Lords Sitting of 31 July 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Debtors and Creditors Act Amendment; Poor Relief, &c. (Ireland); Superannuation Act (1859) Amendment; Senior Member of Council (India); Admiralty Jurisdiction (India).
2a Militia Ballot.
3a Felony and Misdemeanour; Herring Fisheries (Scotland); Titles to Land (Scotland) Act (185S) Amendment; Party Emblems (Ireland); New Zealand.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee on the Maynooth College Bill read.
  Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, it appeared to him that the authorities of the College would have power, as the Bill was framed, to apply the whole sum voted by Parliament for the benefit of the students to re pairs of the College.
  LORD REDESDALEwished to know on what principle the Bill proceeded. The measure involved questions of great importance. By the Maynooth Act, it was provided that the senior students, as the time drew near for their admission to the University, were allowed £20 beyond the ordinary allowance, and he understood that by this Bill the whole charge of the repairs of the College buildings was to be thrown upon that fund. The 4th section of the Act provided for the setting aside of £6,000 a year for the President, Vice President, and Professors of the College; and the 5th clause allotted £40 a year to the superior students on the foundation. It seemed very unfair that when all the members of the College were almost equally concerned in the matter of repairs, the expense of them should be borne by one fund. He thought some explanations ought to be afforded by the Government as to the arrangement proposed to be made.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the proposed arrangement emanated from the trustees of the College, who were not all

  413
  Roman Catholics, and the outlay must be sanctioned by the Commissioners of Public Works.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, it was important to know the gross amount which was to be thus diverted from the purposes for which the grant was voted by Parliament.
  THE DUKE OF LEINSTERwas understood to say it would not be possible to estimate the amount precisely.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, the Bill had included the two charges under one head because of the bad feeling created year after year by discussions respecting the grants to Maynooth. The funds were voted for the College, but it was evident there would be expenses for repairs, and to avoid the excitement consequent upon the annual bringing forward of a Bill for those expenses the Government had thought it most advisable to embody the charges for repairs and for maintenance in the same Bill.
  Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Commissioners of Public Works to advance Money on Security of Portion of Grant applied towards Buildings and Repairs).
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONobjected to the wording of the clause, which would empower the trustees to borrow money for repairs to an indefinite extent. No less than £32,000 had already been laid out on the buildings, and he did not know how much more might be required. If the trustees were left to borrow as much as they thought proper, on the security of the income diverted from the students, they would soon be making an application to Parliament on account of the diminution of their income from that source. He thought that the sum to be thus borrowed should not exceed £15,000. He would move the rejection of the clause.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought that one of the main grounds of opposition to the clause was disposed of by the fact that no expenditure could take place under its operation without the sanction of trustworthy persons.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he considered the arrangement of Sir Robert Peel with regard to Maynooth most beneficial, and, therefore, he should support a similar principle now, especially as the money would be spent under the vigilant inspection of trustworthy Commissioners.
  After a short discussion,
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he would not press his Motion against the feeling of the House.
  Motion, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  On the Motion of LORD REDESDALE, a clause was added, giving to the Commissioners of Public Works the control of the proposed expenditure.
  Bill to be read 3a1 on Thursday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE presented petitions from owners of mining property against Clause 12, which had been introduced into the Bill in the House of Commons, not by the Government, but without notice by an independent Member. The effect of this clause, the petitioners stated, would be that any land which contained mines in the neighbourhood of a town would be subjected to an assessment four times as heavy as land occupied for other purposes.
  LORD WODEHOUSEexplained the grounds on which the clause was admitted into the Bill. By the Act of 1858, a partial exemption was allowed to some kinds of land peculiarly situated: it was provided that the owner of any rent-charge or tithe commutation charge upon land, or the occupier of land used as a railway, road, or towing path, should be assessed in respect only of one-fourth part of the estimated annual value of the land, if built upon or occupied for agricultural purposes. It had been argued that this exemption applied to mining property; and as in some instances, where that property was the most extensive and valuable in the neighbourhood, large sums of money had been borrowed on the security of the rates, it was thought that it would be unjust to allow such an exemption to be established. Although the clause did not originate with the Government, it appeared to him so important that to abandon this clause would be tantamount to the loss of the Bill.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 12 agreed to.
  Clause 12 (For Relief of Occupiers of Coal Mines, &c, from Proportion of Rates).
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYmoved that the clause be omitted. It would render mining property subject to only one-fourth of the rate, and would thus

