Commons Sitting of 12 July 1872

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Committee R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (£8,000,000)*.
Committee—Public Health (re-comm.) [215], debate adjourned; Pawnbrokers (re-comm.)* [233]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Bastardy Laws Amendment [109].
Report—Wild Birds Protection* [205–247]; Railway Rolling Stock (Distraint)* [116–248].
Considered as amended—Metropolitan Tramways Provisional Orders Suspension* [219].
Withdrawn—Salmon Fisheries (No.2) (re-comm.)* [178].
The House met at Two of the clock.

IRELAND—GALWAY ELECTION PETITION—JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE KEOGII.—QUESTION.
MR. MITCHELL HENRY (for Mr. BUTT)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will give precedence to his Motion relative to Mr. Justice Keogh on Monday the 22nd instant, or on any other early day?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I must distinguish between what relates to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt) and the general subject. I cannot undertake to give precedence to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member over other Motions of which Notice has been or may be given by other Members. I must leave them to fair and free competition among themselves. But I may repeat what I have already stated to the House. We shall be prepared at a proper time to name
1038
a day when the general subject may be discussed; but with due consideration, however, to the general convenience, we cannot fix that day until the House has gone into Committee on the Public Health Bill and the Licensing Bill. ["Oh, oh!" and Laughter.] If any hon. Gentlemen opposite are able to get through two or three things at once, they may be able to meet the general convenience of the House a great deal better than I can pretend to meet it; but as I lie under the unfortunate limitation of being able to do no more than one thing at once, I must, with great respect for my hon. Friends who laugh, try to arrange Public Business for the general convenience upon that footing. The whole evidence, moreover, in the Galway Election Case has not yet been delivered, but I believe it will be delivered to-morrow. We shall then consider whether it will be desirable in the public interest that we should submit a Motion of our own upon the subject; and, if not, we will take care that a day is provided when other hon. Gentlemen will have an opportunity of inviting the attention of the House to the subject.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked when the Government would be likely to come to a conclusion? Some notice to the Irish Members would be necessary, as the majority of them were absent in Ireland.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, of course, it was necessary to consider the Irish Members. He hoped, however, the discussion might take place on Thursday week.

IRELAND—THREATENING LETTERS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR THOMAS BATESONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that Sir Arthur Guinness has been threatened with death unless he sends an apology to the Freeman's Journal, for venturing to correct the editor of that newspaper on a matter where he had been in error relative to the Dublin Exhibition, with a further demand for a handsome subscription to Captain Nolan's Fund, or the consequences? The Question was based upon the following letter which had appeared in The Times:—

  1039
  "Guinness,—We are ordered to inform you that an Orange whelp like you insulted our clergy's and peoples newspaper last week, as if any one cared about you or the infernal Exhibition, and unless you send a appology to Freeman's Journal, and likewise give a hanson subscription to Capton Nolan's fund before a week, your life is not worthe a month's purchase, for we will send you a bullet, as well as that scoundrel Keogh, as we have a person hired to shoot you and him and no mistake, so take warnin in time."
  He asked the right hon. Gentleman to look at a photograph publicly sold in the streets of Castlebar, and representing the effigy of Mr. Justice Keogh.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have complied with the request of my hon. Friend to look at the photograph. We have no official report of the threatening letter addressed to Sir Arthur Guinness; but if the letter is made known to the Irish Government it will become the subject of inquiry in due course, as is the case in Ireland with reference to threatening letters generally, which are unfortunately rather characteristic of the mode of carrying on Public Business in that country. Meanwhile, I may express my sense—and it is rather a strong sense—of the imprudence of making these threatening letters the subject of distinct notice here. I know that my hon. Friend's object is an excellent one. It is that public indignation may be drawn towards the authors of these letters, and that the ministers of the law and the Executive Government may be stimulated, if they require it, to diligence in discovering them. But it appears to me that any good done in this way is more than counterbalanced by the evil caused by the notoriety given to these unworthy productions, which is more than anything calculated to flatter those who write them and encourage those persons to write more. I am sorry they should be honoured with the notice given to them on this occasion.

IRELAND—SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES—VALUATION DEPARTMENT.

  QUESTION.
  THE O'CONOR DONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is willing to reconsider the decision he arrived at relative to the diminution of the superannuation allowances to be made to certain officers removed from the Valuation Department of Ireland in October 1870?
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that circumstances had come to his knowledge which rendered it desirable to reconsider the decision arrived at relative to the diminution of the superannuation allowances referred to in the Question of the hon. Member for Roscommon.

  ARMY—TROOP SERJEANTS OF YEOMANRY AS MUSKETRY INSTRUCTORS.—QUESTION.
  MR. A. EGERTONasked the Secretary of State for War, If Troop Serjeants of Yeomanry who hold the Hythe certificate as Serjeant Instructors of Musketry are entitled to twopence a-day additional pay, which is allowed to Serjeants in the Rifle Volunteers under similar circumstances?
  MR. CARDWELL: In 1870, the Westley-Richards carbine was given to the Yeomanry, and the adjutants and one serjeant of each regiment were sent to Hythe; and since that time all the regiments which had access to ranges have gone to the targets, but no addition has been made to the pay of the Serjeants. All these questions, however, will come under review in considering the new arrangements.

ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE—CONDUCT OF THE POLICE.—QUESTION.
MR. MELLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to proceedings against a publican, the landlord of the "White Bear" Inn, at Ashton under Lyne, where two police officers in plain clothes entered the said public house on Sunday the 16th of June last; and, if so, whether he considers the proceedings on that occasion justifiable; and, if not, whether he will take the steps necessary to ascertain at whose instance, by whose orders or directions, and at whose cost such proceedings were instituted and carried on?
MR. BRUCEsaid, he had heard nothing of any proceedings of the police against a publican at Ashton, and it was impossible for him to say whether the police had acted illegally on that occasion; but he would suggest that if they had acted improperly, complaint should be made to the chief constable and justices at Ashton. The Secretary of State had no authority whatever over the local police.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS—BUILDINGS ON THE THAMES EMBANKMENT.—QUESTION.
DR. BREWER (for Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE)asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the Government will interfere to prevent the erection of any building on the plot of ground adjoining the Metropolitan Station as may be injurious to the beauty of the Embankment and destroy the view of the Houses of Parliament?
MR. COLLINS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I should like to ask him whether the Government has any power to interfere with property that does not belong to them?
MR. AYRTON: Perhaps, Sir, the House will allow me to explain what has really taken place in reference to this piece of land, as to which there seems to be some misapprehension, in consequence of the answer the other day of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. This land was vested formerly in Her Majesty's Commissioners of Public Works and Buildings, as belonging to the trust for Westminster Bridge. On the 22nd May, 1868, a contract was entered into by the Commissioners, and the Hon. G. Noel and Mr. H. Whitmore (two Commissioners of the Treasury), and the Metropolitan District Railway Company, by which this land was sold to that Company for the sum of £50,525, and vested in them as their property absolutely, with one qualification. That contract was scheduled to an Act of Parliament passed in 1868, and was thereby confirmed. The qualification is, that the Commissioners, or the First Commissioner—I forget exactly which—shall be at liberty, or shall be required, to exercise the right of approving of the elevation of any building which might be constructed on that land; but the contract equally assumes that the Company, having paid such a large sum for the land, is entitled to prescribe the plan on which the building shall be erected, namely—as I understand it—the area which it shall cover. The elevation was submitted to me some time ago of the building proposed to be erected. It was extremely lofty, and appeared to me to eclipse the Houses of Parliament by its imposing nature. The question then arose as to the nature and extent of my powers. The Company insisted that my
1042
powers were nominal, and were confined to the right of criticizing the beauty of the front of the elevation; so that, if I did not think it beautiful enough, I might prescribe that more ornaments should be introduced. I objected to that view of my powers in the matter. The architect insisted that I should come down and contemplate the beauty of his design, as he felt sure that if I did so I should be satisfied with it. Well, I came down, and I argued the matter with the architect, and I believe I succeeded in convincing him that, as a mere question of architecture, he had better withdraw the plan for the reasons which I stated. That being so, I believe that those who are interested in the matter have undertaken to revise the elevation in point of height, and probably, also, in point of decoration; but I rather eschew for myself the function of regulating the decoration of the building. I thought the "elevation" also meant the height of a building; and that what I had to do was to see that the building did not eclipse the Houses of Parliament. I will venture to say this much—that I will consent to no building being erected which would be higher than the Houses of Parliament. The legal advisers of the Company deny that I have the right to do so much; but I have told them I shall be happy to facilitate their going into a Court of Law to try that point if necessary. I believe that the owners of the property in question have proposed a new elevation, and when I have received the designs I shall give them the best consideration in my power. Further than that I am afraid I have no authority to interfere. I need hardly say that I have received no instructions from the Government to re-purchase the land.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—CLOSE OF THE SESSION.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENwished to ask his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, Whether he will, now that we have arrived at the 12th of July and that there are a great many Government Orders of the Day on the Paper, inform the House with what Bills he intends to proceed, and which are those he intends to abandon? It would be a great convenience to hon.

  1043
  Members generally to have information on that point?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would do his best to ascertain before Monday evening from the different public Departments what were the Bills with which they deemed it necessary to proceed. He hoped if the Government acted in a patriotic spirit in the matter, they would be met in a corresponding spirit by private Members, who, he hoped, would be prepared to give similar information with respect to the measures in which they were interested. He should be glad, he might add, to learn from his right hon. Friend whether there were any particular Bills which were more likely than others to keep hon. Members in town, in order that he might take the opinions of the Departments with respect to them.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENbelieved greater anxiety was felt about the Thames Embankment Bill than almost any other.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.
  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' REASONS.
    Order of the Day for the Consideration of the Lords' Reasons read.
    Lords Amendment and Reasons for disagreeing to one of the consequential Amendments made by this House to the Bill, and for insisting on certain Amendments to which this House hath disagreed, considered.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I think I shall be saving the time of the House if I, as briefly as possible, state the course which the Government propose to ask the House to take with respect to the questions as to which there is still a difference between us and the other House of Parliament. I will allude, in the first instance, to the question of the polling-places. With regard to that point, the Lords substituted two miles instead of four miles as the distance for which polling-places should be provided, and they also struck out the provision enabling school-rooms to be used as polling-places. We disagreed from them with respect to both those Amendments, and upon consideration they did not insist on their Amendments on Clause 6, with regard to the two miles, nor did they insist on striking out the clause with reference to schools, but they sent
    1044
    it down to us with an Amendment to which I cannot ask the House to assent. The Lords propose to introduce the words, "and make good any loss of fees or Parliamentary Grant." Now, the effect of the Amendment would be to throw on the candidate the loss of the grant. The other House seem hardly to have considered how difficult the working of their Amendment would be, and that the probability was it would turn out to be delusive. But if it were possible to prove the loss of the grant, then the unfortunate candidate would have to suffer the whole of the loss—perhaps £100 or £150, for which sum he could hire all the assembly rooms in the town. This seemed to Her Majesty's Government to be a matter about which it should not ask the House to take up its time; and on the other hand, there was a majority in the one House quite as large as the hostile majority in the other. Under these circumstances we have thought that the Education Department must step in and solve the difficulty. I think we must alter our Code so as to provide that when a school-house is used as a polling-place, neither masters nor pupils shall lose by the electoral interregnum. While, therefore, I deem it right to ask the House to disagree from this Amendment, my noble Friend the President of the Committee of Council and myself will introduce into the Code at the earliest time an arrangement to the following effect:—
    "If a school is employed as a polling-place under section of the Act, 1872, the number of meetings during which the managers are deprived of the use of it solely in consequence of its being so employed may, if necessary, be counted in making up—1, the 400 meetings of the school required by this article; 2, the 250 attendances of any scholars who were in attendance at the school the week before it was occupied for election purposes."
    We, of course, take it for granted that the children would have attended. I confess I make the concession with reluctance, because I object to any interference in the education of children; but the interruption will take place only once in three or four years, and there will, at any rate, be this advantage, that the children will associate a holiday in the performance of an important public duty. I now come to more important matter—namely, the position in which the question of the Ballot now stands. The House is aware that the Lords, when

    1045
    they first considered the Bill, made five alterations in it. They first inserted a scrutiny, but without any safeguards; secondly, they introduced the Optional Ballot; thirdly, they weakened, neutralized—in fact, made altogether useless—the clause inflicting penalties on the violation of secrecy. They allowed one voter to interfere with another whilst the latter was giving his vote, and permitted the presiding officer to obtain information as to how the elector had voted, and to give that information to anyone he pleased. In addition, the Lords struck out the declaration before a magistrate to be made by the illiterate voter, and substituted a declaration before the presiding officer, who was to take, and in this way to discover, his vote. When considering this alteration the House must bear in mind that by striking out Clause 4 all power of enforcing secrecy on the Returning Officer was lost. The last provision introduced by the Lords limited the duration of the Ballot Act to the 31st December, 1880. We accepted the scrutiny with certain safeguards, and we disagreed from all the other Amendments. The position is now this—that the Lords have accepted all our safeguards with regard to the scrutiny. They disposed of the Optional Ballot by a majority larger than that by which it was originally adopted in a House which I am told was the largest since the first Reform Bill. They also unanimously restored the penalty provisions in Clause 4, a matter which I look upon as being almost as important as that of the Optional Ballot. There are, therefore, as regards the Ballot, only two questions between this House and the House of Lords—the position of the illiterate voter, and the expiration of the Act in 1880. Now, although, on the one hand, I must be allowed with great respect to the other House to say that, while I regard the details as well as the principle of this Bill as matters which, very much concern the House of Commons, and though I think these are both points of importance, but nothing like the importance of the others, and should have been glad if they had been retained in the Bill; yet, on the other hand, I am prepared to take the question as it actually stands, and though the Government would certainly have thought that the introduction of the Optional Ballot, or the striking out the
    1046
    provision with regard to secrecy, so injurious to the operation of the Bill that we could not proceed with it, and must have subjected the House and the country to the trouble of re-considering the question, though fully alive to the inconvenience of such a course, yet we do not feel that the two points in discussion between us and the other House would justify us in preventing the measure from going on, and subjecting the country and the House to all the inconvenience of having to give its opinion over again on the machinery of a fresh Ballot Bill. If we had insisted on these Amendments, I do not believe, looking back at the experience of previous differences between the two Houses, that the Lords would have acquiesced. I propose to amend the Lords' Amendment as to the illiterate voter, nor do I think that their Lordships will insist on it as it stands. The original provision was, that the required declaration should be made before a magistrate; but the House of Lords substituted a simple oral declaration to the presiding officer. We do not think that that would be sufficient, and we thought it highly probable that a voter who had been bribed or intimidated would have very little difficulty of saying, under such circumstances, that he could not write. We have thought it desirable that there should be some record of his declaration, and that the document should be kept, in order that we might know the extent to which votes were of that description, and that it should be ultimately lodged with the Clerk of the Crown. We could not deny, however, that there might be some truth in the assertion that there were parts of the country—and especially in Scotland and Ireland, in which the illiterate voter might be placed in some difficulty in distinguishing his candidate; and there were, besides, many staunch friends of the Ballot who feared that sometimes magistrates might be partizans, and be likely to take one side or the other, and that some voters might have an objection to going before such magistrates, and being questioned as to their votes. Taking all these things into consideration, we have made a concession to the House of Lords, and propose to accept a declaration made before any registered elector of the county or borough, so as to secure that some record may be kept of the declaration. The

    1047
    only other point remaining in dispute was the limitation of the Act to 1880, and on that point I must candidly say that I am very sorry that Amendment has been introduced. I cannot but think it will be found inconvenient by those who may have to reconsider the subject at the time appointed, and it may be inconvenient to the very party by whom it was introduced; but we do not think that that is a point which we can ask the House to contest with the House of Lords. I can only say that I believe that England, like other countries, having once got the Ballot will never for a moment think of getting rid of it. I do not fear the result of this temporary provision, and I think it will be the means of affording an opportunity to those in different parts of the House who had opposed the Ballot of coming forward and frankly declaring that they were mistaken. I believe this will be especially the case with the Conservatives; for I have always felt that the Ballot would prove in the best sense of the word Conservative. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment said it would give time for two General Elections, but an influential organ said this morning that it was very doubtful whether it would do so. I have therefore looked back, and I find that there has not been a decade since 1800 in which there has not been at least two elections. [A VOICE: We have not had one this decade.] We have not had one, but probably we shall have within two or three years. There is one other ground on which I think we may concur in the proposal of the House of Lords. Though we are prepared to abide by the principle of the Ballot, yet there may be some details which we may find on experience will admit of amendment. I must not be supposed to be indulging in over candour in making that statement, for I must express my conviction that this measure, which is substantially the same measure as we brought in, will work as well as any Ballot Bill which has ever been proposed. It is the Victoria Ballot, and though I should have preferred the South Australian, yet in Victoria the Ballot works uncommonly well and I hope it will work well here. The principle has been acknowledged, and the details will be improved, because it is impossible but that the measure should require some alteration.
    1048
    Hon. Members must be aware of the difficulty of framing perfectly a Bill embodying a great principle, but which must be worked through an endless variety of details, any one of which evokes differences of opinion. I will not, however, detain the House with what I trust will be my last remarks upon the Ballot Bill; it will save time if we now proceed to consider the Amendments in detail.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he was glad the Government were prepared to take the course which they had just announced, and he felt sure that when the country got the protection of the Ballot, it would not part with it. He looked forward to the measure working so well that the staunchest Conservative would become in 1880 the most earnest supporter of the Bill. Indeed, he expected long before that date the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire would at some future Conservative banquet at the Crystal Palace claim the merit of being its real author. He regarded the Amendment respecting the illiterate voter as unimportant, for he felt sure that very few men would be found to declare that they were such fools as to require their voting papers to be filled up for them. Hon. Members must not forget that the House of Lords had had a great deal to swallow in reference to this Bill, and he could not help thinking that the Commons had got the best of the compromise. They had the substance, and the Lords had the shadow. On his own part, and on the part of the district which he represented, he thanked the Prime Minister and his lieutenant for the skill, judgment, and courage they had exhibited in steering the Bill through the sunken rocks and quicksands which everywhere lay in its path.
    MR. YORKEsaid, that if the Bill had been first introduced in the Lords, there might have been some foundation for the remark that the consideration of the machinery for electing Members to Parliament was more the business of the House of Commons than the House of Lords; but the people ought to look as much to the Lords as to the Commons for providing that proper liberty should be given them in recording their votes. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that the declaration by the illiterate voter should be made before any registered elector in a county or borough. Now, the declaration, as previously proposed,

