made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was the best, because the hon. Gentleman proposed that the two senior members should retire every year, independently of those who resigned from other causes. As there would constantly be some member or members retiring in this way, it was extremely uncertain whether any member of the Council would be able to serve the full period, whatever the period they might fix upon might be, inasmuch as through the vacancies so caused, he would be called upon to retire before his allotted period of service had expired. Some of the present members would probably retire in a few years, and probably the average number of years' service would not amount to seven—it might be five, or even four. He thought that they should give a salary, and not a pension, and that a gentleman ought to know how many years he was likely to serve. The objections which had been urged against the re-election of the members of Council were certainly strong ones, and it was therefore proposed that there should be no re-election. Although he had placed the term of service at twelve years, he thought it might be reduced to ten, but not to a less term, because length of service undoubtedly in-

1891
creased a man's value. He attached great weight to the remark of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) some time ago, to the effect that care should be taken that the Council did not fall below the permanent and assistant Secretaries in experience of Indian affairs. It was highly important that new blood should he infused into the Council from time to time, but it was also important that the body should know of the past history of the Government. Whenever a new Secretary of State was appointed all the old complaints and grievances connected with his Office were re-produced, and unless his Department numbered among its officers one who could tell him how and why those matters were formerly disposed of, his time would be largely occupied by the consideration of frivolous cases. On the whole, he recommended his own proposal in preference to that of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.
MR. AYRTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed the present members should hold Office for life?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not think any object would be gained by altering the position of the present members of the Council, because retirements would be tolerably frequent, and because the Councillors had been appointed on the presumption that they would act as long as they were able.
COLONEL SYKESasked whether the old arrangement by which the directors of the India Company elected seven members of the Council and the Government nominated eight, would continue?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid it would.
LORD WILLIAM HAYsaid, he would be willing to pension the present members of the Council, no matter what it cost, because he was sure the expenditure would be a cheap bargain in the interests of India. They would have a thoroughly efficient Council by getting rid of those who, in his opinion, were no longer fit for their work.
MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he was in favour of putting new blood in the Council, and suggested the expediency of occasionally appointing others than Indians, on the ground that such Councillors would look at questions from an English, and not exclusively from an Indian point of view. He thought ten years too long a term.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that as the Secre-
1892
tary of State would not put an end to a system he admitted was bad, he proposed to take the sense of the House on the simple question whether all the members of the Council of India should not hold their office for the same term. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD WILLIAM HAY LORD WILLIAM HAY moved the omission of the following words—" shall after the passing of this Act be so elected or appointed."
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, to leave out the words "shall after the passing of this Act, be so elected or appointed."—(Lord William Hay.)
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 109: Majority 36.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought the division which had just taken place might practically be accepted as an adoption of the principle of the clause recommended by the Government. He had no objection, however, to substitute the term of ten years for that of twelve, believing that this change would be acceptable to the majority of the Committee; and he should also be willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Taunton (Lord William Hay), that members, provided they had served or resided two years in India, should be eligible for reelection. If these Amendments were agreed to the clause might be adopted at once, and Progress could then be reported, as he understood the House was anxious to pass to other Business.
Clause as amended agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday,

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 71.]