  415
  operate to the disadvantage of the owners of houses. He saw no sufficient reason for such a concession, and he had to add that the clause appeared to have undergone very little consideration in the other House, for it had been introduced into the Bill in Committee, without notice, after two o'clock in the morning.
  Moved, To disagree to the said Clause.
  LORD CRANWORTHsupported the clause. Mining property would obtain but a small portion of the benefits for which the taxation was to be imposed, and it was only fair that they should be but partially subject to the charge.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, a letter from Bury, in Lancashire, had been placed in his hands that evening, stating that all parties there were utterly ignorant of the alteration in the Bill until the discussion took place upon it, and that numerous petitions against it would be presented to their Lordships in the course of two or three days. Under these circumstances he trusted that, as the clause would injuriously affect a large amount of property, and had no proper relation to the Bill, it would be withdrawn or postponed.
  EARL GRANVILLEdenied that the clause was irrelevant to the Bill, and contended that it had been introduced in the ordinary course in the other House, where ample opportunities were afforded for its discussion.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEalso expressed his approval of the clause, which only did that which was just and fair to mining property.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORpointed out that the owners of coal mines derived advantage from the expenditure in towns for police, lighting, &c.
  LORD CHELMSFORDapproved the clause. Until 1848 mines were only liable to one-fourth of the rate. In that year they were made liable to the whole rate, at the same time that analogous descriptions of property were exempted from a portion of the rate. In 1858 tithe and tithe-rent-charge were relieved in the same manner. Coal mines were overlooked, and this clause would only place them in the position in which they were before 1848.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDopposed the clause, observing that coal-owners did not wish to be exempted from the rates under the Bill, but to be placed on the same footing as the owners of the soil on the surface. It would be an act of injustice to make them pay as much as the in
  416
  habitants of towns, who derived far greater advantage from the expenditure of those rates.
  LORD OVERSTONEsaid, that reason and justice were clearly in favour of the clause. As to the mode in which it had been introduced in the other House, he was informed that eleven Members took part in the debate—three opposing and eight supporting it, and that the Home Secretary acceded to its introduction. There had been no surreptitious proceedings, and no one could have been taken by surprise.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEintended to vote against the clause without regard to its merits, because he thought the inhabitants of towns, who would be affected by it, ought to be fairly heard before it was adopted.
  THE EARL OF SHREWSBURY,though interested in mines, concurred in the opinion that they ought not to pass a clause which had been introduced into a Bill in the other House at two o'clock in the morning, without notice. He declined to discuss the merits of the clause, but could not help thinking that the proprietors of mines derived great benefit from expenditure in towns on roads, sewers, and lighting.
  On Question, Whether the said Clause shall stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided:—Contents 42 Not-Contents 24: Majority 18.
  An Amendment made; the Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREcomplained that this Bill gave corporations power to appoint coroners who should have the exclusive right of holding inquests within the jurisdiction of the Corporation, without reserving the rights of the existing coroners. He hoped his noble Friend when they got into Committee would introduce a proviso to save the rights of the present coroners.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, the Bill was intended to amend the following defect in the Irish Corporations Act. By that Act there was no power in the Corporations to

  417
  appoint a coroner, unless they had a recorder and a Recorder's Court. Now, many of the Corporations did not wish to have either, because they enjoyed the benefit of the Assistant-barrister's Court. Their only alternative, therefore, in the matter of the coroner, was to take the county coroner; and this was often attended with great inconvenience, as the county coroner could not always be secured when an inquest was required to be held. The Corporation of Limerick, in particular, had been put to much inconvenience on that account. The present Bill proposed to give the Corporations power to elect a coroner, even though they had no recorder. He hoped the House would agree to the measure, and would not condemn them to the alternative either of appointing an officer whom they did not want, or to go without another officer of whom they stood in urgent need.
  Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved the insertion of a proviso taken from the Municipal Corporation Act, with a view to protect the interests of coroners in certain cases.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, it was impossible for him to assent to the proposal of the noble Earl. The effect of the Amendment would be simply to continue the county coroner in office where he was non-resident, whereas the object of the Bill was to enable Corporations to appoint a coroner in their own neighbourhood.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill reported, without amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

MILITIA BALLOT BILL.