    1049
    had at the least the value of being an official act; but could the same thing be said of a declaration made before any registered elector?
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it would be a declaration handed to the presiding officer, and by him transmitted to the Clerk of the Crown, and the method of doing which he would subsequently explain.
    MR. YORKEsupposed this provision would cause an addition to be made to the penalties of the Bill. He was glad the Government had assented to the other Amendment of the House of Lords limiting the duration of the Bill to 1880. As the opinion of this country was undergoing a rapid change, and reaction was setting in against the principle of the Ballot, that Amendment was most welcome. He was very glad, too, that the right hon. Gentleman had not reiterated the statements which had been so frequently made in both Houses of Parliament—that the elections which had recently been held justified the belief that the Ballot was gaining ground in the country. The recklessness of those statements he held to be only equalled by their inaccuracy. He had already stated the facts in a letter to the newspapers; and he might as well repeat them now. There had been 23 elections since the 1st of July last year, and of the Members returned 19 had voted against the third reading of the Ballot Bill, and only four for it. The hon. Member who took his seat for South-west Yorkshire (Mr. Stanhope) yesterday might, he presumed, be also reckoned among the opponents of the Ballot. Again, in 1872, there had been 14 new Members elected for England, of whom nine had voted against the third reading of the Ballot, and only four in its favour. The hon. Member for Oldham also spoke against the Bill, although he had not been in the House when the third reading was passed. There might be something attractive to Liberal electors in the ballot-box; but he did not think it would last long. It might be very imposing to be marched up into a gloomy shed, guarded by policemen, and initiated into the mysteries of which the right hon. Gentleman was the hierophant, but the reaction would soon set in; more especially; when it was found that the feeling of the really independent class had been
    1050
    wholly disregarded for the doubtful convenience of the illiterate voters.
    MR. CORRANCEsaid, that as a Conservative, he had no great regard for a man who could not read or write, more especially when he was called upon to exercise the franchise; but it never entered his head that the party to whom he belonged would place much reliance on such voters, or that Conservative doctrines were at all popular among them. He had heard with silent consternation the statistics of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, when he stated that the Reform Bill of 1867 enfranchised one-fifth of the illiterate classes. If that were so, he only regretted the fact was not more widely known before that measure passed. He would not be a party to offering any facility to the illiterate class to record their votes; and, in his opinion, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would give the same facilities for that purpose as the Lords' Amendments. There would be no protection whatever in the declaration to be made before a "registered elector." He was inclined to trust more to the prospective securities offered by that other measure of the right hon. Gentleman's—the Education Act.
    SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYsaid, he wished to register his protest against the wanton way in which the valuable time of the House had been wasted on this Bill. The same thing occurred year after year. Government thought it necessary to introduce measures more or less of sensational legislation. They strenuously and pertinaciously resisted every Amendment which was proposed, not because they were unreasonable in themselves, or because the Government did not mean eventually to adopt them, but solely that they might keep something in reserve to meet the demand made upon them in "another place." That was meant as a sop for Cerberus, that he might allow some part of the measure to pass. He did not mean to speak disrespectfully of the House of Lords, but it was well known to everyone that the Conservative party in that Assembly possessed three heads. He only wished sincerely that they had one of those heads to lead them in that House. What happened? In one short Sitting the House of Lords demolished the Bill on which that House had spent weeks

    1051
    and months. "The deformed was so transformed" that when it came back they could hardly recognize its features. Then came the really important question—what was to be done with the Bill as amended by the Lords? How far were both Houses prepared to yield? Hon. Gentlemen opposite were very indignant. Some of them thought once—they thought twice—they even thought three times about abolishing the hereditary branch of the Legislature; but, as they were great, so they were merciful. After a good deal of discussion something or other of an arrangement was arrived at, not by the force of reason or argument, but by the happy-go-lucky principle of splitting the difference. Then it was pretended by the right hon. Gentleman that the Government had adopted only the Amendments which were not antagonistic to the Bill; but the fact was, that he had himself ventured in Committee to propose, with reference to the illiterate voter, precisely the same provision agreed to by the other House, but it was then described by the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill as simply preposterous, if not absurd—at all events, it was utterly inconsistent with the principles of the Bill, and, if adopted, would render the whole measure a sham. Yet the right hon. Gentleman now asked them to agree to the Lords' Amendments in that respect. They had debated this Bill for 20 nights last year, and he wanted to know why they had to go over the same ground twice? Would it not have been much better, as the Lords had very properly rejected this measure last Session—having had no time to discuss it—that it should have been reproduced in February, and, instead of going through all its dreary clauses, that a short Resolution should have been passed—"That, in order to meet the political exigencies of the Government, and give a fictitious appearance of cohesion to the Liberal party, the House of Commons agreed to this Bill to legalize lying, to promote personation, and encourage bribery." If they disliked the phraseology, they might put the matter in any words they pleased. The only difference would be that the measure would have been passed in the middle of March, instead of the end of July.
    MR. NEWDEGATE: I heard with some surprise several of the remarks of
    1052
    the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Education, especially the manner in which he treated one of the reasons adduced by the Lords in support of their Amendments—I mean the Amendment which assigns a limit to the duration of this Bill, or rather this Act, as, I suppose, it will be. The Lords insist on their Amendment to Clause 33, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason:—
    "Because the measure being experimental, and the result of its working being to a great extent speculative and uncertain, and the evils to which it is designed to obviate being evils which are already rapidly disappearing, it is not desirable that legislation on the subject should be made perpetual in the first instance."
    I regret that the House of Lords should trifle with the legislation of the country by sanctioning an experiment upon it in a matter so important as that of this Bill. The manner in which the Vice President of the Council treated this objection was no less remarkable: he said that it was immaterial; for when once the new system of secret voting was established, there would be no fear of its being abandoned by the country. Now, I think, that there is a strong reason in support of the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, the reason assigned by Lord Brougham in his Political Philosophy. It is this—that elections under the new system of secret voting are certain to fall into the hands of agents, who will be so deeply interested in a pecuniary sense and otherwise in the maintenance of the system, that they will use the power with which they will have become invested for the purpose of perpetuating the system. That opinion of Lord Brougham is, to my mind, a perfectly sound one. I have no doubt that if an effort should hereafter be made to relieve the country from the incubus of secret voting, that the agency created for the manipulation of electors under the system of secret voting will oppose to the utmost any abrogation of that system. As this is the last occasion on which any of us will have the opportunity of addressing the House on the Bill, I wish to notice some other matters. It has been assumed by the Vice President of the Council, and by the hon. and learned Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Osborne Morgan) that the House of Lords had no option but to accept the principle of this Bill. And why? Because it has been persistently,

    1053
    during two Sessions, adopted by the House of Commons. Now, Sir, the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Yorke)showed that the last manifestations of public opinion in England are directly opposed to this system—that, of the new Members, nine have voted against the Ballot, and four only in its favour. The opinion constantly enunciated on this side of the House has been and is—that the people of England are not in favour of this system, and that they were not fairly consulted at the last General Election upon it. It is clear that not one-third of the House were pledged to the system of secret voting upon the hustings. That to my mind, presents a very grave aspect in a constitutional point of view. The present position of this question, is, I think, creditable to neither House of Parliament. I think it dangerous to the Constitution. And when I find the House of Lords, acting on the presumption, Session after Session, upon measure after measure, that where an opinion has been manifested upon any great principle by this House, they, the Lords, have no option but to adopt it, I feel, that one of the safeguards of the Constitution is lost. That this question of secret as against open voting is of great constitutional interest I state upon the authority of Lord Palmerston, the authority of Lord Brougham, and the authority of Earl Russell. The change involved in this Bill is, in fact, a fundamental change in the Constitution of the county. A change from open to secret voting changes the character of the franchise;—changes it from being a trust to being a property—from being a vote, which is the property of the community, although held and used by the voter, to being the property of the individual who gives it. I would, with all deference to hon. Gentlemen opposite of advanced opinion, call their attention to that fact. They may rejoice in the adoption of this measure, because it meets their views; they may chuckle over the compliance of the House of Lords. But measures may be proposed, and may be carried, in this House, to which they will be deadly opposed, and they then may have reason to lament that the House of Lords have abrogated their functions. It seems, forsooth, that we have reached the days of infallibility; for the House of Lords has voted the inerrency of the House of Commons, We have not yet received the
    1054
    securities against rash legislation and for freedom which the people of the United States have adopted, the conditions of which are fundamentally democratic. I find in the 5th Article of the Constitution of the United States this provision. I read from an abstract, but it is a correct one taken from the Statesman's Year Book, page 577—
    "The Congress of the United States has the power to alter the Constitution, by the 5th Article of the same. The Article orders that the Congress, (whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary to propose Amendments to the Constitution, or on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States) shall call a convention for proposing the Amendments, which in either case shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress."
    The Congress of the United States has proved itself a far more independent body than the House of Lords has for many years proved itself in England. And yet, notwithstanding the strength of the Senate, in the United States, the people of America insist upon the 5th Article of the Constitution. If such a measure as this had been proposed in Congress, it could only have been passed by a Convention summoned by two-thirds of the Houses of Congress, or by two-thirds of the States in Convention. I feel that this country, through the abdication of its independent functions by the House of Lords, has lost an essential security for the maintenance of its constitution, and its freedom; and, if that course is to be persevered in by the House of Lords—and I see no signs of their changing—I, for one, shall think it my duty as a Conservative, and at the same time the advocate of popular rights, to look around me for some tribunal more independent than the House of Lords—some security against the hasty decisions of that House upon constitutional questions, on which the constituencies have not been fairly consulted, passing into law; some tribunal to which such questions shall be submitted; some authority more independent than the House of Lords has proved itself. I have thought it right to say this much, for although, as I have said, I am a Conservative, I respect the popular rights of the people. I value freedom more deeply, perhaps, than some hon. Members who call themselves ultra-Liberals,

    1055
    I watch this tendency to unchecked Democracy with jealousy, and for this reason—that all modern history proves that Democracy always tends to despotism, if it be not itself despotic. I, therefore, as an old soldier in the cause of freedom, valuing the Constitution of this country chiefly as it has secured our freedom, look about me for some security which shall tend to check the somewhat usurping temper of this House in its invasions upon the securities for the freedom of the people by hasty legislation with respect to grave matters, upon which the constituencies have not been fairly consulted, and with respect to which therefore Parliament cannot fairly be held to represent the people.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he regretted that the House was called upon to consider the important matter of the declaration by an illiterate voter at such a short notice. The objection to making a declaration before the Returning Officer was simply that it would obstruct the Returning Officer in taking the votes. But in Ireland the registered elector before whom the declaration was to be made might be the agent or bailiff of the voter's landlord; and he did not see anything to prevent the agent or bailiff from taking the declarations of a great number of voters. The declaration was merely a statement that the voter could not read or write. But even a voter who could not read could be easily taught to distinguish between the printed names of two different candidates.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was glad that the Government had been able to meet the views of the House of Lords to so great an extent. He would not dwell on all the various proposals of the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill; but he could not help thinking that the acceptance of a scrutiny, of the limitation of the duration of the Act, and of the other matters on which the House of Lords had insisted, would do much to render the Bill unpalatable to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that the result of this legislation would be the passing of a Bill which in reality would be approved of by no one. As to the proposal with regard the illiterate voter, he never could see why the voter should be placed in a worse and more unfavourable position than that of a Jew, whose conscientious feelings led him to allow others to
    1056
    do for him that which he would not do for himself. With reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), that the landlord or landlord's agent might take the declarations of his tenants, and thus thwart the object of the Bill, he wished to know if anyone with the judgment of Judge Keogh fresh in his mind would venture to say that the priest might not also take the declarations with precisely the same effect, and thus render the Act nugatory in Ireland in reference to the very class of illiterate voters who were most easily influenced. When that Amendment came before them he should certainly take the sense of the House upon it. If the Government insisted on having these declarations taken, it would be only reasonable to provide that they should be taken before the person who after all, was in the most independent position—he meant the Returning Officer.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to take the liberty to point out to the House that the course it is at present pursuing is unusual. At the close of the Session it is unusual for a Bill which has gone backwards and forwards between the House of Lords and House of Commons to have its provisions treated as in a preliminary debate—on the second reading for instance. It is perfectly within the competency of hon. Members to debate the question now before them with that fulness which has characterized all our proceeding on this Bill; but I think there is a good deal of practical wisdom in the suggestion that we should discuss the Amendments, one by one, as they come before us, when put from the Chair. I beg to point out that we have arrived at a stage when we must consider the best manner for coming to an arrangement with the other House of Parliament. It is not on points of detail that the question ought now to be considered, and I venture therefore to express a hope that it may not be thought necessary to prolong the discussion, as it would be an important diversion from the course which the House has hitherto pursued.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, there was, no doubt, great force in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government; but if there was any irregularity in the discusssion it originated with the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Vice President of the