(The Earl of Mayo, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 71.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he wished to explain that in taking the course he had taken on Thursday night, with reference to one of the two clauses which he had given notice of his intention to move in Committee on the Bill, he was acting in accordance with

  1893
  an arrangement he had entered into. The clause to which he referred had been drawn with the assistance of one of the most distinguished Members of that House, and he believed it to be a clause of great importance. Wishing, therefore, that it should be fully discussed, be had agreed with some of his hon. Friends not to bring it on after a certain hour on Thursday night. Under those circumstances, when he found that he could not bring it on be fore that hour, he thought the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was one he ought to accept. Unfortunately, his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) moved a clause. His hon. Friend had since written him a letter on the subject, which letter was of a most satisfactory character. ["Read."] He did not think it necessary to read the letter. His hon. Friend made his Motion under a misunderstanding, being under the impression that he (Mr. Brady) had not accepted the proposition of the First Lord of the Treasury, who had placed him in the position in which those who supported him desired he should be. He wished the House to understand that he, at least, was in no way responsible for the disorderly scene which had taken place on Thursday night.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he could not allow this Bill to pass through this its final stage without giving expression to his unqualified dissatisfaction at the manner in which it dealt with the interests of the Irish people. When the noble Earl (the Earl of Mayo) introduced the Bill some months since, he stated his objections to it. He stated that it was, so far as he could judge, framed upon no principle which had been previously accepted or adopted by the House. It proposed to increase the county representation by five Members to the injury of the urban representation as it stood. It left quite untouched the great question of the county franchise, and avoided the freemen so long objected to by Irish representatives. The Bill had now passed through Committee without any important Amendment, with the exception of the abandonment by the Government of their proposal for disfranchisement and re-distribution of seats—the borough franchise had been fixed at a figure above £4, the county franchise remained at £12, and the freemen, with nil their objectionable characteristics, remain in the full possession of all the powers
  1894
  which they have so long misused. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire told the House on Thursday last that the claims made for the increase of the county constituencies were fair and ought to be considered. He told you that even in 1850, when the English figure of qualification was six times what it now is, this House agreed to a reduction to £8. He quoted the remarkable words of Sir Robert Peel and he reminded the House that the £12 figure then fixed was arrived at as a compromise. He might have added to the authority he quoted many others almost of equal weight. He might have said that Mr. Hume considered that an £8 Irish rating was then equal to a £30 English rating; and he might have given the words of Sir James Graham, that, in a great nation of 8,000,000, to have an electoral body of less than 50,000 was an anomaly quite inconsistent with the safety of the State or the security of our institutions. But the right hon. Gentleman's arguments were unavailing, and the county franchise remained untouched. He much regretted this result, as he must entirely disagree with the remarks which fell from his hon. Friend the Member for Galway and his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham. He did not believe there would be any danger to the Liberal cause in giving votes to the Irish tenant-farmers valued at £8. He believed them to be as independent and as well entitled to the franchise as the English tenants. The very impatient manner in which the subject of Irish Reform was received by the House on Thursday last left those who represented Irish opinions and Irish interests little to hope for. The Bill was in Committee for some few hours on Monday night on merely formal matters. It was resumed on Thursday, and it was with difficulty those hon. Members who were anxious to express their opinions upon a subject of such moment were able to do so. Be it so; but such a course, they might rest assured, will not be lost upon the Irish people. What had they done by this Bill? They gave to Irish voters an increase of 9,000. Scotland receives 50,000 voters; and England 570,000 voters by the English Bill. They were told that our representation was sufficient for our population of upwards of 5,000,000. If the proportion added to England's register was to be taken, they should be increased 50,000 at least—20 per cent. If the numbers on their own re-

  1895
  gister were to be taken, they should be increased by one-fifth—40,000; and yet we receive only 9,000. Such a measure is a mere mockery. He protested against its being called a measure of reform of the Irish representation; it was only a stronger proof that the Parliament did not deal with Ireland as it dealt with England and Scotland. The House might rest satisfied that the estimate which the Irish people would form of this debate would be shown by the unanimous expression of their opinion at the approaching elections, and that they would tell that House and the Ministers that they would no longer submit to legislation so unequal in its character and so unjust to the best interests of their country.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he thought that a measure so small and so absurd had never before been brought before the House. In agreeing to it the Irish Liberal Members only relegated the question to a Parliament of more authority and vigour. But they certainly had hoped that a more extended county franchise would be at once adopted. He did not complain of hon. Members opposite, who had only acted in honest accordance with their principles; but he could not and would not say the same for Members on that (the Liberal) side. Irish Members had sat there night after night patiently endeavouring to make the other two Reform Bills worthy of England and of Scotland; but when they came to debate the question of their county franchise they found themselves deliberately, basely deserted by the men they had supported. What had this Reform Bill done for Ireland? Why, it had only reduced the franchise in towns from £8 to over £4. The county franchise it had left precisely as it stood before. He felt exactly as one might feel that found himself abandoned by his comrades in the face of danger. Of course, to those English and Scotch Members who had supported their Irish Friends these remarks did not apply; but whomsoever the cap fitted, he might wear it. In common with, he believed, all the Irish Liberal Members, he protested against the Bill; and if by saying "No" he could throw it out, he would willingly pronounce that word.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he thought English Members had no just ground for complaining that too much of the time of the House had been occupied by this measure. He did not complain of the
