Lords Sitting of 29 July 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Windsor Suspended Canonries; Lace Factories; Inland Revenue; Stamp Duties on Probates, &c., Public Works (Ireland); Gunpowder, &c., Act Amendment; Episcopal and Capitular Estates Act Continuance, &c.; Edinburgh University; Revenue Departments Accounts; Drainage of Land; Public Offices Site; Pensions, British Forces (India).
2aEnlistment in India; Municipal Corporations Act Amendment; Removal of Irish Poor; Indemnity.
3a Tramways (Ireland) Act Amendment; East India (Civil Service); Irremovable Poor; East India (High Courts of Judicature); Copyright of Designs; Crown Suits Limitations.

CASE OF THE ORWELL.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYasked, the Under Secretary of State, What in-
1710
structions the Foreign Office had sent to Sir James Hudson respecting the case of the English ship Orwell, belonging to Messrs. Pearson, of Hull, which had suffered much damage at the hands of the Garibaldian Volunteers, for which compensation had not been made by the Italian Government? The case was this. In the month of August last, the Orwell was chartered at Genoa by Garibaldi to take 100 Volunteers to Sicily, the condition being that the owner should receive £5,000. It appeared that the agents of Garibaldi then seized the ship by force, and went out in her on a piratical cruize. The English Consul, on being informed of the circumstance, telegraphed to the Admiral, and the Orwell was consequently captured and carried to Malta. It was here found that her engines had been totally destroyed, and on application to Garibaldi for compensation a commission was appointed, which recommended that the claim should be paid at once. Since that time the King of Italy had assumed the liabilities of Garibaldi, and the claim was on the point of being settled when Cavour died. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) now asked what had been done in the matter by the Foreign Office?
LORD WODEHOUSEreplied that the Orwell had been, as stated by the noble Earl, seized by the Garibaldian Volunteers and recaptured by Her Majesty's ship Scylla; that Mr. Pearson, the owner, had applied to the Foreign Office; and that instructions had been given to Sir James Hudson to afford him all the assistance he could properly give. No accounts had been recently received of the position of the case; but if Mr. Pearson would write to the Foreign Office and state the present position of the affairs, his application would receive every attention; though he could not pledge the Government to interfere officially without a further consideration of the facts as they stood at present.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.—EXPLANATION.
THE EARL OF DERBYthought it but justice to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Public Works to correct an error into which he had fallen in the remarks on the state of public business which he had addressed to their Lordships on Friday evening. On that occasion he said that the Bill for providing the money for the new courts of justice had been passed on Thursday night, or ra-

1711
ther at an early hour on Friday morning; He had been informed since that the Bill which had been so passed was not the one which he had supposed, but the Public Offices' Site Bill, and that the other measure had been dropped in the House of Commons. He presumed that the Courts of Justice Building Bill, which stood for Committee in their Lordships' House, would be dropped also, as it was connected with the one which had met that fate in the House of Commons. With regard to the Law Consolidation Bills, he was glad to hear that when they came on for the 'second reading, it was the intention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to call attention to the alterations which had been made in them since they left their Lordships' House last Session.
EARL GRANVILLEobserved that the Bill to which his noble Friend had referred, as one which he expected to see dropped, had been read a second time, and he could see no reason for not proceeding with it.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the Courts of Justice Building Bill had been read a second time, because he believed it was necessary to read it a second time before the date fixed by the Standing Order as the last on which second readings could be taken; but it was distinctly understood that in reading it a second time the House did not pledge itself to a particular site.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that although the site was indicated by the Bill, their Lordships were not pledged to that particular locality, nor to spend any particular sum of money. But he thought it ought to be pressed forward, seeing that it had met with no opposition in either House. He would explain what alterations had been made in the Criminal Law Bills when the House was in Committee on them tomorrow.
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, there could be no doubt that there was a clear and distinct understanding when the Courts of Justice Building Bill was read a second time the other night, that it should not conclude their Lordships to any opinion on the principle of the Bill. He was surprised to hear that it was now intended to press on the Bill after the other Bill for the appropriation of certain funds to be expended in the erection of the new courts had been withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, their Lordships would perceive, on looking at the Bill, that neither the neighbourhood nor the site was determined. The Bill gave
1712
more power for the acquisition of land for the purpose. The utility of passing it lay in the fact that some £8,000 or £9,000 which had been expended upon the necessary surveys would otherwise have to be repeated next year, in the event of a Bill being passed by the House of Commons devoting a particular sum to the erection of Courts of Justice. If the present Bill passed this amount would be saved in case the scheme were proceeded with; but if the Money Bill did not pass, this Bill would by that fact become a dead letter.