    1057
    Committee of Council, who had not in his opening statement contented himself with simply announcing the intentions of the Government, but had gone into the details of the Amendments with great fullness, and thus challenged discussion. The right hon. Gentleman had also assumed that it was not within the province of the House of Lords to discuss either the principles or the details of a measure of that kind. He (Lord John Manners) would, however, say that neither on the point of constitutional doctrine or of practice was he justified in complaining of the course which the House of Lords had adopted. That was a Bill not affecting the constitution of the House of Commons, but it was one which affected the habits and customs of the electors, among whom, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman, were ranked by the Constitution all Peers who were ratepayers. The Bill referred not only to votes given for Parliamentary elections, but for the election of municipal officers also, and Peers might vote for such officers, and could and did fill such positions themselves. Therefore, they had a direct interest in the Ballot. He must repeat that any irregularity which had taken place in the way of debate was owing to the opening speech of the right hon. Gentleman; and, therefore, there was, under the circumstances, he contended, no irregularity in commenting upon that opening statement.
    MR. GOLDNEY, while congratulating the Vice President of the Council on the fact that only a small fringe of the Bill remained to be dealt with, felt bound to thank him for the ability which had characterized his conduct of it through the House; for the courtesy he had shown to hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to him in its progress; and for the careful attention he had given to the Amendments which they had proposed.
    COLONEL BERESFORDalso thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his concessions, and said that on Wednesday evening last, in the discussion on the Proportional Representation Bill, he had been referred to as "the accidental Member for Southwark" by the honourable, the learned, the versatile, and he thought he might, without discourtesy, say the temporary Member for Boston. The hon. and learned Gentleman had better look to his own house, and when the
    1058
    Ballot became law, perhaps it would be found that he (Colonel Beresford) was not the "accidental Member for Southwark."
    MR. COLLINSsaid, he was quite unaware that he had made such a statement as had been attributed to him. All he had said was that there had been a disagreement among the Liberals in Southwark, the result being the return of the hon. and gallant Member. He had never ventured to prophesy that the hon. and gallant Member would not long continue to hold the dignified position he now occupied in the House of Commons.
    SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that after much experience in elections, he was of opinion that the Ballot would deteriorate our constituencies, put a premium upon lying, facilitate personation, increase the opportunities of bribery, and place Irish constituencies at the feet of the Roman Catholic priesthood. Before bringing about such a change, it was the duty of a constitutional statesman to have appealed to the constituencies. He denied that the last Election turned upon the Ballot, and if the constituencies were consulted, he believed they would repudiate the principle on which the system of vote by Ballot was founded. The recorded opinions of prominent Members of the Government against the Ballot were as strong as his own, and he regarded the position of the Government on this question as disgraceful and degrading to British statesmanship. Men like Lord Grey and Lord Palmerston would never have taken such a position; at all events, without appealing to the electors, and would never otherwise have dreamt of turning the outspoken, independent British voter into a sneaking menial.
    Clause 6 (Use of school and public room for poll).
    MR. W. E. FORSTER, for the reasons he had already assigned, moved that this House do disagree from the Lords in their Amendment to this clause.
    Amendment proposed by The Lords in lieu of the Amendments made by this House to Clause 6, disagreed to.
    Clause 25 (Vote to be struck off for bribery, treating, or undue influence).
    Lords Reason for disagreeing to the omission of Clause 25, read a second time.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the clause was one striking off a bad vote. That clause was rendered necessary in the original Bill, because there was no provision for a scrutiny; but when a scrutiny was provided for, the clause was struck out by this House as a consequential Amendment upon the altered state of things. There was some doubt, however, as to whether Parliament had the power to strike out a clause which had passed both Houses of Parliament, but he was inclined to think that it could be struck out, as the best authorities upon such matters had said it could if it were consequential. No doubt the House of Lords were right in declaring that the omission of the clause was not entirely consequential upon the Amendments, as cases might arise in which it would be necessary to strike off bad votes without the necessity of examining all the counterfoils, and taking all the trouble of a scrutiny. That being so, he now moved that the House do not insist upon the Amendment.
    Resolved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.
    Clause 33 (Short title).
    Lords Reason for insisting on their Amendment to Clause 33, read a second time.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERproposed that this House should not insist upon their Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
    MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he could not allow the Lords Amendment to pass without entering his protest against it, not with reference to the Bill alone, but to the constitutional principle involved. No more revolutionary doctrine had been entered upon the Journals of Parliament since the Long Parliament than that contained in the Reason of the Lords for that Amendment. It stated that the Bill, which most materially affected the Constitution of the country, was to be passed because, the measure being experimental, it was not desirable that legislation on the subject should at first be made perpetual. Therefore, the majority in the Upper House had laid down the doctrine that the method of dealing with the Constitution of the country was by experimental legislation. Such a precedent might have very serious consequences, supposing it were proposed for a few years to do without the House
    1060
    of Lords or the Church. He could understand the majority of either House saying that a measure was wrong, and opposing it; but he could not understand a majority in one House passing a measure, and a majority in the other House saying that they were so doubtful of its principles that they proposed it should be experimental, though they had not the courage to reject it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir James Elphinstone) had said it was the business of the Government to consult the country before passing the measure; but they had no occasion to consult the country, because a majority of that House had affirmed the principle of the Bill. There was, however, a power which might have caused the country to be consulted, and that was the majority of the House of Lords. They knew perfectly well when the division took place the other night in the House of Lords, that the question was whether or not there should be a dissolution on the question of the Ballot. But the House of Lords shrank from a dissolution, and therefore the hon. and gallant Member, in seeking to cast the responsibility of shrinking from a dissolution upon the Government, assumed a position which he was not entitled to take. And having declined to consult the country, they passed a Bill which they would not venture to defend, but appended to it the reasons before the House—
    "Willing to wound, find yet afraid to strike,
    Just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike;"
    and they asked the House of Commons to be parties to entering upon the Journals of Parliament reasons which recommended that that great measure should be treated as experimental. If he entertained any opinion that that was an experiment, and that the results would be speculative and uncertain, he should have voted against the second reading of the Bill. He did not wish to try experiments on the Constitution of the country; it was for Parliament to make up its mind whether a measure was right or wrong, and whether to pass it or reject it; and although he would not take the responsibility of suggesting a different course from that recommended by the Government, he could not allow an Amendment to pass accompanied by such reasons without entering his protest against them. He ventured to say that the course adopted by the House of

    1061
    Lords was one which no party would have more reason to regret in the future than the Conservative party, by whom it had been for the first time introduced. He did not know whether their adoption of this policy was to be attributed to the circumstance of their resembling Cerberus—who kept guard in another place—but if so, then three heads did not seem to have been wiser than one on that occasion. Fortunately, they in that House were not in the same position. They had passed a measure by which they were willing to stand or fall, and he would only enter a further protest against what was said by an hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who had expressed a desire that a measure which had received the sanction of both Houses of Parliament should go forth to the country in a form which would make it unpalatable to everybody.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHexplained that what he said was that the alterations in the Bill made it as unpalatable to the sincere friends of the Ballot—among whom the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had not always been included—as it originally was to the opponents of the Ballot.
    MR. VERNON HARCOURT, in continuation, observed that the Bill had not been made unpalatable to him, because the Bill was now in the form in which he had desired to see it. His objection had related to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), and to the penalties which were not now in the Bill. He should be sorry if the Amendments in the Bill had made it unpalatable to the country, because it was desirable that the decision of Parliament should be accepted.
    MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, that as both this Session and last he had put upon the Paper Notice of an Amendment to give the Bill a temporary character, he supported the Amendment of the Lords, and therefore he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for not opposing it. There was really nothing unconstitutional in passing temporary Acts. If legislation was intended to be experimental, surely it was better to treat it as such. The Bill was supported by two classes—those who preferred secret to public voting, and those who had ulterior objects in view; and, to the astonishment of many people, it was supported by the Catholic priesthood of Ireland, by the
    1062
    heads of trades unions, and even by philosophers whose machinations it was intended to frustrate. While it would leave spiritual intimidation and social pressure untouched, it would deprive men of any credit for, and satisfaction in, withstanding such intimidation and pressure. For instance, the 27 men who the other day voted for Sir Arthur Guinness at the risk of their lives would not under this Bill have the satisfaction of proving that they had courage to stand up for their rights. Moreover, if the Bill were made permanent, and the Ballot failed as a means of recording votes, it would be in the power of a small section of the House to frustrate the Government of the day in repairing the mistake; while if the Bill were made a temporary measure, no section of the House could re-enact it as a permanent measure when the time for revision came, and the decision of the question whether the Act was a good one or not would rest with the Government of the day and a majority of the House. In fact, the arrangement now proposed was one by which in the future a decision could be arrived at in the easiest manner, and with the least waste of time; and if hon. Members had confidence in the principle of the Ballot, there could be no objection to the Lords Amendment that was worth a moment's consideration. The Government had changed their front considerably within two years, as the first Bill provided for a scrutiny. Experience might suggest other changes; and this Amendment of the Lords would enable the Government of the day and the House of Commons to say whether the Bill was a success or not.
    MR. CHARLEYsaid, that if anything could reconcile him to the Bill it was the Amendment of the Lords, who had done the next best thing to throwing out the Bill on the second reading. This was an experimental measure, untried in any part of the world, for wherever the Ballot had been tried it had been either accompanied or preceded by universal suffrage. Without it, 2,000,000 of electors would, without any responsibility, control 30,000,000 of unenfranchised inhabitants. Of the newly-elected Conservative Members eight were against the Bill and two in its favour; therefore, the latest indication of the opinion of the country was that it was adverse to the Bill.
    Resolved, That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the said Amendment.
    Lords Reason for insisting on their Amendments in page 24, lines 25 and 26; and line 33; in page 25, line 34; in page 27, line 18; and in page 39, read, a second time.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the object of the Lords Amendment was simply to substitute an oral declaration on the part of the illiterate voter in place of the proposal of the Government; and as he thought that the majority of the House was opposed to accepting a provision for a mere oral declaration, he should, while reserving to himself any remarks as to the actual declaration to be provided by a future Amendment, move that the Lords Amendment be disagreed to.
    LORD EUSTACE CECILinquired whether the declaration of the illiterate voter given to a registered elector was to be documentary
    MR. GLADSTONEexplained that at that moment they were not called on to decide as to the kind of declaration, but as to the fact that there should be a declaration.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he wished to know what the Government proposed to substitute for the Amendment of the other House? The illiterate voter should be placed on exactly the same footing as the right hon. Gentleman proposed to place the blind man, and allowed to give his vote freely and uncontrolledly, and he hoped the hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire would divide the House on the question. It was now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman that any registered elector might constitute himself for the nonce a justice of the peace to take the declaration; but this arrangement would simply open the door to the greatest corruption.
    MR. JAMESsaid, he would counsel hon. Members sitting on his side of the House to accept the proposal of the Government rather than abandon the Bill. The hon. Member for York was anxious that the illiterate voter should vote freely and uncontrolledly; but the question to decide was, whether the man who declared that he could not read and write really could not do so? If they allowed any man who chose to say that he could not read and write to give his
    1064
    vote openly, the secrecy of the Ballot would be entirely destroyed. The substitute for the Lords Amendment now proposed by the Government would enable a record to be kept of the declaration of the illiterate voter; and, therefore, if a man made a false declaration he would afterwards have to face his neighbours, who would reproach him with having told an untruth.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed this particular Motion without assigning any particular reason for it. The only reason ever assigned for the illiterate voter making a declaration was the alleged necessity of having a record of the statement of the voter that he was illiterate, which was to be sent up to some Department in London; but now the Government submitted to the House the remarkable proposition that any voter might make a declaration to any registered elector. He, however, would suggest that that object might be attained by the presiding officer entering in a printed form the name of any elector voting as an illiterate person. The course taken by the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) was perfectly legitimate, because the House ought seriously to consider at this stage whether the principle laid down in the Amendment of the Lords was not a sound and wise one.
    MR. LIDDELLsaid, he must object entirely to any registered elector being the depositary of the declaration of the illiterate voter. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: That is not the proposition.] Then, what was the proposition? He complained of the House being left in such a state of uncertainty on the point. As he understood the matter, a class of persons would be the depositaries of these declarations, who would play into the hands of the agents on either side, and a gross system of corruption might be set on foot.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that what was proposed was, that there should be such a declaration as the Lords had struck out. The proposition of the Government was that, in place of a declaration attested by a justice of the peace, the declaration should be attested by a "registered elector of the same county or borough for which the voter claimed to vote." The question now was, whether they should not restore these words

    1065
    "produce such a declaration as hereinafter mentioned." There ought to be, not an oral declaration, but an actual declaration to be kept by the presiding officer, and returned by him to the Clerk of the Crown.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was glad they now knew what it was the Government wished. They gave up the attestation of the justice of the peace, and only required the declaration of the illiterate voter to be signed by a "registered elector." [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Witnessed.] Was the "registered elector" to be allowed to make his "mark?" He was not aware that a man might not "witness" by a "mark" as well as by a signature. What guarantee was there that when the declaration was handed in to the presiding officer he should know whether a "registered elector" had really signed the declaration of the illiterate voter? He might be wholly unacquainted with him and with his handwriting. What was really wanted was a register to remind the presiding officer of the person who was illiterate and did not vote in the ordinary manner. Surely, that could be easily provided? The Bill allowed the presiding officer to receive the blind voter's declaration and sign it as a witness. There was the same provision in regard to the Jew. A man might pretend to be blind, or a Jew, or illiterate; but when a man came into the polling booth, saying to the presiding officer—"I declare I am unable to read, I require your assistance to fill up the paper," what was to prevent the presiding officer from making his record of the fact that the voter did make the declaration, and, without any additional declaration, retaining that record, so as to enable him to refresh his memory and prove who the man was who had so declared? That might be accomplished by a mark on the counterfoil; or, if they required something more, papers might be prepared for the purpose. By introducing a "registered elector" the whole security was rendered illusory.
    MR. VERNON HARCOURTasked if the voter produced what purported to be the signature of a "registered elector," and was allowed to vote, and the signature turned out to be a forgery, what would happen to the voter? If the vote was to be vitiated, how was it to be got at in the ballot box, and what became of the security?
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he could not help regarding the present attitude of the Government as a graceful act of recognition of "another place." The Lords wished "optional" Ballot. That was refused; but if this new Amendment were adopted, it would give more than optional Ballot. He had so much faith in the cunning and audacity of election agents as to believe that in every sharp contest the order would go forth to local agents to arm themselves with the declarations of the illiterate. These voters would go into the polling booth, the agent would be present, and would know how they voted to a man. So that they would not only have optional Ballot, but would multiply the machinery of corruption.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGthought the proposition of the Government was so objectionable that he hoped they would not persevere with it. He warned the right hon. Gentleman when this was first proposed that he would fall into a trap, and his statements had been verified. The declaration would be used for the most fraudulent purposes.
    MR. PELLsaid, it was proposed to do in secret what would very much better be done openly. A voter might come up and make the declaration openly that he was illiterate, and the Returning Officer might keep a record of this.
    MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he was apprehensive that under such a provision a vast number of persons who had been paid £5 a-piece would go before the Returning Officer and say that they were unable to read, and a large number of persons would thus have their votes traced. There should be something more formal than the declaration before the presiding officer. His objection to the proposal of the Vice President of the Council was that it substituted for the Returning Officer another person who was by no means a fit and proper person to execute the office. He thought this was rather worse than the proposition of the House of Lords. If a declaration had to be made, it should be made before a constitutional authority, and he thought it should not be merely an oral declaration.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the Government had considered very carefully what alteration should be made. He thought it very desirable that there should be a written declaration, and that

    1067
    they should not allow it to be merely oral. Much consideration also had been bestowed upon the consideration of the fittest person to be chosen to act in this matter. He did not deny that this did not appear to him to be a matter of vital importance. A great deal might be said on the one side and on the other; but he thought that the balance of opinion was in favour of this declaration being taken by the presiding officer, though that was not without cause for strong objection. Upon the whole, however, it seemed to be the feeling of the House that they should have an actual declaration, and that it should be made before the presiding officer, and the Amendment would embody words having this effect.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, as they were heartily tired of the Bill, they were glad to get rid of it by any possible compromise, and would therefore accept this.
    MR. COLLINS, alluding to the provision with respect to Jews, said, they ought to put the illiterate voter and the Jew on the same footing. On Saturday the Jew ought to be made an illiterate person.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he could not understand why an illiterate Jew should be placed on a better footing than an illiterate Christian.
    Resolved, That this House doth insist on its disagreement to the said Amendments, but proposes to amend the words reinstated by its disagreement to the Amendments made by The Lords in page 24, lines 25 and 26; and line 33; and in page 39.
    Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to the Amendment to which this House hath disagreed; and for insisting on its disagreement to certain other Amendments on which The Lords insist:" Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, Mr. Secretary CARDWELL, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, The Marquess of HARTINGTON, The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Mr. GLYN, and Mr. ADAM:—To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum.
    Reasons for disagreement to The Lords Amendment, and for insisting on disagreement to certain other Amendments on which The Lords insist, reported, and agreed to.
    To be communicated to The Lords.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SALARY.)—REPORT.
  Resolution [July 11] reported.
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of Moneys to be provided by Parliament, to the Medical Officer of the Local Government Board, of such Salary as the Treasury may determine, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session for amending the Law relating to Public Health."
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he proposed now, with the leave of the House, to state shortly what he might call the financial proposals of the Government in connection with the Public Health Bill. The House was aware that he had been several times questioned as to the intentions of the Government on this subject, and, as the appropriate moment had arrived, he now proposed to make a statement, in order that the House when it went into Committee might be in full possession of the intentions of the Government. The House was aware that Her Majesty's Government had been placed in some difficulty on this question in consequence of the adoption of the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes). That Motion travelled over a very great space of ground, and opened up some very large questions connected with the incidence of local taxation, and the relation between Imperial and local charges. Her Majesty's Government recognized upon that occasion, and since, the obligation which the vote upon the hon. Baronet's Motion imposed upon them, of fully considering the subject, of coming to their own conclusion upon it, and of taking some fitting opportunity in a future Session of stating their opinions and conclusions to the House. If any financial proposals were to be made in connection with any Bill dealing with the subject of local taxation, or connected with it, it was evident either that Her Majesty's Government must at once determine their views, finally, if possible, on the larger question; or, if anything was done in the meantime, that it should be done upon its own merits—he would rather say upon "the old lines" upon which they had been accustomed to go with reference to objects partly financial and partly administrative; and that what was done should be done provisionally, leaving both parties with respect to the question of local taxation entirely free in approaching it in future. Hon. Mem-