  1896
  time occupied by the English Reform Bill or by the Scotch Reform Bill. The consideration of this Bill had only extended over two evenings. He wished to endorse the sentiments expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell). Having analysed the two important divisions that took place on the last day this subject was under discussion, he found that a majority of the Irish Members had voted for extending the suffrage in the counties and abolishing the Dublin freeman franchise; but the Motions introduced to carry out those objects were lost in consequence of the apathy of the English and Scotch Liberal Members, who would not come down to the House to assist their Irish brethren in their endeavours to obtain what had been obtained for England and Scotland. This Bill could scarcely be called a Reform Bill at all. It was confined to a mere lowering of the borough franchise. He deeply regretted the course that had been taken in reference to the Motion of the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady) with respect to the ballot. It was a Motion of very great importance, and deserved serious debate and consideration. It was unfortunate that that Motion was brought on at so late an hour, and that the suggestion of the First Minister of the Crown to postpone it to this stage was not accepted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), and the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson) had been prepared to address the House upon the subject. The question of the ballot was now upon an entirely different footing from that on which it stood before the passing of the Reform Act, and he was anxious to have the opinion of the First Lord of the Treasury on the question. He desired that the right hon. Gentleman's opinion on the, subject should be expressed before the election, because he had reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman was not on principle opposed to the ballot. He had reason to think that the right hon. Gentleman believed the ballot would be a truly Conservative measure, and if left to his own views would have proposed it in the Reform Bill. He was led to believe that the right hon. Gentleman did not propose it because his party were not sufficiently educated for the purpose. He did not speak without authority, for in a work published some years ago, entitled The Spirit of Whiggism, the right hon. Gentleman thus spoke in re-

  1897
  ference to the extension of the franchise and the ballot—
  "The disposition of property in England throws the power of the country into the hands of the natural aristocracy. I do not believe that any system of suffrage or any method of election-would direct that power into other quarters. It is the necessary consequence of our present social state. I believe that the wider the popular suffrage the more powerful would be the natural aristocracy. That seems to be the inevitable consequence; but I maintain this proposition on the clear under standing that such an extension should be founded on a fair and not on a factious basis. Here then arises the question of the ballot, into the merits of which I shall take another opportunity of entering, recording merely my opinion that in the present state of the Constitution even the ballot is in favour of the power of the natural aristocracy, and that if the ballot were to be contemporaneously introduced, with a fair and not a factious extension of suffrage, it would produce no change in the distribution of power affecting the natural aristocracy."
  Now, the extension of suffrage made last year according to the opinions of hon. Gentlemen on the other side, was made not on a factious but a fair basis, and therefore if the right hon. Gentleman's view was to be acted upon, the time was come when the ballot should be introduced into the Constitution of the country. It was for that reason he was anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should have had an opportunity-as he would have had if the debate had gone on—of expressing his opinion on the question, it would be very unfortunate for hon. Gentle men opposite to go to the country without knowing the views of the right hon. Gentleman on the ballot; for in that case they might have to unsay next Session what they might state at the hustings this year, and he thought it was for the interest both of political parties and of morality that the right hon. Gentleman should have expressed his opinion. This subject he would not enlarge upon as he had risen merely to endorse the opinion of the hon. Member for Clonmel as to the nature of the Bill, and the manner in which they had been treated by Gentlemen on that side of the House; but in doing so he would not but express his regret that the debate on the ballot should not have proceeded, for the reasons he had stated.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he wished to point out how unjustly the provisions of the present Bill would operate. They had given to England a rating franchise for the boroughs, whereas in Ireland they restricted it to houses of £4 rental. In England the county franchise was fixed at
  1898
  £12, and one of the best authorities in the House had shown that a £12 franchise in Ireland was practically equivalent to a £30 rental in England. One or two figures would enable the House to understand the real character of this Bill, which was called a Reform Bill for Ireland. ["Oh, oh !"] He perceived no argument in these extraordinary noises, and he thought that hon. Gentlemen would do better to use the English language. Take the county of Clare, and compare its present condition with its condition forty years ago. It had then 17,000 electors, and now only 5,300. The county of Mayo had 20,300 electors in 1828, and only 3,400 in 1868. The Bill would not add as many electors to the which constituent body of Ireland as had been deducted in 1828 from the constituency of the one county of Clare. With respect to the ballot question, he would only say, that the observations of his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Brady) in the discussion the other night had been quite inaudible. Now that he understood from his hon. Friend that he had accepted the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister, he regretted much that he should have interposed between his hon. friend and the House.