  RESOLUTION OF URGENCY.—SECOND READING.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONrose, and
  Moved to Resolve,
  "That as regards the Militia Ballot Bill, inasmuch as if it do not become Law immediately the Militia Ballot will at once come into operation; and as it is not advisable in the present Circumstances of the Country to resort to that Method of raising Men for the Militia, the Circumstances which require Legislation on the Subject Matter of the said Bill are of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
  On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

NEW ZEALAND BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he was naturally unwilling to offer anything like serious opposition to a measure on its third reading, especially in the absence of the Minister who had framed the Bill and was responsible for it. Had the papers now on the table been produced at an earlier stage they would have better known the grounds on which it proceeded; and, having now given those papers his best consideration, he must say they did not appear to him to furnish sufficient reasons for pressing the Bill in the present Session. The petitions he had presented against this Bill were signed, among others, by two members of the Executive Council of the Colony, two of the Administrative Council, and five of the Representative Assembly. The Bill was founded on the recommendation of the Governor; but there was a serious difference of opinion between the Governor and his ministers on the subject. It was much to be regretted that there should be this want of cordiality and friendly feeling between them. The Governor was supported by the Bishop of New Zealand, the late Chief Justice, the late Attorney General, and a considerable number, though not all, of the missionary clergy of the colony: while in the opinion of the members of the Council the measure could not fail to excite strong public dissatisfaction, and such a proposal could not have been made to the Colonial Legislature with any chance of success. It could not work in harmony with the representative institutions of the colony. It was strange that in the eighth year after giving a representative constitution to New Zealand they should propose to pass a measure without the sanction of the constituted ministers of the colony, or the concurrence of the Administrative Assembly, ousting the regular authorities of the colony from the control of a large portion of their domestic affairs. It was in his opinion extremely desirable that the Bill should not be passed into a law until it had been regularly submitted to the consideration of the colonists and its provisions adequately discussed. What, he should like to know, had happened since the Bill had been laid before Parliament to recommend its adoption to the House? Nothing. But it was the fact that an in

  419
  surreotion had broken out in New Zealand, and in that circumstance of itself a sufficient reason was, he thought, to be found for proceeding with due caution in the course of legislation which was proposed. Upon these grounds he trusted the House would see the expediency of postponing the Bill until next Session; while he must also express a hope that the Home Government would before long become alive to the propriety of giving to the colonists more power of disposing of questions such as that which the Bill involved than they at present possessed. The system, he might add, of withdrawing Native questions from the control of colonial authorities was not that which had been pursued by this country in past times, nor was there in the Act regulating the constitution of New Zealand any provision which could be regarded as debarring the General Assembly of the colony from dealing with matters so immediately affecting their welfare. It was indeed contended that the Home Government, being responsible for the military defences of the colony, were bound to keep the affairs of the Natives in their own hands instead of allowing them to be disposed of by the colonists; but the answer to that argument was that, however much we in this country might be interested in the position occupied by the Native population, the interest of the colonists themselves in the matter was still greater. He was, however, prepared to admit that there was some validity in the argument, and he regretted that the colonists had shown so little disposition to weaken its force, inasmuch as when the outbreak took place they had, instead of relying on their own strength and skill to meet the emergency, looked for assistance to the old system of military support from home. That was the more to be lamented, because, in the northern island of New Zealand the colonists were nearly equal in number to the Native population; for it appeared from the census which had been taken three years ago, that the whole English population of the colony was not far from 33,000, while the whole of the Natives did not amount to more than 51,000 or 52,000; while the former rapidly increased, and the latter unfortunately exhibited a progressive diminution. The condition of the Native tribes could not be looked upon as wholly satisfactory, and from the papers on the table, which contained very full information, one was led somewhat to doubt the justice of the enlogiums passed
  420
  on former Governments. One of the objects pointed out in these despatches was the enabling of Natives to individualize their title to land; while another, by far the most important and difficult that could arise, was whether the Natives in future should continue to deal respecting their lands with the Crown, or directly with the settlers. Sooner or later the rule on this point would have to be relaxed, and the question, which each year became more difficult, required the united consideration of the ablest minds in the colony. He was disposed to agree with Lord Carnarvon, whose colonial administration had gained for him great credit, that the present system must, at all events, be continued for some little time, though he stated, on the authority of Mr. FitzGerald, who had been Prime Minister of the Colonial Administration, that the disputes with the Natives had commenced, almost without exception, with the Government or their agents, and in no instance through any act of the colonists. The measures relating to the Natives passed by the General Assembly of New Zealand, most of which had been ratified by the Home Government, had been attended with very beneficial effects, and the sum of £7,000, which was placed by the Civil List at the disposal of the Governor for objects of importance to the Native population, was always largely added to by that assembly. It was proposed by this measure to constitute a divided authority, by creating a new Council, based not on the old, well-known colonial system, but according to the bad modern plan of nomination. He should be glad to have the opinion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) on the subject. No inconvenience could possibly follow from the postponement of the measure to another Session, and he assured the House that it was regarded with great uneasiness by those who were best acquainted with the affairs and interests of the colony. He therefore begged to move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now" and insert "this Day Three Months."
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, this was a measure affecting not only the prosperity but it might be even the salvation of au important colony, and the well-being of one of the finest Native races, and though the noble Duke in introducing the Bill bad stated that it did not owe its origin to anything which had recently happened,