  1069
  bers would understand the meaning of these remarks when he reminded them that it might have happened that some hon. Member on that side of the House, or the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon himself, might have suggested some new method of dealing with some portion of the expenses locally undergone and borne partly by the Imperial funds. He might have proposed that certain Votes should disappear from the Estimates, and that provision might be made in other shapes and from other funds for the purposes in view. The House, and every hon. Member of the House, would probably agree that if the Government were to deal with this Bill, and were to make any financial proposals, as far as the Imperial Treasury was concerned, the only method open to them—a method equally fair to themselves and to those who might, perhaps, differ from them—would be to do what they proposed provisionally, and neither to tie their own hands nor the hands of others. With that preamble he would state the proposals of the Government, with very considerable confidence that they would be felt to be not only reasonable, but liberal. These proposals were dictated in neither a crotchetty, narrow, or illiberal spirit as regarded the Consolidated Fund. The House would observe that by a clause in the Bill, it was proposed that on the recommendation of the Local Government Board the Public Works Loans Commissioners should be empowered to lend money on easy terms to local bodies. That was the first financial proposition of the Government, and he need hardly draw the attention of hon. Members of the House to the extreme importance and great value of such a provision to local bodies who desired to raise money for sewage works and other purposes. It was not of so much consequence to large towns which could come to Parliament for Acts, and whose resources enabled them to go into the open market for such funds as they might require; but hon. Members would bear him out when he said that small towns could not obtain loans in the open market without great difficulty and expense, and that they would have to pay interest at the rate of 5 per cent. What he proposed was that, on the recommendation of the Local Government Board, local bodies should be enabled to come to the Public Works Loans Commissioners, who would
  1070
  be authorised to advance money at 3½ per cent. Anyone familiar with those tables which showed the percentage which year by year would pay off a loan in 30 or 35 years, as the case might be, would understand the importance to local bodies of borrowing money at 3½ per cent. The difference between a rate of 3½ and 5 per cent came to this—that instead of the loan remaining as a permanent debt upon the resources of the town, it would be entirely paid off in 35 years. In the Bill it was proposed that no new powers should be given to local authorities, and no new duties imposed with one exception—that it would be compulsory on them to appoint Medical Officers of Health. The Government also proposed that local sanitary authorities should be entitled to make joint appointments, and he hoped those might be the rule rather than the exception. In doing that, they imposed upon local boards as a duty that which had hitherto been a matter for their own discretion; and for that reason, as well as upon other administrative grounds, basing their proposal on the precedent of the Poor Law system, the Government would be prepared to ask Parliament to enable them to pay half the salaries of those Medical Officers of Health, provided they were appointed upon what was called Poor Law terms—namely, that they, the Local Government Board, should, be partners in their payment and partners in their appointment and dismissal. The Government would require that the appointment of these officers should be approved by them, and that when appointed they should not be subject to dismissal, save with the consent of the Local Government Board. He had one more proposal to make which he thought would be acceptable to the House, and for which the House would be probably unprepared. Next to the Medical Officer of Health, the most useful officer was the Sanitary Inspector. It was of the greatest importance that local authorities should be encouraged and enabled to appoint competent men, and pay them fairly, and it was also important that these persons when appointed should be freed from the risk of capricious dismissal, and should be able to discharge properly the duties which the Legislature had cast upon them. The Government, therefore, proposed to ask Parliament to allow them on similar terms to

  1071
  contribute one-half the salaries of these Inspectors. The proposals of the Government would, therefore, amount to this—to lend money to sanitary authorities at a minimum interest of 3½ per cent; and to pay half the expenses of Medical Officers of Health and of Nuisance Inspectors.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he must express his satisfaction at having heard from the right hon. Gentleman what were the financial proposals of the Bill before the House went into Committee upon it. He had ventured, some weeks ago, to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that he should follow the course which he had that afternoon adopted; and he would say, speaking for himself alone, that the proposals he had just listened to were, on the whole, satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that it was his intention to assist local authorities by lending them money, which would be a great boon to them. But it might not have occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that the demand upon the Public Works Loans Commissioners was increasing so largely year by year, notably for the purpose of school buildings and other works of that kind, that there might be some doubt whether it would be in the power of the Commissioners to carry out their advances in the future to such an extent as could be wished. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was quite right, when speaking of the proportion of the salaries of the two classes of officers to be borne by the Imperial Treasury, in saying that his proposal was merely a provisional one. It was clear that this proposal and others must come again under the consideration of the House when the question of local taxation was considered, as he hoped it would be next Session. And he ventured for one to say, that when that question did come on he very much doubted whether it would remain satisfactory that only half the salaries of these officers should be paid by the Treasury. He said so for the reason stated by the right hon. Gentleman—that the Poor Law Board were at present, and the Local Government Board was in future to be, partners in the appointment and dismissal of these officers; but the Local Government Board and the Poor Law Board were something very much more than partners in the matter;
  1072
  at least, the partnership was by no means an equal one. The Local Government Board practically, to his mind, had the power partly of appointment, and entirely of dismissal, with regard to these officers; because in very many cases their consent was necessary before the local authorities could take any action in regard to either appointment or dismissal. Therefore, he thought when the time came for the House more fully considering this important question, it might very fairly be argued that the whole instead of the half of the salaries of the officers of this character should be paid by the Treasury, and that nothing at all should be paid from the rates. The House would recollect that as a matter of practice the salaries paid to these officers were not within the control of the local authorities. They might wish to raise or lower the salaries paid, but they had to apply to the Local Government Board previously for their consent. And seeing the Local Government Board exercised this control, there would be no risk of the local authorities dealing with the money of the Imperial Exchequer in the way they might be disposed to deal with it, if at liberty to spend it as they chose. It was satisfactory, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had gone as far as he had done.
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, that the importance of the Public Health Bill was not inferior to any measure that had been introduced during the present Session, and he could not help expressing his sense of the inconvenience to which they were put by the discussion of such a Bill being delayed to so late a period as that at which they had now arrived. He thought, however, that this was a most incomplete and imperfect measure. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that his present proposal was only provisional—that was, that the main point and pivot on which the Bill turned was only provisional. That fact ought to be considered. Then, as regards it nature, he thought its operation would be only partial, and as the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that in small boroughs and areas the security was inferior and the percentage high, it might be that larger areas might obviate that inconvenience and make the boon not inconsiderable. What was proposed in reference to borrowing would in small boroughs be no inconsiderable boon;

  1073
  but, in his opinion, the benefit should not be confined to small boroughs, and he gave notice that he should propose Amendments that would considerably enlarge the area of borrowing. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would pay half the salaries of the officers, and that was what he (Mr. Corrance) had always asked him to do. There were precedent and custom in favour of adopting this course. He did not wish to see the Government pay the whole of the salaries of the officers, because he wished to see local payment and local responsibility continue. He trusted that the medical officers of Unions would almost always be appointed Health officers; but as they already received half their salaries from the Government the end would be that if the course he suggested were adopted the parishes would only receive about the same amount of money from the Government as they now received. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wished to prevent capricious dismissals taking place, and it was to be hoped that the appointing authority would be such that there would be no danger of capricious dismissals. However, he regarded the Bill as one of the greatest consequence, and he should be very sorry if anything were done which would cause its rejection.
  DR. BREWERsaid, he believed that the advantages held out to local authorities in reference to contracting loans were manifold, and he therefore thought that the Bill was a valuable concession. The second proposition he regarded as even of still greater importance—namely, that not only should the Government pay half the salaries of the medical officers, but that they should also have a voice in their nomination. Having that voice, it would be most important that the Government should encourage the idea of medical officers being appointed, not merely for a parish or Union, but for several parishes, Unions, and even districts. They did not want medical officers to be mere Inspectors of Nuisances, nor did they want them to make reports upon all sorts of subjects. At present there were cartloads of reports which cost the metropolis hundreds of thousands of pounds, but of which no use was ever made. The special function of a medical officer should be to report, not only upon the special circumstances of his own district, but so to concentrate
  1074
  his attention upon all the sanitary peculiarities of the locality as to be able to make suggestions to the central office for them to carry out, in connection with the Government, for the improvement of the sanitary condition of the people. He hoped the taxation of the country would not be devoted merely to supplementing the private practice of individuals, but that the influence of the central office, which he looked upon as of the greatest importance, would be used to select persons who were peculiarly capable of observing the sanitary conditions of districts, and who in order that their minds might be applied usefully to that object, would not be allowed to enter into private practice, for the functions of such an office were extremely difficult to carry out, and would require the whole attention of any person who had to do the work. He, for one, should do all in his power to assist his right hon. Friend in carrying the measure to a successful issue.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTthought that the Bill was too important a one to be decided upon in a hurry. It had, no doubt, been before them for some time; but they had not had the statement upon it until to-day. Why were they not told beforehand that the Government would pay half these salaries? The head of the Government told them a short time ago that there were a great many questions which would arise out of this matter, and that it would require very grave and great consideration before anything could be done with regard to local taxation; yet now they were asked after the 12th July to pass a Bill which would have a most important bearing upon it. He believed that if the Government had not been most anxious to pass the Bill they would never have said anything about paying half the salaries out of the public money. He, however, was not going to be bribed in any such manner, for he thought it a great deal too late in the Session to discuss so important a measure as it ought to be discussed, and he ventured to protest against the course which the Government had pursued with respect to it.
  MR. CRAUFURDbelieved that the House would act unwisely if they did not encourage the Government to proceed in the course which they had entered upon. Surely they ought not to place obstructions in the way of the right

  1075
  hon. Gentleman when he was marching in the direction of the revision of our whole system of local taxation. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the advance that he had made; for though the step taken was a small one, yet the principle conceded was most important. Moreover, it was in the right direction, and he earnestly hoped the boon proposed might be one which would ultimately be extended to Scotland. With reference to loans, he wished to observe that they guaranteed loans at 3½ per cent from the Public Commissioners of Ireland by the Act of 1870, and it was enacted that such loans should be repaid by an annuity of 5 per cent for 35 years. In the present Bill it was proposed that the loans should be repaid in 30 years; whilst under the Scotch Education Act the time for repayment was 50 years. He did not see why there should be these various periods, and he hoped that in the present case the 30 years would be extended to 50 years.
  Resolution agreed to.

PUBLIC HEALTH (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Hibbert.)
PUBLIC HEALTH (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 215.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, before he put the Question that he leave the Chair, it would be the proper time to call upon the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) to move the Motion of which he had given Notice.
  MR. W. M. TORRENS, in rising accordingly to move—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide for the rebuilding of workmen's dwellings in cases where the same shall have been extensively pulled down under or by virtue of any Act of Parliament,"
  said, that he regarded its omission from the Bill of his right hon. Friend with great regret, although he believed it might be supplied even at that late period of the Session. After many years' discussion, that House unanimously adopted in 1868 a Bill to provide better dwellings for the labouring classes in places of large extent, where overcrowding was found to exist. That Bill was sent to the House of Lords, where
  1076
  it was altered in an essential particular. The Preamble to the Bill, in its original form, recited that the objects of the Bill were, to give power to local authorities to compel the repair of dwellings; where they were not sufficiently repaired, to have them taken down; if they were quite dilapidated, instead thereof to build suitable dwellings and to secure their maintenance. The 38th clause of the Bill, not merely by declaration, but by enactment, proceeded to state what were the four objects of the measure in the contemplation of the House of Commons—namely, repair, demolition, reconstruction, and compensation to the owners who were divested. After a Committee of the other House had sat for some weeks, the Bill was sent back to the House of Commons with the latter provisions entirely excised. Since then we had had the advantage of three years' experience, and we knew what had been the effect of the alterations made by the House of Lords. Having taken an active part in passing the Act of 1868, he had felt it his duty to watch closely its operation, and he could state with confidence that all those portions of the Bill which were confirmed by the House of Lords had worked beneficially and steadily, while, on the contrary, the omission of some of the clauses had produced a certain amount of paralysis in the operation of the measure. He would mention the case, well known to his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), of a small district in the centre of St. George's, Bloomsbury, which was surrounded by a large and well-to-do population, but which itself was a nest of disease, demoralization, and destitution. The local authorities had endeavoured to put the power of demolition in force, but had been arrested in their course by two very obvious considerations. In the first place, the House of Lords had rejected the clause giving power to compensate, and consequently the unhappy lessees would be left without any compensation if they were driven out of their property. But what was still more important to the public at large was, that the power of compulsory purchase of the site was struck out by the House of Lords, while a clause was introduced under which the remedy of the landlord was made to enure, notwithstanding the fact that the property of the lessee was destroyed.

  1077
  It was clear that by simply digging up the foundations of a particular slum the moral and physical evil would not be got rid of if the old dilapidated houses were not replaced by proper dwellings. Otherwise the inhabitants would spread themselves over the surrounding district and thus perpetuate the evil which the Legislature desired to remove. He would ask his right hon. Friend, therefore, whether he would not, after the experience of three years, present a second time to the House of Lords the clauses which they rejected in 1868, because they, no doubt, deemed them unnecessary. The Bill of 1868 provided that the site of the houses demolished should belong to the local authorities; but the House of Lords objected to this proposal, saying that the local authorities were not the proper parties to hold the land in fee. In point of fact, however, the Proviso contained in the Bill of 1868 was merely to the effect that if within seven years the site was not covered with wholesome dwellings, it should be re-sold to private individuals or a building company; but it was never intended that the local authorities should become either householders or landowners. Every railway company in the kingdom had power to acquire lands, and surely the promotion of public health was of far greater consequence than any speculations of that kind. They ought to consider that the wealth of the country was rapidly increasing, whilst poverty, misery, and the difficulty of living were not decreasing; and it was surely not consistent with their sense of public justice that they should reject any means of doing for the public health's sake that which they were quite willing to do to promote the interests of a speculative company. What he asked was simply that they would re-affirm that which they passed in 1868, and which a large proportion of the Upper House was on that occasion prepared to adopt. In conclusion, he would move the Instruction of which he had given Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to provide for the rebuilding of workmen's dwellings in oases where the same shall have been extensively pulled down under or by virtue of any Act of Parliament."—(Mr. W. M. Torrens.)
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he would be more than willing to see the Instruction of his hon. Friend carried out, were it not for the reason which actuated his own conduct in discarding a number of clauses which he was desirous of seeing passed—namely, to afford the present measure the greatest possible chance of becoming law within the short period that remained of this Session. He therefore appealed to his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion, and to rest satisfied with the assurance he was prepared to give him, that it would receive the utmost attention of the Government next Session, when they proposed a general measure upon this subject.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, for the last six or seven years he had been one of the managers of the Association for Improving the Dwellings of the Working Classes, and whilst discharging his duties in that capacity he had become acquainted with one very serious evil which demanded an immediate remedy. He alluded to the power often conferred upon private companies—such as railways and others—to remove the dwellings of the poor, without any corresponding liability being imposed on them of erecting other houses in their stead. During that very Session a Mid-London Railway Bill was initiated, which would, if it had passed, have authorized the removal of a number of those dwellings, which had been found capable of accommodating 20,000 persons. That appeared to him to be an evil of great magnitude, entailing a large amount of hardship upon the working classes. A similar demolition of small houses took place on the now vacant ground near the Holborn Viaduct. The dwellings in the immediate neighbourhood, in consequence, had become enormously overcrowded, and the rents had risen from 30 to 50 per cent; and this was always the result of such demolitions. Consequently, whilst fully concurring in the object of his hon. Friend's Motion, he considered it of far too great importance to be disposed of satisfactorily at that late period of the Session, and for that reason he joined in requesting his hon. Friend not to press it at present.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERreferred to the ground to be occupied by the New Law Courts, where, he said, 5,000 poor persons had been turned out of their homes. He concurred in the observations which

  1079
  had just fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Goldsmid).
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that the present Bill for the formation of local authorities throughout the country would, when taken in connection with the Act of last Session, form a good basis for a Consolidation Bill next year; but it was undesirable to discuss all sorts of topics upon the present occasion, upon a restricted Bill of this kind, which was merely intended as a small foundation for a general measure next Session.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked, whether the President of the Local Government Board intended next Session to deal with all the nuisances to which the clauses left out of the present Bill related?
  MR. STANSFELDreplied that he had distinctly stated so.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTthought that no hon. Member ought to be constrained, because the Bill was limited in its character, from raising a discussion on any point which he thought important. He would ask whether it was worth while to go into what his right hon. Friend called this small foundation for a general measure at that late period of the Session? He, for one, demurred to such a proceeding. The foundations might turn out to be rotten, or incapable of bearing the weight of the larger measure referred to. He, however, thought, under the circumstances, that the hon. Member for Finsbury was fully justified in moving the Instruction which he proposed. There were already 15 pages of Amendments, and if it were really known that the measure would be discussed that Session, he believed that those 15 pages would have extended to 40.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury only showed the unfortunate position in which the House was placed in consequence of the Government bringing forward such an important question at that late period of the Session in its present shape. The hon. Gentleman opposite only asked to add one more subject to seven or eight other subjects which were mixed up with this Bill. Various Acts of Parliament, involving important and conflicting powers, were jumbled together in a curious hodge-podge fashion, and all the business arising under them was to be
  1080
  tumbled into the hands of the rural and urban sanitary authorities, without any directions as to how they were to administer them, and with no very moderate prospect as to expense. The salary of the medical officer was a mere drop in the ocean, and after all that officer might turn out to be a mere agent of the Government, to force on matters which the local authorities might or might not consider prudent. He urged the right hon. Gentleman not to press on this Bill, but rather to employ proper men to consolidate the various statutes, and then with a consolidated Act they might reasonably hope some good might be effected for the country. As to the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury, his own experience should have taught him that it was vain to expect them at that period of the Session to undertake such a job. Were they to pitchfork the Liverpool or some other Act into this Bill, by way of seeming to do something? He hoped the Government would have more mercy on those who had to administer the law, and also upon the ratepayers, who would have to pay all the expenses incurred. If the Government wanted to do the proper thing in a workmanlike manner, they must begin by consolidating the law, and then there would be some chance of effecting some good work at last.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he must express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman had deemed it his duty to bring forward that tail-end of a measure at so late a period. After the long period of gestation he did hope a general measure of Consolidation would have been brought forward next spring, when after all organic changes were, as he trusted, at an end, they might apply their whole strength to concoct one general good measure. He had paid some attention to this subject, but the more he considered it the more difficult it appeared; there were so many Acts of a conflicting character, and he was afraid they were going to have another. His own constituency had spent £500,000 in obedience to one Act of the Legislature, and they would now have to spend another £500,000 in obedience to another Act. It would be much better if this Bill were passed over this year and taken up next spring. The municipal authorities would then have time to look at the Bill, and the House would also have time to con-