  MR. ESMONDEsaid, all the friends of Reform must look upon this Bill as in no way a settlement of the question. He should feel guilty of a dereliction of duty both to himself and to his constituents, if he were to omit entering his protest against it. It must be perfectly understood that they would re-open the question on the very earliest opportunity. As regarded both the county franchise and the freemen's franchise, they would consider no settlement satisfactory, no matter what Government might be in Office, which did not deal with both these subjects.
  MR. REARDENsaid, he rose to propose a clause, altering the qualification to one of the net annual rental value of £6 or upwards for counties, and £3 or upwards for boroughs, of lands, tenements, or hereditaments. He thought that after Irish Members had assisted in passing Reform Bills of a character so liberal for England and Scotland, they were entitled to a better return. The present Bill would make an addition of only 9,000 voters in a population of nearly 6,000,000. Were a measure so restricted proposed for England, it would be burned at the market cross of every town throughout the country. But if the House would accept the clause he now

  1899
  proposed it would in effect hold out the olive branch to Ireland and do something to establish friendly relations with that country.
  Clause (Alteration of county and borough qualifications,)—(Mr. Rearden,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, he only rose to correct the impression which might be derived from the statement of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) regarding the part taken by the Scotch Members. No less than twenty-one Scotch Members voted in favour of the Motion for reducing the Irish county franchise to £8, and only seven on the other side.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
  MR. VANCEproposed a clause extending the residence of electors of the city of Dublin from seven to twelve miles. He remarked that, in the case of the English metropolis, the limit of residence had been extended to twenty-five miles, and as railway facilities induced many persons to live by the seaside or otherwise beyond the distance of seven miles from Dublin, he hoped a similar boon would be extended to the Irish metropolis.
  Clause (Residence of Electors for City of Dublin extended to twelve miles,)—(Mr. Vance,)—brought up, and read the first time."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he thought there was much force in the argument of his hon. Friend. The circumstances of Dublin were very peculiar, and of late years a large proportion of the most respectable citizens had lived outside the town. The seven mile limit at present excluded a number of persons from the enjoyment of the franchise, and, considering the concessions agreed to with regard to London and that the class who would benefit by this provision were much the same as in that case, he thought the clause was a reasonable one.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I should like to have a few words of explanation from the noble Earl as to the application of this principle to the cases of other large cities and towns, before we assent to the Motion made by the hon. Member for Armagh
  1900
  (Mr. Vance). He founded it in a great degree on the fact that Dublin is a metropolis, arguing that as the metropolis of the Empire had that privilege, something of the same kind should be conceded to the metropolis of Ireland. But the privilege was not granted to the metropolis of England on the ground of its being a metropolis; it was on account of peculiar conditions with respect to residence, and the fact of the metropolis being blocked in on all sides by Parliamentary boroughs of great extent, containing an enormous mass of population. That is a very different matter from laying down the principle that a particular town, because it is a metropolis, should have electoral rights different from those of other large towns containing an equal population. Edinburgh is also a metropolis, the citizens of which, in many cases, live at a considerable distance out of town, but no such privilege has been given to it. We have dealt also with the cases of Glasgow, Manchester and Salford, Liverpool, and Birmingham. No such privilege has been given to them, though in Liverpool, for example, numbers of the inhabitants reside for great part of the year at Southport and other places fifteen miles distant. With respect to the modern system of conveyance, several of these towns have a much larger number of railroads running into them than Dublin. I submit that if any change of this kind be sanctioned, it ought not to be merely on the ground of a place being a metropolis; but in reference to physical conditions affecting the residence of the voters, and ought to be extended to all large towns. I cannot conceive that an isolated Motion of this kind can either be accepted as a compliment to Ireland, or be a satisfactory mode of recognizing a principle.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he had been a resident of Dublin for thirty years and upwards, and did not know that any large number of electors having their business in the city resided at any outside place. With the exception of Kingstown, which was within the seven-mile limit, there was no considerable place where persons went for sea residence. Bray was a small though growing town outside the limits of the county of Dublin, and nearly twelve miles from the city. The persons who would be brought in by the clause were not occasional residents, but occupants of villas, who lived outside of Dublin for the purpose of escaping the urban taxation, and did not contribute in any way to the

  1901
  municipal burdens of the city. It would admit, in short, a large agricultural population, having no direct connection with the place such as ought to belong to electors and who had already votes for the county. In behalf of the citizens of Dublin, he should oppose the clause.