  421
  he feared if it were now passed such would inevitably be the appearance it would assume in the eyes of the colonists. Therefore, as legislation was not urgently required, he would venture to add his advice to the recommendations of the noble Lord that the Government should not pass the measure during the present Session. Their Lordships, he thought, would be much better prepared to deal with the subject if they were in possession of the opinion of the Duke of Newcastle, which was not contained in the papers produced, though the Governor had applied for it, in order to be able to meet the Representative Assembly in New Zealand in March, 1860. It was probably, therefore, on record, and that as well as other documents ought to have been produced. For instance, he wanted to know why this Bill had not, in the first instance, been carried through the Colonial Assembly, instead of imparting to it an Imperial aspect? The House, he thought, in case they sanctioned the measure, would be making a most hazardous experiment, that of creating an imperium in imperio in the shape of an irresponsible Native body without powers of taxation. For these they would be compelled to resort to the Representative Assembly, on which a slur was cast by the very formation of a new deliberative body, in defiance of the promise of a responsible Government. The Governor had expressed his opinion that their Native Council, consisting of unpaid gentlemen voluntarily discharging public duties, would be a target for abuse and misrepresentation from all sides. Was this desirable in the present state of the colony? After all the names of only two members had been mentioned, those of the Bishop and Dr. Martin, whom the Government recommended for the office. Another defect in the Bill was that it provided no security for the Imperial loan. On the whole, it would be most advisable to withdraw the Bill for the present Session. Meanwhile they might receive a more decided opinion from the Government, as well as hope for a more settled state of things in the island itself. He had heard that it would meet with considerable opposition in the other House, where there certainly was no need of any additional difficulties being thrown in the way of the prorogation of Parliament.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he bad heard nothing from either of the noble Lords, though both were most competent to pronounce an opinion on the question, which
  422
  induced him to concur in the desirability of postponing this Bill for another Session. As to the petition which had been presented, even if it had been unanimous, it would not have had preponderating influence with their Lordships, and he was informed that there were many colonists who held different views. The Crown could abdicate its duty of looking after the interests of the Natives, who were as much its subjects as the settlers, and it was on that principle that this Bill was brought forward. It was merely carrying out the reservation which had been formerly made with regard to the Natives, and also as to the disposal of land. He quite agreed that the measures of the General Assembly were on the whole well considered; but still there was a feeling of prejudice on the part of the Natives which did not induce them to receive in the most favourable manner the measures passed by the Legislature. If the Crown could appoint persons to this Council who would command the confidence both of the settlers and the Natives, the result would not only be that the Government would work more smoothly, but greater concessions would be obtained from the Natives with regard to lands than could be obtained by any measures passed by the Legislature. The noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) said that no persona were more interested in a just settlement of these questions than the settlers themselves; but where individuals had an immediate interest in view they were not always able to form a calm judgment as to what was the best policy for the future. He hoped their Lordships would allow the Bill to be read a third time without further delay.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that as his noble Friend (Lord Lyttleton) had referred to him, he had only to say in a few words that he felt himself more incompetent to give an opinion on the affairs of New Zealand than he did some time ago, because he had not so closely followed the circumstances of the colony. Looking, moreover, at the papers on the table, he found that there was no very recent correspondence between the Governor of New South Wales and the Colonial Office on the subject to enable him to form an opinion. Looking, however, at the self-apparent features of the case, he believed it was absolutely necessary that some control should be exercised over the local Legislature, because in reference to the views they would naturally take they could not be said to represent

  423
  the Natives in the colony—it might be said that the local Legislature had interests which were antagonistic to the interests of the Natives, and therefore the Government of this country should retain some control in their hands. He could not help saying, however, that the Bill contained elements of considerable danger, and he should have been better satisfied if the noble Earl the President of the Council had felt himself authorized to postpone the carrying of this measure to another Session, he thought that if official responsibility had rested upon him, he (the Earl of Derby) should not have taken the step adopted by the Government; but as he was imperfectly acquainted with the subject, and the extent of the real or probable danger against which the Government had to provide, he would not take the responsibility of advising the rejection of the Bill which the Government, with more information than he possessed, seemed to think necessary for the welfare of the colony, though he confessed he thought this a hazardous experiment.
  On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative: Bill read 3a accordingly and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.