  1081
  sider so important a matter. He had received remonstrances against the Bill from his own constituents, and he believed every borough in England had some fault to find with this measure.
  MR. DIMSDALEsaid, he was one of those who had expressed approval of the Bill on its second reading, having regard particularly to the improvements introduced by his right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley). At this period of the Session, however, he felt bound to join in urging the postponement of the mutilated measure till next Session.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he approved the Instruction proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury, believing it was a great pity that the Bill had been shorn of an important feature, because there was not time to deal with it. But he thought that if the Bill was such as had been graphically described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley)—if all the pith and marrow of it was to be put off till another Session—it would be much better that the whole subject should be postponed, to be dealt with in its completeness next year. He could hardly look upon this as a complete Bill at all, but rather as a "remnant to be left," and as such it would be matter for unmitigated regret if it failed to become law.
  COLONEL HOGGdefended the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld) in determining to pass, if he could, even this portion of the Bill, which might become the basis of a most useful reform. He trusted that the House would assist the Government in making progress with the measure, and that in Committee a clause would be introduced in reference to the question of working men's houses.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDcomplained of the impediments now offered to the progress of part of a Bill which passed the second reading without opposition.
  MR. H. R. BRANDsaid, the Bill would at least establish sanitary authorities all over the country, and the Government ought to be supported in their effort to carry it.
  COLONEL BERESFORDhoped that in Committee an enactment would be introduced to remedy the deficient supply of water from which so many districts have suffered.
  MR. D. DALRYMPLEurged the Government to persevere with the Bill.
  MR. W. M. TORRENS, in compliance with the wish expressed on both sides of the House, said, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. PELL, disclaiming any intention to impede the Bill, and stating that his sole object was to gain a better opportunity for the discussion of an Instruction of which Notice had been given by the hon. Member for South Devonshire, said, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYhoped the hon. Baronet referred to (Sir Massey Lopes) would speak for himself, and say whether the matter could not be discussed in Committee.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKhoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Massey Lopes) would not accept that suggestion, because the subject-matter of the Instruction was one of the greatest importance to the agricultural interest. He (Sir Lawrence Palk) would support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Pell). The Bill would have a deep influence on the value of land in England, and on the future of the agricultural classes, and it was right that it should be thoroughly discussed in the House.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he hoped to show the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), when the House got into Committee, that the Bill was not "a jumble"—that it was of very considerable practical importance, and that its passing this Session would simplify the method of dealing with the whole subject. At the same time, he was not disposed to throw any difficulty in the way of hon. Members expressing their opinions, and if the Bill were allowed to go into Committee, he did not see why the discussion should not be taken on the 1st clause.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that he, and no doubt other hon. Members, was anxious to have an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the general provisions of the Bill, and that could not be done clause by clause. The Bill of the Government was open to very grave objections, and it was very

  1083
  doubtful whether it ought to be passed this Session. He hoped his hon. Friend would press his Amendment to a division.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debated adjourned till Monday next.
  And it being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock the House suspended its sitting.
  The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH PERSIA.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. EASTWICK, in rising to call attention to the state of affairs in Persia; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the recommendation of the Diplomatic Committee of last year be carried out, viz., that the control of our relations with Persia be transferred to the India Office, or that the payments for the expenses of our mission to Persia be readjusted."
  said, the subject was carefully weighed by a Select Committee of this House last Session. The evidence of Lord Malmesbury, of Lord Derby, of Lord Lawrence, and of Lord Mayo—whose opinion was given in writing—of Sir Henry Rawlinson—the greatest living authority on all matters connected with Persia—of the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway)—who was at that time Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs—and of Sir John Kaye, was strongly in favour of the transfer being made; while that of Lord Halifax, Sir Henry Bulwer, Mr. Hammond, and Lord Clarendon went to show that things should remain as they were now. Sir Henry Bulwer's opinion, however, was qualified in this manner—
  "My idea in regard to the Persian Mission is, that it is better to leave it under the Foreign Office; but that the Foreign Office ought to consult the India Office, and that great deference should be paid to their recommendation as to the class of persons best fitted to be employed there;"
  and Lord Halifax thought that the payment made by India towards the expense
  1084
  of our Mission should be diminished, and that from the Imperial Treasury proportionately increased, so that the status quo was advocated only by Lord Clarendon and Mr. Hammond. The Select Committee, after balancing the opinions of those distinguished men, came to the almost unanimous conclusion that—
  "While they have received conflicting evidence of the highest authority on either side of the question, they on the whole incline to the opinion that the Persian Mission should be placed under the authority of the Secretary of State for India; but that if the responsible Advisers of the Crown decide that such change is not for the public interest, they recommend that the members of the Persian Mission generally should be selected by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from Her Majesty's Indian Service, and that the present charge of £12,000 a-year on the Indian Revenues, for the expense of such Mission, should be diminished so as to throw a larger proportion of the expense upon the Imperial Revenues."
  Lord Granville, so far from carrying out those recommendations, had acted in direct opposition to them, and the subject, therefore, now assumed a more serious and important aspect than ever, for it was not now simply a question whether the India Office or the Foreign Office should deal with Persian matters, but also whether a Select Committee having decided in favour of one view, it was competent to the Secretary of State not only to disregard that view, and neglect every part of the recommendation, but even act in the utmost possible opposition to it. Even that was not all, and it would be his painful duty to show to the House that the action taken by Lord Granville in this matter, quite independently of considerations adduced before the Committee, had been in the highest degree unwise and impolitic. Having been compelled to make this serious charge against the policy of a Minister, for whom personally he had the highest respect, he trusted the House would allow him to go fully into the matter, for without doing so it would be impossible for him to completely substantiate his statement. He might also say that he had no opportunity of giving evidence before the Committee; and although, in general, he should be quite content to rely on the statements of such men as those whose names he had mentioned, yet, as was said in the Ethics—"Each judges well the thing he knows;" and he might say, without presumption, that in the matter of which he was now

  1085
  speaking, he had had special opportunities of knowing. For five years he was employed in the Indian diplomatic service on the frontier of Khelat and Afghanistan, and hence became practically acquainted with the border politics of those countries, including Persia. He was Assistant Secretary in the Secret Department of the India Office during the whole time that Department had charge of Persian affairs. Subsequently he was employed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on a special service connected with Persia in this country, and was then appointed by him Secretary of Legation at Tehran. He remained three years in Persia, and was sent on two special missions there, first to the Caspian Provinces and then to Khorasan. Finally, he had the honour of being Chargé d' Affaires and of negotiating a Convention, in the first instance personally with the Shah. He might add that he was, he believed, the only Indian officer appointed to diplomatic service in Persia by the Foreign Office. On those grounds he trusted that he should be allowed to travel a little beyond the pages of the Blue Book, so as to place the subject he had in hand fully before the House, and he entreated the House to consider that it was a subject which deserved the most serious attention, lest that "great and fatal error" spoken of by Malcolm's biographer should be perpetuated, "from which," to use his words, "have already sprung disasters and disgraces, to be succeeded, it is feared, by other evils of a no less melancholy kind." The history of our relations with Persia was unique in diplomatic annals on account of the strange way in which the control of those relations had been shifted again and again from the East India Company to the Crown, and from the Foreign Office to the India Office, and vice versâ. Not to dwell, however, too much on these changes, he would divide the whole period of our connection with Persia into three epochs. The first, and by far the longest, was that in which the management of our affairs in Persia was left almost entirely in the hands of the East India Company. During the second the Foreign Office for the most part controlled our relations with Persia, but was content to leave Indian officers at the head of our Mission in Tehran, while since the third epoch it had not only
  1086
  maintained such control, but had appointed to the Mission its own officers. In dealing with the first epoch, he would begin by referring to some remarks which he addressed to the House on the affairs of Central Asia on the 9th of July, 1869. He then pointed out that Persia was our oldest ally in the East, and on that account, as well as others, deserved consideration. Disregarding a letter which Queen Elizabeth on the 25th of April, 1561, confided to Anthony Jenkinson, merchant, and which was addressed to Shah Tamasp, but produced no results, he might say that the first epoch commenced with the arrival of the valiant knights, Sir Anthony and Sir Robert Shirley, and their followers, at the Court of Shah Abbas the Great in 1602, about three-quarters of a century before we established relations with Turkey. Persia was then a formidable Power, and so far from "the Bactrian Sophi," as Milton called the Shah, "retreating from the horns of the Turkish Crescent to Tauris or Kasvin," Abbas inflicted on the Turks, on the 24th of August, 1605, near Tauris, or Tabriz, one of the most sanguinary defeats they ever sustained, more than 20,000 Turkish heads having been brought to him on the field of battle. An alliance was then formed between Abbas and the East India Company, and in 1622 their joint forces wrested the Island of Hormuz, or Ormus, as Milton called it, from the Portuguese, and transferred its great and flourishing trade to Gombroon, which has ever since borne the name of Bandar Abbas, or the port of Abbas. Two years after Sir Robert Shirley was sent by Abbas to the Court of James I., and Sir Dodmore Cotton came from Charles I. on a return embassy to Persia, but both Shirley and Cotton died a few months after arrival in that country, and all our dealings with Persia relapsed into the hands of the East India Company, whose agents were at the head of flourishing factories—first at Bandar Abbas, and afterwards at Bushahr, Basra, and Bagdad. Those agents were always well received by the Persian Government, and the first epoch passed in peace and good-will. But these relations, which continued nearly two centuries, had more of a commercial than a diplomatic character. Purely diplomatic relations began in 1799, when Lord Wellesley resolved on sending Captain Malcolm to

  1087
  Persia to negotiate an offensive and defensive alliance with Path Ali Shah against the French. Malcolm's embassy had in it all the elements of success. He was himself handsome, gallant, and courtly, a bold horseman, and an experienced soldier, and the officers who accompanied him were worthy of their leader. The portraits of one of them, Mr. Strachey, are still to be seen in the palaces of Ispahan, and an ode written in his praise by the Shah himself is so celebrated in the East that when, many years afterwards, Dost Mahommed was introduced to a gentleman of that name he instantly began to recite a stanza from it. In short, such was the favour in which Malcolm was held that he had no difficulty in negotiating a treaty with the Shah, which was signed in January, 1801, and by which the Persians bound themselves to "expel and extirpate the French" if they attempted to enter Persia. But the brilliant impression made by this embassy was suffered to die out, and the Treaty was never ratified by the English Government; so that just before the Peace of Tilsit, in July, 1807, when Bonaparte sent General Gardanne to Tehran with 70 French officers to discipline the Shah's troops, they were well received at the Persian Court, and the star of the French was for a time in the ascendant. This success of the French Mission alarmed both the East India Company and the English Government, and they simultaneously endeavoured to counteract that sinister influence. Then was seen the strange and unseemly spectacle of rival Envoys, from the Sovereign and the quasi regal Company, struggling with one another for priority of access to the Court of the Shah in order to expel the French intruder. Malcolm, sent by Lord Minto from India, reached Bushahr on the 10th of May, 1808, and returned without being allowed to see the Shah on the 12th of July. In August, Sir Harford Jones, the Royal Envoy, sailed from Bombay for the Persian Gulf, was admitted on the 17th of February, 1809, to an audience with the Shah, and on the 12th of March following negotiated a preliminary treaty which re-established our alliance with Persia. Now, as the failure on the part of Malcolm and the success of his rival had always been imputed to the superior influence of a Royal Envoy over one sent by a Go-
  1088
  vernor General, and as they became the fons et origo of all the subsequent disputes about Persia between the India Office and the Foreign Office, he must dwell on them for a moment, in order to point out the real facts of the case which had never hitherto been disclosed. The truth was, then, that the Royal Envoy would have been sent back by the Persians from Shiraz, in the same discourteous way as Captain Pasley, Malcolm's avant-courrier, had it not been for a subtle device of Sir Harford, who had been long enough at Bagdad to take the exact measure of the Persian Court. With a view to the difficulty he would have to encounter, Sir Harford had provided himself with a magnificent diamond which had been in the signet ring of Karim Khan, who ruled Persia in 1759, had been brought to Bombay by some Armenians, in 1772, and had at the time when Sir Harford was preparing for his mission found its way into a shop in Bond Street. That diamond Sir Harford purchased for considerably less than its value, and kept it about him ready for use when the crisis came. When, therefore, Nasrullah Khan, the Prime Minister of the Prince Governor of Shiraz, told Sir Harford he could go no further, Sir Harford, having exhausted all other arguments, arose from his seat, and said—"I go, then, and I take with me this gem which I hope to lay at the feet of the Asylum of the World." At the same time he drew from his breast a glittering casket, which he opened and displayed the enormous diamond. The Persian Minister, who had been sitting in an attitude of supercilious indifference, lost his balance both metaphorically and literally at the sight, and called out in breathless haste—"Stop, Elchí, stop! I will send off an express courier to the Shah, and stop, at all events, till the answer is received." The answer came, Sir Harford was conducted to the capital, and was ushered in at one gate of Tehran while General Gardanne and his 70 officers were congéed out at the other. In the narrative published by Sir Harford of his Mission, the purchase and presentation of the diamond were mentioned, but nothing was said of these remarkable circumstances, but he heard them himself from General Sir James Sutherland, who was an eye-witness of the whole transaction. It seemed almost incredible; but it was matter of history

  1089
  that Sir Harford drew bills on India to the enormous amount of £70,000 for the expenses of his mission, which, with the price of the diamond and the other presents, must have cost considerably over £100,000, and Lord Minto was so chagrined at Malcolm's failure, that he not only dishonoured the bills but threatened to send an expedition to the Persian Grulf—a threat which certainly might have endangered the liberty, and even the life of Sir Harford. The affair, however, ended in Malcolm being sent on a third mission to the Court of Fath Ali Shah, where he was received with so much favour as to prove that had he taken with him a diamond of the same value as that brought by Sir Harford Jones, he would, on his second mission, have been received with equal courtesy. The Shah offered to give him command of his whole army, and to appoint English officers to discipline it, and had our Government been wise enough to empower Malcolm to accept that offer, he did not hesitate to say that, in all probability, the Russians would never have crossed the Arras, and we should never have embarked in an Afghan and Persian War. But the Foreign Office was anxious to conciliate Russia rather than to build up a rampart against her. Malcolm was recalled, and one of the most distinguished officers he left behind him was soon after cruelly put to death by the Russians, when lying wounded after an encounter between them and the troops of Abbas Mirza, the heir apparent. From that time to this, the shortsighted policy of the Foreign Office had been to cripple Persia in all her movements, and to drive her step by step into the arms of Russia. In 1823, Mr. Canning, who was then Foreign Secretary, transferred the management of our relations with Persia to the Board of Control, on the express ground that "the objects of our intercourse with Persia were principally, if not purely, Asiatic." So things continued till 1836, when Lord Ellenborough, never very friendly to the East India Company, retransferred Persia to the Foreign Office. This arrangement lasted till the 12th of November, 1858, when Lord Malmesbury, with the full consent of Lord Stanley, again transferred Persia to the India Office. The grounds for this change were thus ably stated by Lord Malmesbury—
  1090
  "Persia was placed under the superintendence of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1836, in consequence of its being supposed that the counsels of Great Britain would have more weight with the Persian Government if urged in the name of the Sovereign, than if tendered merely on behalf of the East India Company, and from that time the representatives of the British Government have always communicated with the Persian Government under credentials from the Crown, although they were also provided with credentials from the Governor General of India. But, under existing circumstances, there is no longer the same motive for separating the superintendence of British relations with Persia from that department by which it can most conveniently be exercised, for it could not be questioned that the interest of Great Britain in Persia is founded on the position which this country occupies in India, and that almost every matter which might have come under discussion between this country and Persia more or less concerned the British Government in India."
  The despatch went on to say, with reference to the credentials—
  "In order to secure uniformity, it may be convenient that the credentials for Ministers and commissions for Secretaries of Legation and Consuls in Persia should continue to be made out in the Foreign Office, although sent, when ready for signature, to the India Office, in order that the Secretary of State for India may submit them for Her Majesty's signature, and that the seal may then be affixed to them at the India Office. The Queen having the power to charge any individual Secretary of State with a special duty, would, by my proposal, simply place the duties and responsility of the Persian Mission in your Lordships' hands instead of mine."
  He had already shown that this idea, to which Lord Malmesbury refers, that—
  "The counsels of Great Britain would have more weight with the Persian Government if urged in the name of the Sovereign than if tendered merely on behalf of the East India Company,"
  was founded on a misapprehension which sprang from the subtlety and reticence of Sir Harford Jones. But, at all events, as Lord Malmesbury shows, whether the idea was true or false, there was an end of it when India passed from the Company to the Crown. The Shah knew well enough that the Duke of Argyll was of equal rank with Lord Granville, and that if the credentials of the officers of the English Mission were drawn out at the Foreign Office, and the Persian Minister was under that Office in all matters of Court ceremony as one of the Corps Diplomatique, it would be far from a disadvantage to Persia that its business should be transacted with the Duke. In fact, the Persian Minister often discussed matters