  MR. VERNERsaid, he was surprised at the view taken by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) who himself had a villa residence outside Dublin, while his place of business was in the city. He thought there were good grounds for extending the limit of residence to twelve miles. He knew that many persons engaged during the day in business in Dublin resided at Bray.
  MR. PIMsaid, he was in favour of extending the privilege granted in the case of the City of London to towns like Manchester and Liverpool, and also to Dublin. He could not see why there should be a seven-mile limit excluding gentlemen who had an interest in that city though they lived in country houses.
  MR. ESMONDEsaid, he was surprised that the Government should support this clause. He had understood that it was agreed on all sides to accept the Bill in the condition in which it left the Committee. If this understanding were not adhered to there would be an opening up of many clauses besides this in the Bill.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he thought it was a very suspicious measure to select one place in which to make a distinction, as was now proposed with reference to the city of Dublin, without any special circumstances connected with it. It looked very like a party and political move. ["Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen seemed to flinch from the imputation, and he did not wonder at it. He challenged any hon. Member to answer the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), and to explain why this proposal should be adopted in Dublin and not adopted in the large towns of England.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he wished to state that he had had no consultation whatever with Her Majesty's Government, and that he was entirely responsible for the Amendment.
  SIR ARTHUR GUINNESSsaid, that as a challenge had been thrown out for hon. Members on his side of the House to deny if they could that this Amendment had been made from party motives, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman
  1902
  (Mr. Monsell) that he and his Colleague (Mr. Pim) by no means sailed in the same boat on political questions, and that his hon. Colleague was going to vote for this Amendment. That plainly showed that the Amendment was not proposed from party motives.
  MR. SERJEANT BARRYsaid, that the Amendment would favour an increase in the number of freemen voters, and this explained the proposal.
  MR. COGANsaid, he hoped that the Government would reconsider the course they seemed disposed to take, and which would end in the whole question of Irish Reform being reopened.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that, believing that this was a clearly defined party proposal, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Gregory,)
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had been quite ignorant of this "party struggle" until the subject was introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance). Much might be said both for and against the Amendment. No doubt the precedent established last year in regard to the City of London, and which—although explained by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire—was one of very doubtful import, quite justified his hon. Friend in bringing forward this proposal. If his hon. Friend had, however, consulted him he should have said that upon the whole, and in the present state of the Irish Reform Bill, it would not be expedient to open this question. This would show what exaggerated statements had just been made, and how completely unfounded was the conclusion to which the hon. Member for Galway County (Mr. Gregory) had arrived when he hinted that this was some deep and sinister party move. He would say that, although his hon. Friend was quite justified in making this proposal, which was not only plausible, but very reasonable, and which was supported by both the Members for Dublin, still it was not expedient to press the Amendment to a division.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. VANCEsaid, he had made this Motion in the interest of his former con-

  1903
  stituents, but, as it did not meet with the general concurrence of the House, he would withdraw it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause withdrawn.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he rose, according to Notice, to move the following clause:—
  (Assimilation of franchise in boroughs, counties of cities, and counties of towns.)
  "Every man shall be entitled to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at the Election of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament for any borough who is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity, and who is seised of a freehold estate in such borough, or of any rent-charge arising out of any freehold estate in such borough of such value and subject to such conditions as would if in a city or town, being a county of a city or county of a town by itself, entitle such person to register his vote for such city or town, or who holds as lessee or assignee any lands or tenements in such borough for such term visions of the Registration Acts shall apply to of such value and subject to such provisions as would if such lands or tenements were situate in a city or town, being a county of a city or county of a town by itself, entitle such person to register his vote for such city or town; and all the pro-voters in boroughs on whom the franchise is hereby conferred in the same manner in all respects as far as is practicable as they now apply to such voters in cities and towns."