LORD DENMANbelieved that the proposed Courts of Justice, if erected, would be productive of great public inconvenience. Reversing the old rule that "equity follows the law," all the law courts and lawyers would be obliged to follow equity to an inaccessible locality in the centre of London.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that distinct reference was made in the Bill to the plans and specifications agreed upon by the Commissioners, which referred to districts and houses that were perfectly well known; and power was sought under the Bill "to purchase, take, and use for the purposes of this Act, all or any houses, tenements, buildings, and lands described on the above-mentioned plans." It was, therefore, an error to say that no particular site or neighbourhood was pointed to. Doubts and uncertainties would be excited by this measure in the minds of owners and residents in particular properties, and he thought it a very grave question whether a saving of the cost of preparing the surveys anew might not be dearly purchased by the passing of the present Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, though the site might be indicated, no advantage could be taken until the money was expressly voted for the purpose by Parliament. Two things, therefore, must be done in the next Session before the plan could be carried out—the money must be voted; and if that money were the suitors' money that question must be decided by Parliament.
LORD WYNFORDthought it highly inexpedient to proceed with this scheme in the face of a Treasury Minute stating that the estimate would probably be exceeded by a million.

APPROPRIATION OF SEATS (SUDBURY AND ST. ALBANS) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee upon the Appropria-

1713
tion of Seats (Sudbury and St. Albans) Bill read.
EARL GRANVILLE, in moving that the House do go into Committee on the Bill, gave a short explanation of its objects. The noble Earl was understood to say that, as the practice of the Constitution had provided that the House of Commons should consist of a certain number of Members, the Government had, in the absence of any strong feeling in either House of Parliament in favour of a general measure of Reform, thought it their duty to make a proposal for filling up the vacancies occasioned by the disfranchisement of the boroughs of Sudbury and St. Albans—a measure in the adoption of which two noble Lords opposite were concerned. Their first proposition was that two seats should be given to counties and two to boroughs, and the boroughs selected were Birkenhead and Chelsea with Kensington. That scheme was not accepted by the House of Commons, and as the Bill now stood the West Riding of Yorkshire was to be divided into two divisions, each of which was to have two Members, Birkenhead was to have one Member, and a Member was to be added to the two now possessed by South Lancashire. He would not attempt to anticipate the arguments which might be urged against the Bill, but would at once move that their Lordships should go into Committee upon it.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
LORD STRATHEDEN, after showing that the Government and its supporters were not in any way committed to this measure, since it was not the same the Government had introduced in February, and they had disapproved the changes it received, said, the Motion for referring the Bill to a Select Committee may be viewed either as intended simply to arrest it, or as implying that its details are in want of such an agency to sift them. In both these lights it is defensible. If viewed in the first light the lateness of the Session is not an argument against it, but an argument in favour of it. The lateness of the Session would prevent a Select Committee from reporting. But the lateness of the Session renders the Committee of the Whole House utterly inoperative. In point of fact it is unwarrantable to proceed with such a Bill at such a moment. The Standing Order of the House year by year has given a formal voice to the legitimate opinion that, after July 25th, mea-
1714
sures ought not to proceed without reasons urgent and exceptional, and such as, in this case, are well known to be wanting. It is true that it was read a second time on the 19th. But it was read pro formâonly. It now comes before us for the first time to be discussed. If the opinion which used to be embodied in the Standing Order, and which still prevails, although from temporary circumstances it has not this year been embodied in it—arrested ordinary Bills, how much more ought it to arrest a plan which, as it alters the Reform Act, must influence the dignity, prosperity, and future legislation of the country? It is unjust to ask noble Lords who, from February last, have patiently attended the business of the House to compromise their health, to waste their powers, and even sacrifice their duties by remaining in town a day after July is ended. And yet unless the Bill is hurried, against all decency and precedent, the day after it is first discussed into a