  1091
  with the Duke, just as the Shah, frequently transacted business with the Representatives of Foreign Governments through a Minister other than his Foreign Secretary. He himself, when at Tehran, arranged most of the important matters he transacted there through the Amínu u'Daulah, and not through Mirza Said, the Foreign Secretary. Lastly, we had the positive testimony of Sir Henry Rawlinson that "no distinction was ever made between the Queen's Envoy accredited from one Department or from another Department of the State," and all who knew Persia knew that Sir Henry Rawlinson, accredited from the India Office, had a hundred times more influence than Mr. Alison, who was accredited from the Foreign Office. This allusion, therefore, needed no further comment, and he hastened on to say that after this change in 1858, the sixth which had occurred, they might have expected to "rest and be thankful;" but Lord Russell was no sooner in office than, with characteristic impatience, he reversed everything which had been done, and acting, no doubt, on the advice of Mr. Hammond, brought reluctant Persia back under the control of that functionary; and he said boldly, what he knew to be the case, that since then there had been repeatedly approaches to a positive rupture. Well, now, he had pointed out that the first epoch in the history of our relations with Persia ended with Malcolm's failure in 1808. The second terminated on the 3rd of September, 1854, when Mr. Murray, a purely Foreign Office employé, was appointed Minister at Tehran, for from that time to this, with the exception of Sir Henry Rawlinson and himself—and their career was short—there had been no Indian officer at the head of the Mission, and that was a matter to which Lord Lawrence and others attached the most serious importance. Now, he was going to found his chief argument for transferring Persia to the India Office upon the results of that substitution of Foreign Office emphyés for Indian; but before he did so he wished to dispose of the arguments which those who gave evidence before the Committee in favour of the Foreign Office view submitted to consideration. Of these, the statements of Sir Henry Bulwer told almost as much on one side as on the other; Lord Halifax supported
  1092
  one recommendation of the Committee, though he rejected the other two propositions; Mr. Hammond told us little or nothing, and what he said was hardly consistent; and Lord Clarendon alone spoke decidedly, though as he (Mr. Eastwick) would now show, his arguments would not bear examination. Now, what were these arguments? The first was that, except with regard to the Persian Gulf, India had nothing to do with Persia; the second, that the Shah would be "very much hurt and offended" at being excluded from European diplomacy, and put into the Indian circle; the third, that it was for our interest to keep Persia out of that circle; and the fourth, that the progress of Russia in Central Asia would bring Persia every day more and more into the pale of European influences. Now, the exception that except the Persian Gulf India had no connection with Persia, meant excepting a trade of several millions which India has with the Gulf, excepting the Residency at Bushahr, the Agency at Basra, the Residency at Bagdad, the Residency at Muskat, the naval force in the Gulf, the telegraphic communication along the 1,000 miles from Bushahr to Karachee, the line of steamers which runs between those places, for all of which India paid. It meant excepting the Treaties the Indian Government had with the Arab tribes of the Gulf, and with the Imam of Muskat, the disputed sovereignty of Barhein, the slave trade which India paid to put down. Surely that was a large—a monstrous exception. But to waive all that, he asked, had India no frontier line to the east of Persia, extending for 300 miles between the subsidized Khelat State and Persia, and 600 miles between Persia and the semi-Indian and occasionally subsidized State of Afghanistan, which line Indian officers—General Goldsmid, of the Bombay Army, and Colonel Pollock, of the Bengal Army—were at that moment engaged in settling? And why were Indian officers engaged in that duty? First, because England was in no way interested in the matter, except on account of India, while to India it was a matter of vital importance—of peace or war. Secondly, because Mr. Alison either never would, or never could, settle anything in Persia, but was indebted to Indian officers—first of all, he could not help saying, to himself, and

  1093
  afterwards to General Goldsmid and Major Champain—for all that was settled. The Indo-Persian frontier was vastly more extensive and more important than the other frontiers of Persia, for excepting the Caspian Sea, on which Persia had not a vessel, from the reckoning the whole frontier of Persia towards Russia extended only 200 miles, and no more than 600 miles towards Turkey, while the Indo-Persian frontier stretched 1,900 miles, reckoning the eastern frontier with the southern coast, which in all respects was thoroughly Indian. But besides all that, the Shah Mahomedans of India were bound to those of Persia by a thousand ties, while both were separated by an impassable gulf from the Turks. The Parsees, too, of India had still thousands of their brethren in Persia, which, as their name tells us, was their native land. There was, in fact, nothing to separate the interests of India from those of Persia—nothing to prevent the growth of commerce and goodwill but one iron wall, and that was the Foreign Office, which had expelled Indian officers from posts of influence in Persia, and which sent, and would probably send again, at the instigation of such men as it was in the habit of employing there, an invading army to desolate the provinces of our oldest and most attached Eastern ally. So much for Lord Clarendon's first argument. Of the second he had already disposed, and it was, in fact, a flimsy cobweb, in which none but very weak insects would be caught. The Shah could not be "hurt and offended" at that being done which had already been done in the case of Sir Henry Rawlinson, with his full approbation. But there was no necessity to revert precisely to what was done then. Why should, not the credentials of our Envoy to Tehran be drawn out as heretofore at the Foreign Office, but be sealed both at the Foreign Office and the Indian Office; and as for the Persian Envoy, he, of course, could remain, so far as ceremonies were concerned, in the Corps Diplomatique under the Foreign Office. But the one essential thing was that the India Office should control the Mission at Tehran, and that the Persian business should be transacted at the India Office, for the obvious reason that all that was important in that business related to India. No one but Lord
  1094
  Clarendon had ever denied that, and his statement was overborne by a cloud of witnesses, from Canning downwards; by Lord Malmesbury and Lord Derby; by two Viceroys of India of oppposite politics—Lord Lawrence and Lord Mayo. Lord Mayo made the following most important statement in his despatch to the Duke of Argyll of the 10th of June, 1869:—
  "Under the existing arrangements, which for some years past has been in force, Her Majesty's Minister at the Court of the Shah is placed under the direct control of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and while the revenues of India contribute £12,000 a-year for the support of the Persian Mission, no person, who by service in India has obtained experience of those questions which affect the interest of the Empire, is attached to the Embassy. The Secretary of State for India, or the Viceroy in Council, has no power to direct a single act of Her Majesty's Minister at Tehran. All they can do is to ask for information. In the Memorandum drawn up by Sir Henry Rawlinson on the Central Asian question, forwarded to us by your Grace's predecessor, the inconvenience of this arrangement is pointed out, and it is there shown that diplomatic action at Tehran is nearly invariably connected with questions which are intimately mixed up with the policy and interests of Her Majesty's Government in India. It is our duty to explain very fully the whole position of affairs to your Grace, and to point out that the means placed at our disposal render it most difficult in all cases—impossible in some—to carry out with success the policy which has been laid down, and the instructions of Her Majesty's Government,"
  Even Lord Clarendon's own officers—our Ambassadors at St. Petersburg and Constantinople—disproved his statement. Sir Andrew Buchanan said, in answer to Question 305, that there was very little business connected with Persia transacted through his office. Sir Henry Elliot, answering Question 1,289, stated that he sometimes had not occasion to write to Tehran for eight or ten months, and then again he might have had occasion for two or three months to make frequent communications. It turned out, however, that these communications were on all border questions—"little border disputes," as Lord Lawrence called them, which were of such little importance in the eyes of the Foreign Office itself that it allowed the boundary map to be dawdled over at St. Petersburg for 17 years, from 1853 to 1870, which would have been finished at the India Office in a year. As to the Return given in by Mr. Hammond of the number of letters on the political interests of India addressed during nine years by the India

  1095
  Office to the Foreign Office, no one should be deceived by that. Sir John Kaye explained that that was merely a Return of answers given by his Office to the Foreign Office when applying for information or advice, and if the Return was scanty that only showed the incompetency of the Foreign Office to deal with, the political interests of India. Finally, we have the positive assurance of Sir Henry Rawlinson that during the time he was Minister the only questions of a European complexion with which he had to deal were boundary disputes, and three-fourths of the despatches had relation to India. Besides transacting Persian business at the India Office, it was essential, too, that the officers of the Tehran Mission should be appointed by the Indian Secretary; but he deferred noticing this point till he had replied to Lord Clarendon's other two arguments. His third argument was that it was for our interest to keep Persia out of the Indian circle. Now, of all the countries bordering on India, why should that be said only of Persia? We went to an expensive war to keep Afghanistan in the Indian circle, and expel Russian emissaries; we did not want the French in Burmah; and we sent Malcolm to keep them out of Persia. In 1869, Mr. Forsyth was sent by Lord Clarendon to negotiate with the Russian Government the establishment of a neutral ground between Russia and Afghanistan; and if he could have established a neutral territory between Persia and Russia, it would have been equally for our benefit. What did keeping Persia out of the Indian circle really mean? It meant that Persia should be the focus of European intrigues; that when a war arises Persia would offer herself first to one belligerent and then to the other, as she did in the Crimean War; that Indian refugees in Persia—like Prince Ferúz Shah, the last scion of the house of Delhi—would be continually trying to weave conspiracies against our Indian Government, into which, falsely or truthfully, they would import the names of Russia, or any other European State from which they might hope to get aid. In short, if it was for our interest to keep Persia out of the Indian circle, it was equally so to keep Cabool, Herat, Kelat, Cashmere, and Burmah out of it. "But," said Lord Clarendon, "the progress of Russia in Central Asia would bring
  1096
  Persia every day more and more into the pale of European influences." Here European meant Russian influences; but was that a desirable thing for us? If so, then the advance of Russia into Turkey must be at least equally desirable, for the occupation of Persia by Russia would be a serious danger to our Indian Empire, while the occupation of Constantinople by that Power would not endanger us in any way. But common sense would tell us that nothing could be more undesirable to any State than to have an equally strong or stronger Power advance to its frontiers. The history of the world told us that in all such cases war must sooner or later ensue, and that the more equally matched the Powers, the more terrible would be the collision. We had had war with all our neighbours in India—with the Sindhians, Afghans, Nepaulese, and Burmese; but when our frontier marched with that of Russia the war that arose would be, it was only reasonable to expect, far more dangerous than any India had ever experienced. Our business, therefore, was to keep Russia at a distance. Lord Sandhurst said the other day that it would take a quarter of a century for Russia to sap up to our frontier. Then it was the duty of our statesmen now to look forward to that time. The statesmanship which waited till the enemy was at the gates was not worthy the name. He said, then, let us maintain Persia inviolable as one of the outposts of India, and that would not be done by allowing her "to be brought day by day more and more into the pale of Russian influences." He had done now with Lord Clarendon's arguments, and would come to the question of appointing Indian officers to the Mission at Tehran, and the consequences of substituting for them European diplomatists who had no Indian experience. Lord Lawrence's evidence was very full on this head. He said, in answer to Question 4,988—
  "I consider it most important that the British Minister in Persia should possess a large knowledge of India and its circumstances; that the Secretary of State should naturally be led to make his selection of the chief officers in Persia from those who had served with distinction in India; whereas, in the nature of things, that could not be the case if the Persian Minister were under the Foreign Office."
  How true that judgment of Lord Lawrence was Lord Granville had just

  1097
  shown. When Mr. Alison died, General Goldsmid was at Tehran. He was there now, and was engaged in settling the important question of the Perso-Indian boundary. What could have been more opportune? General Goldsmid was admirably fitted for the post of Minister. There were many other Indian officers to choose from. There was, for example, Sir Arnold Kemball, so long the Resident at Bagdad. But, no! there was stagnation in the Diplomatic Service, and Lord Granville feared there would be an émeute among its ranks if an Indian officer were elected. He had, therefore, fixed on Mr. Taylour Thomson, who had been 14 years at Valparaiso, where, he was bound to say, so far as he (Mr. Eastwick) knew, he had done good service, and had probably forgotten his Persian and all he knew of Persia by this time. That might be so, but it was certain that the Shah had not forgotten what occurred in 1853 and 1854. On the 4th of November, 1853, Mr. Thomson, then in charge of the Mission, hauled down his flag, and relations were suspended till the 26th of that month. On the 15th of June, 1854, Mr. Thomson wrote to Lord Clarendon—
  "I have appointed Mirza Hashim Khan to be First Persian Secretary of this Mission. His character, in so far so I have been able to ascertain, is most respectable, and he is connected by marriage with the Royal Family."
  Now, if Mr. Thomson had had any regard for Oriental feelings, he would never have appointed a man who had married a sister of one of the Shah's wives, and who was in disgrace at Court, to a subordinate post in the English Mission, or to any post in it; and if Lord Clarendon had known anything of Persia he would never have approved such an appointment. To bring a Persian lady of rank connected with the Shah into communication with the Mission was one of the most outrageous things ever done by a foreigner in that country. What was the natural result? Mr. Thomson wrote to Lord Clarendon on the 2nd of September, 1854—
  "The persons about the Court took this opportunity of instigating the Shah to instruct the Sadr Azim to oppose this appointment on account of the rank of Mirza Hashim, and also on account of his connection with the Royal Family."
  Mr. Murray arrived soon after, fresh from the Foreign Office, and of course took up the quarrel, but found it im-
  1098
  possible to keep Mirza Hashim as Secretary to the Mission. He therefore sent him to Shiraz; but the affair had gone too far, the Sadr Azim imprisoned Mirza Hashim's wife, and wrote to Mr. Murray "a most offensive and unbecoming despatch," as Mr. Murray called it, accusing both Mr. Thomson and Mr. Murray of an intrigue with the lady. Those gentlemen had probably never read the story of Baron Kniphausen, the Dutch Agent, who was imprisoned and forced to pay a heavy fine on a similar accusation. They had, perhaps, never heard of Baron Grüboedoff, the Russian Ambassador, who, on the 11th of February, 1829, was murdered with his whole staff, except the First Secretary, M. Malzoff, at Tehran, by the Persians, for sending for two Armenian women who were in the harem of the Asifu u'Daulah. The Sadr Azim, however, knew all about it, and in a letter to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe took credit for saving Messrs. Thomson and Murray from the same fate. On the 4th of November, 1855, Mr. Murray notified to the Sadr Azim the appointment of Mirza Hashim to Shiraz, and on the 20th of the same month he reported to Lord Clarendon that he had struck his flag. On the 26th, the Shah himself wrote to the Sadr Azim—
  "Mr. Murray's object is this—forcibly to take our wife's sister. Our commands are that we will not submit to this indignity."
  In fact, the Shah twice issued an order to put the lady to death, a command which was with difficulty evaded. The sequel of the story was well known; Mr. Murray went to Bagdad, and the Persians seized the opportunity, marched on Herat, and took it, whereupon ensued the Persian War, which was thus originated by the employés of the Foreign Office, peace being restored by an Indian officer, Captain Lynch. Lord Granville had now appointed one of those employés, a gentleman personally odious to the Shah, to be Minister at Tehran. Truly the English were a long suffering people, but if they should be plunged into a second Persian War by the caprice of a Minister who selected the very most improper person in the whole world to be our Minister at Tehran, he believed even their patience would break down. For his part, he did all he could to prevent this mistake. He gave Notice of

  1099
  a Question which implied that the appointment of a successor to Mr. Alison should be postponed till after this debate. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Enfield) asked him to postpone that Question, and in the meantime Lord Granville hastened to recommend Mr. Thomson to the Queen. That was, perhaps, scant courtesy to him; but he did not complain of that; all he did complain of was that the public interests should be wantonly sacrificed to gratify the lore of patronage of the Foreign Office. And now he had done, he left to others to ask why India should pay all and the Foreign Office place all. On that head he should merely refer to the homely words of Dundas, Lord Molville. "India," he said, "pays the piper, and India ought to have some of the patronage." Nor would he stir up scandals that were dead, and would only say there had been scandals in Persia before which even what had now happened would sink into insignificance. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  SIR CHARLES WINGFIELD, in seconding the Motion, said he would take occasion to observe that he looked with no jealousy on the advance of Russia in the East; on the contrary, he believed that she had a great mission to perform there, and he could contemplate with calmness the prospect of the absorption of the whole of Turkestan by her. All would agree that our diplomacy in Persia was essentially an Eastern question, and must depend mainly on considerations of Indian policy. It therefore appeared to him to be extremely desirable that our Minister in that country should be in intimate communication with the Viceroy of India, and in corroboration of that view, the Shah complained that no member of the Mission was acquainted with Indian interests. At the same time, however, he could not help regarding it as the most natural arrangement that our Minister in Persia should be subordinate to the Secretary of State, with whose Department the business which he had to transact was most intimately connected. A great stimulus, he might add, would be given to the acquisition of the Persian language if employment in that country were thrown open to Indian officers. By far the most efficient Ministers whom
  1100
  we ever had in Persia were Sir James Malcolm and Sir Henry Rawlinson, because of their knowledge of Oriental manners. They were extremely acceptable to the Shah, and possessed great influence with him; Sir Henry Rawlinson alone, of all the foreign Ministers, was during his residence at Tehran admitted to private interviews with the Shah. Moreover, the advantages, according to Lord Lawrence, of substituting one Secretary of State for another was to be found especially in the selection of officers, and it was deemed advisable by those best qualified to give an opinion on the subject that, even if the Mission remained under the Foreign Office, the officers should be selected by the Secretary of State for India. With regard to the payment of costs, if the Motion of his hon. Friend were adopted, he would not at all object to see the whole of the costs borne by India. If, however, the present arrangement were adhered to, he thought the proportions now borne by this country and India should be reversed, and that three-fourths should be borne by England, and the remaining fourth, by India.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the recommendation of the Diplomatic Committee of last year be carried out, viz. that the control of our relations with Persia be transferred to the India Office, or that the payments for the expenses of our mission in Persia be readjusted,"—(Mr. Eastwick,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. BOURKEthought the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Eastwick) was one which must commend itself to the good sense of the House. Nobody at all acquainted with Oriental affairs could, in his opinion, fail to see that the qualifications necessary for a Minister to Persia were of a very special character. He ought to be a good Oriental scholar, and to possess an intimate knowledge of Oriental affairs—qualifications which, it would be difficult to find among diplomatists sent out by the Foreign Office. It was natural that a person who had always been connected with the Foreign Office and European Courts should, when he found himself in an Eastern Court, turn his eyes towards the West, and cherish Western ideas and associations.