  His object was to extend to the rest of the thirty-three boroughs of Ireland a franchise which was now peculiar to eleven of them. Considering they were now reducing the borough occupation franchise to about £4, the addition by his proposal of from 2,000 to 3,000 of the most respectable and independent class, who possessed property of considerable extent, to the Irish borough constituencies would be a valuable improvement, wholly unconnected with any party advantage.
  Clause (Assimilation of franchise in boroughs, counties of cities, and counties of towns,)—(Sir Frederick Heygate,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he hoped that the clause would meet the same fate as the last, and that the First Lord of the Treasury would recommend the hon. Mover to withdraw it. The franchise which it proposed to extend was properly a county franchise, and he objected on principle to its introduction into the Irish boroughs generally. At present, it was
  1904
  almost exclusively confined to cities or boroughs which were counties in themselves, and it had scarcely any existence in England.
  MR. VANCEsupported the clause, which sought to extend a very valuable franchise that, though existing in but a few English boroughs, already prevailed in many Irish boroughs, and would act as a counterpoise to the dangerous lowering of the borough franchise proposed by the Bill.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that one of the questions which agitated the public mind in Ireland was the land question, and yet when a proposition was made to enable landed proprietors to express their opinions the House refused to' entertain it. But now the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir Frederick Heygate) came forward to introduce a landlord element into constituencies, to enable landlords to make faggot votes and swamp the constituencies, which were at present pretty evenly balanced.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had voted so often before for the maintenance of the distinction between borough and county franchise in England that he could not now support the clause of the hon. Baronet.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he rose only to protest against the imaginary compact which the hon. Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had announced as having been come to on Thursday night. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to think that there had been an agreement on both sides that no new matter was to be introduced into the Irish Reform Bill, that the Committee was virtually closed, and that they were only to touch some points of detail which, for particular reasons, could not be dealt with conclusively on Thursday night. [Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN: Hear, hear!] He was glad that the hon. and learned Baronet acknowledged the justice of that statement of what he had said. But his (Mr. Disraeli's) impression was totally different. He thought that it was agreed on Thursday night that Progress should be reported, in order that the House on Report might have an opportunity of deciding upon many very important questions, and particularly upon the question of election by ballot, which was to have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady). But there were other questions also of great importance, of which due Notice had been given, and that Notice

  1905
  proved how utterly erroneous and unfounded was the statement of the hon. Member for Clare. He found from the Paper that the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole) had given Notice that he would call the attention of the House to the propriety of lowering the borough franchise, while the hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Serjeant Barry) intended on Clause 4 to move to omit certain words which would entirely alter the character of the lodger franchise, and there was also the Notice of the hon. Baronet who had brought forward the pro-sent question. The House, therefore, ought to decide upon this question on its merits, and it appeared to be one well worth consideration. He believed it a decision was arrived at in favour of the proposition they would add greatly to the strength of the town constituency and improve the representation of Ireland.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was greatly disappointed when he heard that the right hon. Gentleman intended to support this clause. Whatever arguments might have induced the right hon. Gentleman to do so he was sure there was one to which he would lend no countenance—namely, the argument brought forward by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance). That hon. Gentleman had said that they had reduced the borough franchise to so dangerous a level that this clause was intended to act as a counterpoise. Well, as the House had adopted the borough franchise for Ireland proposed by the Government themselves, Her Majesty's Ministers at least would give no countenance to such an argument. But what was the House really asked to do? They were asked to do in the case of Ireland what the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had reminded them they had repeatedly refused to do in the case of England. If there was one objection more deeply felt and more strongly urged than another to the proposals of the Government in 1859, it was that county voters should be removed from the counties of England, and transferred with the same franchise to the boroughs. They had rejected that proposal for England; they ought now to reject it for Ireland, for if bad for England it was far worse for Ireland, where there was not so large an infusion of the commercial element in the county constituency. The creation of rent-charge votes in small constituencies was very objection-able. If they agreed to this clause they
  1906
  would add another anomaly to those which already existed, and another argument in favour of re-opening the question of Irish Reform.