law it must run into August. What is the result? That, to the loss of the community, and to the injury of the House itself, it goes, without consideration and discussion, through its stages. For who can venture to discuss it? If any one, a year ago, had given notice to submit the question to the House of how these seats should be appropriated; if long before that time he had formed opinions on the subject; if he saw the present Bill to be impolitic, and felt an obligation to examine it, in what position would he stand? He would have to choose between the fatal evil of addressing an impatient House and the yet more serious calamity of allowing what he saw to be a legislative error to pass unexposed and unquestioned to the statute book. Although no Member of the House would shrink from any task which duty urges on him, the Government are not entitled to place men in such a difficulty unless necessity controls them. But does it in this instance? In the other House of Parliament the Bill was read a second time on the 25th February. It went into Committee on the 11th June. Was such an interval inevitable? It reached this House on July the 11th, and now, upon the 29th, we are beginning to debate it. Was that interval inevitable? But, setting that aside, is this Bill forced on at this late period by some popular opinion it would not be prudent to resist or disappoint? It is well known that it has not any popular opinion to support it,

1715
and that the democratic party in the State would applaud the House if they rejected it. Is the Government engaged per fas et nefas to advance it? It is by a course of Ministerial defeats that it has gained the form in which it reaches us. Are the Opposition deeply and irrevocably pledged to it? In the other House of Parliament the Opposition have declared themselves in favour of a different project. But is the public bent upon obtaining it? That most distinguished organ of the general opinion three times advised the Government in a friendly spirit to renounce it. Never was a Bill, therefore, which came more thoroughly within the prohibitory spirit of the Standing Order, or which it was less essential to set at nought by proceeding with that spirit. If, therefore, you view the Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee as a Motion to reject it, on these grounds it is legitimate to do so. But if the Motion is regarded as a Motion for inquiry, it is far more easy to defend it. For, as regards the present Bill, one thing must be admitted, namely, that the onus probandi falls not on its opponents but its advocates. To increase the House of Commons by four Members, so far as the mere numerical addition goes, by all conversant with the subject, is regarded as an evil. The excess of numbers may disturb and compromise political assemblies as well as the privation of them. In the House of Lords the evils which result from the want of numbers have been frequently referred to. In the House of Commons the reverse of such a picture is displayed. It is usually admitted that before the Irish Union swelled it by a hundred, the assembly was more adapted to the purposes of the business than it is at present. The room in which the House meets will not accomodate six hundred. And unless night by night for at least three hours, the usages of Parliament reduced the number present to a small proportion of the whole, it would be impossible to go through the clauses of the Bills and through the items of the Estimates. No kind of Parliamentary or public inconvenience has resulted from the want of the four Members. It has been convincingly explained that 658 was not a constitutional, but accidental number. It was only upon Irish grounds that the House of Commons was ever carried to that limit; and it is not on Irish grounds that this Bill can be supported. The questions must, therefore, force themselves upon us—Cui
1716
bono is the Bill brought forward?—what end does it attain?—what advantage does it furnish?—what complication does it remedy?—what popular demand does it assuage?—what interest requires it?—And if these questions have not been answered in debate, the Select Committee might dispose of them. Another ground for the inquiry would occur from the number of interests and claims to be adjusted. Salford, Burnley, Middlesex, and Kensington, the Inns of Law, and Scottish Universities, the London University have all pursued the gift to be distributed. In 1852, in 1854, in 1859, in 1860, and at present, Governments have offered different modes of dealing with these vacancies. It is, therefore, clear that no strong or general conviction has been formed as to the proper manner of disposing of them. And while this is so the claims which it is not proposed to satisfy may fairly ask inquiry from the Legislature before that doom is finally pronounced. But such inquiry may be asked upon a ground far more imperial and general. The public has a claim distinct from, and superior to, those I have adverted to. So long as these seats are unappropriated, we have it in our power