  1101
  The contrary ought to be the case with a British Minister in Persia, and instead of turning his face to the West, he ought to turn his attention to the East, because the only means by which good could be done in introducing civilization and progress into Persia was through India. It was desirable that intercourse should exist between the Minister of Persia and the Government of India in the interest of both countries. In the interest of Persia, because Persia wished to be powerful and independent, and the best way to teach her was through the Government of India. We had no feeling of aggression towards Persia—no desire for territorial aggrandizement at her expense. We were ready to go with Persia, and to lend her our influence in introducing the same civilization which we were endeavouring to establish among our own fellow-subjects in India. It was further desirable that Persia should understand that in case of need and under certain eventualities, we should be ready to support her, and that the Government of India would stretch forth its arm in vindication of her national rights, and in support of that independence which we knew she was anxious to maintain. On the other hand, it was, above all things, most desirable in the interests of India that she should entertain the most direct and intimate relations with Persia, for what was called the foreign policy of India was most intimately connected with Persian politics, and there was hardly one question of importance connected, with the foreign policy of India that could not be said to touch upon Persian politics. Take, for instance, the questions that arose from time to time with regard to our Central Asian relations and our Afghanistan policy, and those matters connected with her boundaries which in this country might be called minor questions, but which were of the greatest importance to Persia and India, and which, if not managed with the greatest discretion, might produce results which all might deplore. All these were questions with which the Government of India was daily obliged to interfere, and to which it paid the greatest attention. Did it not, therefore, follow as a matter of common sense that the same Department which had to do with all those questions of the foreign policy of India, should also manage those which were
  1102
  intimately associated with that policy? Questions of boundary were continually arising, and every person connected with the Government of India would be ready to admit that these and other matters would have been more satisfactorily and rapidly arranged had the Secretary of State for India been able to communicate directly with the Persian Minister. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend who had last spoken, that apart from India England had no interest in connection with Persia, and he could not conceive that England would for one moment think it necessary to keep up a Minister and a diplomatic Mission at Tehran if it were not for our Indian Empire. In conclusion, he thought that if it could be shown that it was desirable for the interests of India that this change should take place, it was for the interests of England also. Entertaining those opinions, he should vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Penrhyn.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he wished at the outset to take exception, and very strong exception, to one remark made by the hon. Member for Penrhyn (Mr. Eastwick)—namely, that it was the duty of the Secretary of State to be bound by a Resolution agreed to by a Committee of that House. If that rule was to hold good, even though the Resolution might have been passed by a considerable majority, it would be a practical transfer of the duties and responsibilities of the Minister of the Crown to that House. Now, he apprehended that it was the duty of the Secretary of State, when a Committee of that House was appointed to investigate any subject which came under his Departmental knowledge, to be guided by the conclusions at which that Committee might have arrived, so far as he thought those conclusions consistent with his duty and the interests of the public service; but it was not his duty to be bound by the decision agreed to by any such Committee contrary to his own sense of what was most expedient. The hon. Member had discussed the state of our relations with Persia within the last few years. Well, with regard to that, at the present moment there were no complications between us and Persia. Two Commissions of Arbitration had been appointed for fixing the boundary line between Persia and Mekran and Seistan. The first had com-

  1103
  pleted its task, subject to some trifling rectifications, to the satisfaction of both parties; the latter had for a time suspended its labours. If, however, these Commissions should be carried out to their legitimate end, Persia would have a well-defined Eastern frontier and escape any collisions with her neighbours. In the Charbar and Bandar Abbas matters of dispute between Persia and Muscat, the English Government, being friendly to both parties, would not interfere; while with regard to the internal questions of Persia, the melancholy suffering from famine in that country might probably account for the insecurity of life and property along the public roads, but there was no other difficulty with regard to our relations with that country. For 12 years the late Mr. Alison had represented English interests with credit, fidelity, and efficiency at the Court of the Shah, and accounts received from Persia said that his death was the occasion for sincere sorrow on the part of all classes. The brief history of the position of the Persian Mission from this country was this—Towards the end of the reign of Fettah Ali Shah, Sir John Campbell, Envoy to the Court of Persia from the Governor General of India, officially reported that as merely accredited by a subordinate Government, he had not the power and influence which a Minister would have who was directly named by the Crown of England. When Mahomed Shah ascended the Throne, a Mission from the Crown instead of from Calcutta succeeded, and in 1835, Sir Henry Ellis went to Tehran as Envoy. From 1835 to 1858 the Minister at the Court of the Shah was accredited direct from the Crown of England. In November, 1858, it was proposed that a change should take place, the purport of which was to transfer to the India Office the superintendence of the British relations with Persia. It was, however, stipulated that the Foreign Secretary should be kept fully informed of all the diplomatic transactions with the Court of Persia. In accordance with the proposed change, therefore, and under certain conditions which were made a sine quâ non, Sir Henry Rawlinson accepted the appointment, and was for some months the representative of England at Tehran; but when, in October, 1859, the Foreign Secretary proposed, with the entire acquiescence of
  1104
  the India Office, to resume the conduct of Persian diplomatic relations, Sir Henry Rawlinson resigned. There was one point in respect of which he thought his position would be affected, and that was in his not being allowed to continue his presents to the Shah. In the evidence which Sir Henry Rawlinson gave to the Select Committee on this point, he hardly did himself or his country full justice, for it was impossible to believe that his influence at the Persian Court depended on the presents he was able to distribute there. The Shah had a Civil List amounting to some £400,000 a-year, and was not, therefore, likely to be influenced by presents at the disposal of the British Minister of the total value of, perhaps, £1,500 a-year. The influence of a man like Sir Henry Rawlinson at Tehran depended on his position, his ability, his intimate knowledge of Eastern politics; it depended on the man, and not on the question whether it was in his power to give away a certain sum in presents every year. In October, 1859, a re-transfer of diplomatic proceedings was effected, and this remained up to the appointment of the Committee in 1870, before which Committee Lord Malmesbury, Lord Derby, Lord Lawrence, Sir John Kaye, Lord Clarendon, Lord Halifax, Sir Henry Bulwer, Mr. Hammond, and other witnesses were examined. As to the evidence before that Committee, it was true that some distinguished witnesses advocated the transfer, though Lord Derby, whose name had been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, was not very decided in his approval. But the evidence of Sir Henry Bulwer, Lord Clarendon, Lord Halifax, and Mr. Hammond was very decided against the transfer. Sir Henry Bulwer thought it better to leave our relations with Persia in the hands of the Foreign Office, though he added that the India Office ought occasionally to be consulted; and Lord Clarendon had no doubt whatever that we ought to bring Persia within the European circle, instead of keeping it within the Indian circle. As to Mr. Taylour Thomson, it was true that a letter was circulated in 1854, supposed to be written by him, which, if he were really the author, was inconsistent with his further employment, but Mr. Taylour Thomson indignantly denied that he had written the letter, stating that it was a com-

  1105
  plete fabrication. The war with Persia mainly originated in the conduct of that country towards Herat, and in the insults offered to Englishmen. The hon. Member and other speakers had dwelt upon the fact that Oriental experience was needed in any diplomatic appointment at the Court of Persia. But the Foreign Office List showed that Mr. Taylour Thomson had had ample experience of this nature. But then it was said that the appointment of Mr. Thomson would be highly objectionable at Tehran, and would be regarded as an affront at the Persian Court. Now, to those statements he could give an official contradiction. Very soon after it was rumoured that Mr. Taylour Thomson had been appointed British Minister at Tehran, the Persian Minister here said he thought the appointment would not be acceptable. Thereupon a telegram was sent to Tehran, the substance of which was—
  "The Persian Minister here objects to the appointment of Mr. Taylour Thomson to succeed Mr. Alison as Her Majesty's Minister at Tehran, alleging that he was the cause of the last war. Ascertain whether the Persian Minister makes this statement by order of the Persian Government, and the grounds on which it is made."
  On the 5th of July the answer came—
  "The Grand Vizier states that the Persian Minister has not been authorized to make any objection whatever to the appointment of Mr. Taylour Thomson as the successor of Mr. Alison. Instructions had been given to telegraph to the Persian Minister to express the satisfaction felt by the Persian Government with the appointment in question."
  Now, he thought, whether the House accepted or rejected the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, we ought to ask ourselves, would it, on the whole, be advisable, in cosmopolitan interests, to place the Persian Mission under the India Office? The answer would appear to be that where Representatives of great Powers like Russia, France, and Turkey were accredited by their Sovereigns and their Governments, England should also have a diplomatic Representative appointed by her Sovereign, and not by the Viceroy of India. Again, would it be just and considerate to the Shah himself to make this change? The Shah, was an independent Sovereign, owing us no homage or allegiance, but solicitous for our friendship and goodwill, and had, therefore, the right to be treated as a member of the family of
  1106
  nations, and not as a vassal or as a tributary; and, further, he knew that a Minister appointed by the Queen must be higher than one appointed by the Secretary of State. Then, was the choice of a Representative to be restricted to members of the Indian service alone? No one could question the fidelity, the gallantry, and conspicuous abilities of the Indian service, but Lord Granville was not prepared to restrict the choice of a representative of England at Tehran to any one branch of the public service, whether at home or abroad. Should the arrangement be altered, moreover, by which it was deliberately agreed in 1836, with the full assent of the Court of Directors of the India House, that a charge of £12,000 upon the Revenues of India should be made towards defraying the expenses of the Persian Mission? He thought no fair reason could be assigned for upsetting that arrangement, and a glance at the expenditure would show that the surplus charge had been in many years provided for out of Imperial funds according to the deliberate arrangement which had been sanctioned upwards of 35 years ago. Finally, he hoped the House would agree by their vote to-night that the rule for our relations with Eastern Courts should be, that where there were Representatives of other European Powers, English relations should be conducted by the Foreign Office; in countries where no nation but Great Britain was represented, her relations should be under the direction of the Viceroy of India. He therefore asked the House, with all respect and all confidence, to negative the Motion.
  MR. STOPFORD-SACKVILLEsaid, that if he had any complaint to make against the Government, it was not so much that they were unwilling to carry into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee, but that they were too ready to appoint a Committee, and to throw upon it a responsibility as to diplomatic services which ought to rest upon themselves. Whatever might be the result of the Motion, there could, he thought, be but one opinion as to the interesting speech in which it had been introduced, and he must congratulate the House on having among its Members an hon. Gentleman so thoroughly acquainted with Persian policy as his hon. Friend the Member for Penrhyn (Mr.

  1107
  Eastwick). He should not on the present occasion deal with the larger question involved in the Motion; but as to the minor point, was it fair or just that we should say, on the one hand, "the affairs of Persia are so far Indian that India must bear almost the whole of the expenses of the Mission;" and, on the other, "they are so far European that we shall put the whole control of the Mission in the hands of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs?" Those who had heard the evidence which was given before the Committee by men of the highest experience could not help arriving at the conclusion that such a mode of proceeding involved an extraordinary anomaly, and that was the opinion, among others, of Sir John Kaye. One of the witnesses who had been quoted in opposition to the Motion was Lord Halifax, and nobody had a greater respect than he (Mr. Stopford Sackville) had for that noble Lord's Indian authority on Indian affairs; but Lord Halifax said, in his evidence before the Committee, that although he had altered the arrangement which had been made by Lord Malmesbury, he thought India paid far too highly towards the expenses of the Mission, and that a fair proportion would be half-and-half instead of £12,000 being paid by India and only £3,000 by this country as was now the case. When, he might add, the affairs of India were directed by the East India Company, there might be an advantage in accrediting a Minister to the Shah of Persia, through the medium of the Foreign Office, as otherwise he would not have represented the Sovereign; but now that the Foreign and Indian Offices were all alike, under Secretaries of State of equal rank, that reason disappeared. He had made these remarks because it was upon his suggestion that the Committee had recommended a readjustment of expenditure; and to this hour he could hardly understand how the present arrangement could be defended.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that as Chairman of the Committee to which reference had been made, he would point out that the recommendations of the Committee, though not perhaps worded very strongly, were clearly in favour of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite. The question was one of considerable importance and the Committee heard the evidence of the highest authorities on both sides. On the one side were Lord
  1108
  Clarendon and Lord Halifax, whose views on the subject were those of Lord Palmerston; on the other side was the equally high authority of Lord Lawrence, Sir Henry Rawlinson, and Sir John Kaye. The House would observe that the former authorities consisted of Ministers of State who had Foreign Office experience, while the men who were opposed to them were persons who possessed a great knowledge of Oriental Courts and the management of Oriental affairs, which was the real point at issue that evening. The point, however, they had to consider was this—not whether the Foreign Office or India Office should have the appointment of the Representative at the Court of Tehran, or whether he should be a gentleman belonging to the one service or the other, but by what class of men could our relations with Persia most probably be best conducted. Because, with regard to the Home administration, it mattered very little who was to have this appointment, whether it was the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, or the noble Duke at the head of the India Office. They would both equally make the best choice they could, and it was obvious, as they were both in the Cabinet, that what was known about Persian affairs of importance by one would be immediately known to the other. But the real point for consideration was, whether the best field of choice for officers to represent the Crown in Tehran was likely to be offered by the diplomatic service, which was very limited in number, and whose experience had been confined to European Courts, or by the larger number of public officials engaged in the public service in India, and acquainted with the customs and feelings of Orientals, and who possessed a knowledge of their language. If the choice lay with the Foreign Office they might depend upon it that the officer selected would be from the diplomatic service; and if it lay with the Secretary of State for India, he would look for an officer qualified to be Representative at the Court of Tehran in the Indian official service. He thought the Committee arrived at a rational conclusion in this matter. It also occurred to the Committee—though they did not express a very strong opinion on the point—that if it appeared to the Government that the whole question should be decided by

  1109
  European considerations in reference to Russia and Turkey and the general diplomacy of the world, then the charge of this Mission should not be laid on the shoulders of India. Either the Mission was an Indian affair mainly depending for its importance on the closeness of the relations between India and Persia, and then the charge could fairly be put on the Indian Revenues; or, if it was considered of European character connected with European diplomacy and with efforts to keep peace all over the world, then there would not be the shadow of a pretence for placing the charge on the Indian Exchequer. That was the commonsense view entertained by the Committee, and if the hon. Member for Penrhyn (Mr. Eastwick) went to a division, he would support him.
  MR. W. C. CARTWRIGHTsaid, he wished to direct the attention of the House to the weakness of the evidence given before the Committee in favour of the proposal now before the House. One of the principal arguments adduced by those who were in favour of that proposal consisted in animadverting on the delay occasioned by what they called the present dual government. But Sir John Kaye, in answer to a question put to him by the Committee, declared that no serious delay arose in consequence of the dual government. With regard to the objection of dual government it was rather remarkable that Sir Henry Rawlinson, who was most strongly opposed to the retention of the Persian Mission under the Foreign Office, when asked if he would also put all the Consular offices in Persia under the India Office, replied in the negative, because, he said, there was no Consular service in India. It seemed to him that that showed the singular weakness of the whole case. If they transferred the Persian Mission to the India Office because it was an Oriental Mission, they must, for the same reason, transfer the Chinese and Japanese Missions. The charge was one which struck against the knowledge, capacity, efficiency, and organization of the Foreign Office. These were the general grounds on which he had in Committee opposed the views of the hon. Member for Penrhyn, and if he went to a division he would vote against his Resolution.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to say a very words on this
  1110
  question, which was not altogether free from difficulty. At the same time, he was bound to say that, so far as his judgment went, there was very great force in the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Penrhyn (Mr. Eastwick), who had introduced the subject, supported, as it had been, by his right hon. Friend opposite the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Bouverie). He looked with considerable interest to the verdict given by the right hon. Gentleman, because he approached the question from, an independent point of view. He himself, so far as he had anything to do with the matter, of course did not altogether approach it from an independent point of view, having been some time ago the representative of the Indian Government; for, as such representative, he certainly felt that it would have been desirable with reference to Indian interests that the Indian Government should have more direct connection with the Persian Mission than it had. From his personal knowledge while at the India Office, he could confirm that it was perfectly true that all dispatches and communications were sent to the India Office for information; but at the same time there was a good deal of difference between receiving dispatches sent by another office, and on the authority of that office, merely for information, and directing those dispatches yourself, and there could be no doubt that the responsibility felt by the India Office on the mere receipt of a dispatch was not so great as if the direction of the Mission rested with it. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down put the matter on a ground which, though taken by others, was not exactly the correct ground on which the Motion rested. He said, if the Persian as an Oriental Mission should be transferred to the India Office, so should the Chinese and Japanese Missions be transferred. But it was not because this was an Oriental Mission, and that gentlemen best acquainted with Oriental affairs would often be found among the Civil Servants of the Indian Government, that it should be transferred to the India Office, but because the affairs of Persia were peculiarly connected with the affairs of India. The diplomatic relations between this country and Persia affected Indian interests in a very different way from our communications with China and Japan, and there were a