  MR. SERJEANT BARRYsaid, he should oppose the clause on the ground that this franchise had been left where it was in 1832, both with regard to England and Ireland; and as it had not been extended by the late Reform Act in England, it ought not to be extended in Ireland. Such an attempt as that made by the hon. Baronet would have a very had effect in Ireland; for it would furnish with a new argument that increasing class of persons who maintained that it was useless to look for justice to Parliament, when it was seen that the Government had taken good care not to suffer the power of the landlords to be threatened in the counties, and now endeavoured to give them new influence in the towns. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. MURPHYseconded the Motion for an adjournment. He said the object of the clause brought forward by the hon. Baronet was to give county voters a vote also in the boroughs, a procedure that was manifestly unjust.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, this clause has been supported on two grounds. The hon. Member for Armagh supported it on a ground worthy of the attention of the House and the country—namely, that the propositions of the Government with regard to the borough franchise are of so dangerous a character that they require to be counteracted and neutralized, and he thinks he finds in this proposition of the hon. Baronet the remedy he wants. I confess I think it would have been much better if the hon. Gentleman had exposed this dangerous character of the propositions of the Government when they were made, and had not supported them in silence. But, whether he is happy or not in the choice of his opportunity, I wish to protest against the principle that we are to counteract by restrictive propositions the effects of those enlarging propositions which we have applied to the franchise. On that ground it appears to me it is totally impossible to defend the clause of the hon. Baronet, and I do not know whether the hon. Baronet will be obliged to the hon. Member for the character he has given to the clause as retroactive, and meant to restrain the effect of that exceedingly slight enlargement of the franchise which we have made by our so-called

  1907
  Irish Reform Bill. But, putting aside the doctrines of the hon. Member for Armagh, I do not think it right to give a vote on this question without fairly warning hon. Gentlemen opposite of what appears to me to be the certain, although perhaps not the immediate upshot of a Motion such as this. The hon. Baronet opposite proposes to introduce into the whole of the boroughs of Ireland a county franchise, and, to give its full effect within these boroughs, to withdraw it from the counties. Now, does the hon. Baronet imagine that the House can take such a step as that, and, having taken that step, can stop there? My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) has stated, and stated truly, that in 1859 a similar proposition was made by the Government of that day. That proposal, however, differed from the proposal of the hon. Baronet, in that it was a complete proposal. While the county franchise was carried into the boroughs, the borough franchise was carried into the counties. And let hon. Gentlemen lay their account with this, that if they choose now to tamper with the subject, and carry in Ireland the county franchise into the boroughs—I know not what its bearings on parties may be; I see what is involved as a logical consequence in such a measure—it must inevitably be followed by its counterpart, the carrying of the borough franchise into counties. And when you have carried the county franchise into boroughs—and are congratulating yourselves or condoling with yourselves, as the case may be—you must be prepared to have the same change carried into England. I do not say whether it will be a good change or a bad change. But I think it my duty to say that it is a change for which you must be prepared. It is impossible to adopt proposals of this kind—involving in themselves certain principles of broad application—for your own immediate purposes, and then think you can stay their application within the limits to which they can be conveniently carried.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Serjeant Barry.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 198: Majority 42.
  Question again proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. PIMrose to move the adjournment of the House, but there were calls for
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEwho said, he was not convinced by the argu-
  1908
  ments he had heard against his proposal, which he had made without any party motives. It had been said that a great difference existed between the county and the borough franchise in this—that the former was based on property, while the latter rested on occupation and residence. But it had been forgotten that great part of the English county franchise—all that resting on the Chandos Clause—depended on occupation. If, however, an assurance were given that the Bill should be now allowed to proceed, he would not allow his proposal to stand in the way, and would withdraw the clause.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause withdrawn.
  Amendments made.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday.

THE BANKRUPTCY ACT (1861) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 145.]
(Mr. Moffatt, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Charles Forster.)
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT (1861) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 145.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MOFFATT, in moving that this Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to amend the present law of bankruptcy, It dealt exclusively with deeds of arrangement.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he should offer no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, some portions of which would effect an improvement in the present law.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The Earl of MAYO, Bill to make provision for the Audit of Accounts of District Lunatic Asylums 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 184.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.