to deal by-and-bye with one of the most fatal and notorious defects of the Reform Act. And if you fill them up as it is proposed, you lose your chance of doing so. The Reform Act has, no doubt, succeeded in expressing the opinions of the country. It has succeeded in forming an assembly equal in intelligence and station to the work which comes before it. But it has not succeeded in the third great function it aspired to, the function of returning to the House of Commons all those who, having sat there, ought to have a seat in it according to the judgment of the public and of Parliament. It can only discharge this function when you have, as before 1832 you had, a corrective power in the State to do what the country wishes to be done, when the general election happens not to do it. By the judicious use of these four seats you might perhaps arrive at such a power; but if you rashly part with them, when no kind of popular demand asks you so to do, you will not arrive at it except by increasing the numbers of the House of Commons beyond 658. And this would scarcely ever be regarded as admissible. But as regards the proposition that the general elections since 1832 have fallen short of one result they were intended to accomplish, it is easy to establish it by re-

1717
ferring to a series of distinguished men who since that epoch have, for longer or shorter times, been thrown out of Parliament, while not one could be considered as excluded by the wishes of the country. Sir William Molesworth, Lord Macaulay, and Sir Edward Lytton are sufficient illustrations. They suffice at least to prove that, be a man connected with the Radicals, the Whigs, or the Conservatives, the support and admiration of the country are no security for constant access to the Legislature in which he has attained them. They suffice to show that public life is unhappily distinguished from every other line of effort by the perpetual risk of arbitrary exile. It was not possible at such a time to explain how that great anomaly existed, or to what political calamities it tended. But in order to remove it, it was only necessary that the public should have some means, after a general election, of giving force to its opinion. We all know that if it had these means, neither Sir William Molesworth, Lord Macaulay, Sir Edward Lytton, Lord Carlisle, or Mr. Cobden would have been for years condemned to all the evils of inaction. Whatever plan you might adopt — and some have been suggested—it would naturally occupy the space afforded by these vacancies. If I am asked by what employment of these you could remedy the evil, I answer a Select Committee is the agency to which alone a question so delicate and gravecould be confided. And I express a firm belief that a Select Committee of the House would be a body not unequal to contend with the difficulty of the problem. But inasmuch as no Select Committee can approach the problem for the present, I will revert but only for a moment to the question, ought the Bill to be proceeded with. It requires much consideration to decide how far it is expedient to transfer power, as the Bill does, from the southern to the northern portion of the kingdom; to give, as it does, to counties vacancies arising from disfranchisement of towns, and to convert, as it does, seats which were open to the mass of politicians to seats which are only open to persons locally connected with them. But such grave consideration it is not in the power of the House to grant to all these topics. And it should never be forgotten that the gratitude the measure will excite bears no proportion to the discontent it will occasion. It is allowed that in the West Biding no strong opinion has been formed
1718
as to the advantage of dividing that constituency. There has been no apparent movement in South Lancashire in favour of the gift to be conceded to it. But the Scottish Universities will receive a blow and disappointment from the measure. The only consolation you can offer to Burnley, Kensington, and Salford is to keep the vacancies suspended. In point of fact it is obnoxious to the interest which calls out for change in the Reform Act. It may be sometimes indispensable to offend that interest by standing still, but it appears to be the height of folly to offend it by legislation which wants at once the sanction of the Government and the approbation of the public. If a general and comprehensive measure of Reform is by-and-bye presented, the scheme is utterly uncalled for. If it is resolved to act by isolated measures, that policy will not be happily inaugurated by a Bill which overlooks a problem entitled to the care of statesmen, and which, from many of its features, may be made use of at a future time to create among the body of the people the passions it is most essential to prevent and to assuage. On these grounds the noble Lord moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
Amendment moved, to leave out from ("that") to the end of the Motion, and insert ("the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.")