  1111
  great many questions affecting the affairs of Persia which did very closely touch the conduct of Indian affairs. For instance, when he was at the India Office—and no doubt it was the same now—there were many questions affecting the state of affairs in the Persian Gulf; and it must be borne in mind that the Indian Government was considered responsible for the maintenance of order in the Persian Gulf; that there was a Resident in the Persian Gulf in direct communication with the Government of India, and there were continually questions arising connected with the affairs of the Chiefs on either side of the Gulf, which did more or less bear upon and affect the politics and proceedings of Persia, and also very closely on India. He thought, therefore, it was very desirable—it was essential—that the Indian Government should be informed of what was passing between India and Persia, and should have its say with regard to the communications between them. No doubt it was better that those communications should be direct; but if there were reasons to overpower that, the next best thing was that there should be free communication as there had been between Lord Derby and himself. In that way they might, to a great extent, gain the advantage desired, though not so completely as if the Mission were put entirely under the India Office. At the time he held office there was no difference between Lord Derby and himself, because Lord Derby held very strongly the same views he entertained himself—that it would be better that the Persian Mission should be directly under the India Office. Indeed, he had formerly made arrangements with that view; but inasmuch as the Government which succeeded him had reversed his policy, and put the Mission back under the Foreign Office, he felt it was not desirable that they should of their own Motion attempt to reverse that arrangement unless they had some confidence that what they did would be permanent. It appeared to him, with great reason, that it was very objectionable that repeated changes should be made in this matter—that one year this Mission should be under the Foreign Office, next year under India, and the third year under the Foreign Office again. Instability in such a matter was very much to be regretted and deprecated. Therefore he felt some
  1112
  delicacy in urging a change, unless it was a change which recommended itself to those in authority and they were prepared to give their sanction to it. At the same time, any change of this kind was not to be considered as lowering the Persian Mission. That would be very objectionable. If the Government of this country were to say—"We do not intend to send to Persia a direct representative from the Sovereign of England, but a representative of the Viceroy," the Shah of Persia would have cause to complain; but that was not what his hon. Friend proposed. He proposed that the Envoy should go direct from the British Crown, but that he should be in correspondence with the Secretary of State for India rather than with the Foreign Secretary; and it seemed to him that this might have been arranged without giving offence to the Shah. Upon the whole, his opinion decidedly was in favor of the Motion; and it seemed to him that in the form in which it was made it was difficult to resist. The form was that either the Mission should be transferred to the India Office, or that the financial arrangement should be revised; and the meaning of the second branch of the alternative was that the two-thirds or three-fifths of the expense which was paid by the Indian Government should either be put under the management of the Government which mainly had to pay for it, or that that Government should be relieved of the expense. He supposed that the reason why the Government of India was charged with this expense was that which had just been suggested—namely, that Indian and Persian affairs were connected, and India had an interest in what we did there. Therefore it was said, if this be so, let us transfer the Mission; if it is not so, let us relieve India of the expense. Upon these grounds it appeared to him that his hon. Friend had made out a case which, so far, had not been answered.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, this was a case of difficulty and of divided authority, and one in which it would not be wise on the part of the House to interfere. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) had unintentionally fallen into error in stating that Lord Derby entertained a strong opinion in favor of this transfer, for Lord Derby himself said that he had no

  1113
  strong opinion on the subject, but, on the whole, he was inclined to prefer the system which placed Persia under the India Office. The right hon. Gentleman also commended the form of the Motion, but it was exceptional in this—that it combined together alternative propositions which really had no connection. The one was a political proposition of great importance and delicacy; the other was a mere financial arrangement, fit to be discussed in Committee of Supply. He objected altogether to placing these propositions as alternatives the one to the other, and to the assumption that the adoption of one necessarily excluded the other—a point which had not been argued and as to which the hon. Mover of the Resolution might fall into a trap. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that the intention of the hon. Mover was that, if the Mission were not transferred, the expenses should be charged to England; but that was not required by the terms of the Motion; that merely required that the expenses should be readjusted; and it would be a full compliance with the terms of the Resolution if India, instead of paying £12,000 a-year, were made to pay the whole expense of the Mission. The question of the division of expense appeared to him to be one for discussion in Committee of Supply, and not one which it was convenient to mix up with the larger question. With respect to looking to the Indian Service for the choice of the agents by whom the business of the Persian Mission was to be conducted, he would say it was a good thing that all services should be carefully watched by the House of Commons, because they were all apt to fall into a species of exclusiveness, each preferring its own members, habits, and traditions. He would not, however, give an opinion adverse to the general view expressed that it would be proper to select persons of Indian experience for the Indian Mission. With respect to the main question, the transference of the Mission to the India Office, he did not admit that it was the duty of the Ministry to give effect to the recommendations of the majority of a Committee. That was authoritative evidence with which a Minister might enter upon an investigation; but it would never do to lay down the principle that a Minister could shield himself from responsibility under such a recom-
  1114
  mendation. Further, the scope of the Committee's inquiry was limited by the Order of Reference; for as the Committee was appointed to inquire into the constitution of the Diplomatic and Consular Services, it exceeded its powers by dealing with a question of this nicety; and if such a question had been referred to it, it would have been the first time Parliament ever appointed a Committee for such a purpose; it would have handed over to a Committee a matter properly reserved for the Executive Government, subject to the review and correction of the House. In fact, the system under which the affairs of the Persian Mission were managed had existed for 40 years, with the exception of a single year, and the House was now called upon to alter it on the Resolution of a Committee which was not appointed to consider the matter. Was that a matter in which the House could interfere with safety? Lord Malmesbury altered the present system after an experience at the Foreign Office of 12 months; Lord Palmerston adhered to the present system after as experience of 15 years or more as Foreign Secretary, and constant attention to the affairs of the Foreign Office after he had quitted it. Lord Clarendon, a most experienced Foreign Minister, adhered to the present system, Lord Malmesbury altered it after a year's experience, Lord Derby had no very strong opinion on the matter; but Mr. Hammond, no mean authority, supported the present system, and so did the present Foreign Secretary. In that condition of divided authorities, there being, however, a great preponderance of those who had long Parliamentary experience and long official practice in the Foreign Office in favor of the present system, it would not be safe to accede to the Resolution. There was another point of which no notice had been taken, and that was that the Court of the Shah was attended by Ministers who in every case formed a portion of the regular diplomatic service, of their respective countries. Under these circumstances, it would have a tendency to lower the position of those who represented the Queen in the eyes of the Shah, if this change were made. It was very material to observe that Lord Clarendon had not scrupled to state his strong conviction that the Shah would not approve the transfer. His right hon. Friend had conceded what he (Mr. Gladstone) be-

  1115
  lieved to be the main point, when he said that if those who were responsible for the conduct of affairs were not willing to accept a transfer of this kind, it ought not to be made, and he would not wish that the House should force it upon them. But, at all events, his right hon. Friend said that England, ought to pay for the Mission. He would not enter upon that point now. But the way he would presume to put the matter was this—The affairs of the Persian Mission were really, and to a very substantial purpose, part of the foreign affairs of India; but with respect to the foreign relations of India, it had been held that the whole of that portion of them which touched on the northern frontier of India was more appropriately, conveniently, and effectively lodged in the hands of the Foreign Minister than of the Indian Government. In that case it might be said that India ought not to pay for the Persian Mission. That was a matter for discussion. But if we acted in the interest of India, and placed these functions in the hands of the Foreign Minister, because we thought he would be best able to defend the interests of India, would it be said that it was not right to throw the expenses on the Indian Exchequer? But, in conclusion, upon the main question he hoped that the House of Commons would not consent to interfere against the weight of authority on the part of those who had been engaged in the conduct of foreign affairs—a weight of authority amounting to nearly an unbroken chain for many years.
  MR. KINNAIRD, as a Member of the Committee which sat on the subject, said he must contend from the following terms of the Order of Reference:—
  "To inquire into the constitution of the Diplomatic and Consular Services and their maintenance on the efficient footing required by the political and commercial interests of the country,"
  that they had not gone out of their Reference, and unless the proceedings of the Committee were a farce and a sham the matter had been referred to them in the most distinct manner. The plain common-sense view of the question was at variance with the judgment of the Prime Minister. What were the interests most affected? Were they those of England? Not a bit. Persia was contiguous to our Empire in India, where we had an Administration and a Council which were, he believed, unani-
  1116
  mous in their opinion that the interests of India were sacrificed. He maintained, having looked anxiously into this question, that the interests of this country required that our Persian Embassy should be represented by some one thoroughly acquainted with our Indian affairs, and that, compared with the Government of India, our Government at home knew very little about our Persian relations. He trusted the House would adopt the Resolution of his hon. Friend.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 60: Majority 30.

ARMY—CAVALRY REMOUNTS.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  MR. BROWN, in rising to call attention to the present system of purchasing Remounts for the Cavalry, and to ask what steps were being taken to remedy the evils of the present system, said, that under the present system agents were employed to attend different fairs for the purpose of purchasing horses, and the result was that the sellers took advantage of the competition to raise the prices to the injury of the public service. At present the arrangements for procuring remounts were defective, and as instanced in a recent purchase of 683 horses, the colonels of different regiments competed with each other in obtaining them, not always getting those horses which were best suited for their own branch of the service. If the country, however, were divided into districts for this purpose, those who purchased the horses could have the power of drafting them off to those places where they were most required. He wished to know what steps had been taken to remedy the evils of the existing system, and to prevent the competition of colonels in the purchase of remounts for cavalry?
  SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, he would admit the importance of the subject, but thought there was no Army in the world which was better mounted than the British. The hon. Member asked what steps were being taken to remedy the existing state of things. He could not, for his own part, see that any such steps were necessary; but if the hon. Member would be good enough to give him in

  1117
  writing the plan which he suggested, he would examine it with much pleasure. Certainly the cost of cavalry horses had greatly increased of late; but everybody who bought horses knew that the prices had risen generally. After adducing detailed statistics of the present establishment of horses for the various branches of the service, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he did not think that the cavalry would be so well mounted as they were unless the colonels of regiments had the power of buying horses, nor, though horses were no doubt becoming dearer, that that fact was owing to the competition of commanding officers.

DURHAM CHURCH LEASEHOLDS.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  MR. STEVENSON, in rising to call attention to the continued dead-lock in the administration of the estates of the Dean and Chapter of Durham, and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is prepared to take any steps to put an end to the present anomalous position of the Durham Capitular Estates which had passed from the control of the Dean and Chapter, but not into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and to enable the intentions of Parliament to be fulfilled with regard to the enfranchisement of leasehold interests and the endowment of benefices, said, the Church Estates Commissioners had sanctioned the enfranchisement of upwards of 600 leasehold interests in the property of the Dean and Chapter, and the rateable value of South Shields had increased 70 per cent as a consequence. But this beneficial system had been entirely arrested for the last three years, and a complete dead-lock had ensued. No doubt while negotiations were pending it was necessary that some time should elapse during which no dealings with this property should take place; but a most unreasonable delay had taken place, and it was now quite time that there should be some alteration. He knew that, contrary to the intention of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, much of this delay had been caused by the presentation of a Petition to the Privy Council, against the scheme of the Commissioners, from a number of lessees. It had been suggested that he should use his influence to induce the with-
  1118
  drawal of the Petition; but he must have some means supplied to him of using to advantage whatever influence he might possess, and he should be glad if the Commissioners could hold out a prospect of so equitably and liberally dealing with these estates as to remove the objections of the Petitioners. The renewal of their leases had been stopped for two years, and the owners of leasehold estates, which had been in their families for generations, were brought face to face with an extinction of their interests and were denied the opportunity of enfranchisement which Parliament intended. The delay was causing great individual loss, while it prevented public improvements, and was injurious to the Church.
  MR. BRUCEunderstood that the hon. Gentleman did not blame the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in this matter. The delay arose, not from any want of attention on their parts, but from the fact that the lessees had delayed to put in their case. However, since his attention had been called to the matter he had inquired into it and had learnt that every effort would be made to remove the evils which were complained of. He trusted that that assurance would satisfy his hon. Friend.

CRIMINAL LAW—"TICHBORNE v. LUSHINGTON"—PROSECUTION OF THE "CLAIMANT" FOR PERJURY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEY, who had given Notice to call attention to this subject and to ask a Question of the Home Secretary, rose pursuant to Notice.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that as the Home Secretary, of whom the hon. Gentleman proposed to ask the Question of which he had given Notice, had already spoken on the Question that he should leave the Chair, the right hon. Gentleman would be unable to reply.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would in that case ask the question of the First Lord of the Treasury. ["Spoke!"] Then he would ask it of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will instruct the Solicitor of the Treasury to investigate such evidence as might be brought to his notice, with a view to providing the means of bringing forward

  1119
  the same on the trial, in the event of its appearing to him to be material either on the part of the prosecution or of the defence? There had been very large meetings at Millwall, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and other places on this subject, and there were many other places which had desired to hold meetings. He held that the claimant was an injured, and almost a persecuted man. It was impossible for him to be heard unless adequate means were provided. He was convinced, from circumstances within his knowledge, that this man was not an impostor, but that he was the man he professed to be. He said this, although he had been warned from mixing himself up with the claimant. Still, there must be a large proportion of the House who would feel that the conclusion should not be come to that the claimant was guilty until he had been tried. That was the opinion expressed by multitudes who were earnest in their views, and had formed them deliberately. The people of this country would not be doing their duty if they should allow the claimant to be prosecuted at the expense of the public when he had no means of defense. He should like to know whether the charge about the tattoo marks had been abandoned? He admitted the power of the speech of the Attorney General on this question, but there were some portions of it which it was not very easy to understand. He had received a letter from the Solicitor of the Treasury, declining to make the investigation asked, and he had now to put the Question of which he had given Notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, strongly condemned the practice of hon. Members reviewing the decision of juries and Courts of Law in cases still undetermined, and parading the country to take part in public meetings, which the hon. Gentleman had himself characterized as scandalous and subversive of justice. If the case were an ordinary one, he should, in answer to such a Question, at once say that the Government would refuse to adopt the suggestion; but when the request was coupled with the statement that the course now adopted would lead to the collection of sufficient funds, the question became at once ludicrous and absurd. Even if this were an ordinary
  1120
  case, no such instructions as the hon. Member spoke of would be given to the Solicitor to the Treasury, but when the claimant was going about the country to solicit subscriptions for his defence, the giving of such instructions to the Solicitor to the Treasury would be absolutely ludicrous.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  BASTARDY LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Charley, Mr. Thomas Hughes, Mr. Eykyn, Mr. Whitwell.)

  [BILL 109.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Justices in petty sessions may make an order on the putative father for maintenance and education of bastard child, and enforce the same by distress and commitment).
  MR. MONK MR. MONK moved as an Amendment that the maximum allowance should be fixed at 5s. per week.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, after the word "weekly," to insert the words "not exceeding five shillings a-week."—(Mr. Monk.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 28: Majority 16.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Time of cessation of order).
  On the Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, Amendment made, in line 29, by leaving out "sixteen," and inserting "thirteen."
  MR. STANSFELD MR. STANSFELD moved an Amendment providing that the magistrates should have the power, where they thought it desirable, to direct that the order should continue in force for the space of 16 years, instead of the shorter period.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 29, after the word "child," to insert the words "Provided, That the justices may in the order direct that the payments to be made under it in respect of the child shall con-

  1121
  tinue until the child attains the age of sixteen years, in which case such order shall be in force until that period."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 2: Majority 31.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock, till Monday next.