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I suppose I may assume that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to accede to the suggestion of the noble Baron of referring this Bill to a Select Committee, which would probably present its Report about the middle of August. And for my own part I never recollect a Bill for which there appeared less reason to refer it to the consideration of a Select Committee than this. The facts are plain and undisputed. There are no very complicated details of arrangement which can be more conveniently considered in a Select Committee. It is a Bill of a very plain and straightforward character, which can be perfectly well discussed in your Lordships House. For my own part I have no fault to find with it. I think it has been greatly improved by the manipulation which it has undergone in its progress through the House of Commons, and which I give the Government credit for having sanctioned with the most exemplary resignation. It is very much like the Bill which the Government with which I was

1719
connected had the honour to propose in 1852, and which was mainly rejected through the influence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who until a short time ago was one of the most prominent candidates for one of the seats which the Bill proposes to create. It is true there is this difference, that we proposed in 1852 to confer two seats on the West Riding and two on South Lancashire. I have a very strong preference in favour of two seats for a county over the inconvenient plan of three; but in 1852 Birkenhead had not risen to the importance which it has now attained, and I can find no fault with the selection of Birkenhead for one of the vacant seats. If, indeed, it were in the contemplation of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a very large or extensive plan of Parliamentary Reform, I think they would be acting most improvidently and unwisely in hampering their discretion by the introduction of this smaller measure. In that case I should think there was some reason in the complaint of the noble Baron, that it would prevent due consideration of the claims of places which have a right to be considered in any general measure. In the measure of 1859, which the Government with which I was connected introduced, not only were all these seats provided for, but provision was also made for other places. The London University, the Scotch Universities, (the borough of Chelsea and Kensington was provided for in a different mode by subdividing the county of Middlesex); and I believe by that Bill the claims of all the principle places for representation were satisfied. But it did not please the different parties to allow that measure to pass, and I certainly bow with submission to the determination at which they arrived, and am perfectly ready to give my support to Her Majesty's Government in adopting and approving this partial measure. I presume Her Majesty's Government have no very extensive scheme of Parliamentary Reform to bring forward; first of all, because I think recent experience has forcibly shown them that small and not wholly independent boroughs are not without their use in the political system of this country. They will not say they are, but I am sure they just now cordially wish that there were "six Richmonds in the field." For other reasons I am inclined to suppose they have no such scheme. The noble Lord—I do not know whether we can yet call him the noble Earl, whom we shall very
1720
shortly have the satisfaction of seeing in this House, and whom all your Lordships on every side of the House will rejoice to see here, has expressed very honestly and very candidly his opinion that there is no use in bringing forward a measure of Reform unless there is a strong feeling in favour of it among the public at large, and he left it to be implied that there is at the present moment no such feeling, and consequently no such temptation to Her Majesty's Government. It is not only from what the noble Lord has said, but from what the noble Lord has done, that 1 augur there is no wish to introduce a Reform Bill, because the noble Lord has selected this precise moment for a change in his position. Like another Astræa, disgusted with the follies and iniquities of the lower world, he has left it. He is about to rise to a higher, a calmer, and, I hope, a purer atmosphere; and I cannot wonder that the noble Lord, who has devoted so much time to the labour of reconstructing the plan and building up the political edifice of the Constitution, should be glad to take the opportunity of finishing the work, and filling up the gaps which for so many years have deformed its beauty, filling up those gaps in the representation by the additions of the West Riding, South Lancashire, and Birkenhead.
"Extrema per illos
Justitia excedens terris vestigia fecit."
This is to be the concluding scene of the noble Lord's efforts in the cause of Parliamentary Reform. I have stated that to the Bill I have no objection to offer, and no doubt it will be on the whole a very satisfactory measure, as soon as it has received a few alterations at the hands of the Committee—first, for the purpose of making it English, and next for the purpose of making it sense. Whatever may be the ulterior views and whatever may be the ultimate wishes of Her Majesty's Government, I seriously hope that what has passed on the subject of Parliamentary Reform in the course of the last two years will be a warning to the present and all succeeding Governments not hastily to bring forward or promise, or still more hastily and inconsiderately to pledge the name of the Sovereign to the introduction of large and extensive measures which they do not feel perfectly confident of being able to carry. There are great and serious evils in the perpetual introduction of Bills which are perpetually rejected, and the Sovereign is placed in an undignified

1721
position in pledging Parliament year after year to consider Bills which cannot possibly be passed. In 1858, when I was in office, I felt bound earnestly, seriously, and honestly to endeavour to give effect to pledges which on high authority had been given to the House, and I did apply myself to the introduction of a measure which I hoped would satisfy rational and moderate men. It did not meet with the success which I anticipated. I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government were equally sincere, but equally failed in success. From the failure of successive measures introduced by successive Governments I hope it will be clearly understood that neither this nor any other Government are under any obligation to deal at any future time with this question, but that it is a question which must be left to the discretion of any Government to introduce or not, and that they are not to be reproached for violating pledges if they abstain from bringing forward a proposal on so delicate and difficult a subject. I have no wish to interfere with the progress of the Bill. In Committee I shall venture to suggest two or three Amendments, but they are entirely consistent with the principle of the measure, which I shall be glad to see receive the Royal Assent.
EARL GRANVILLE: — My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Earl in the opinion that it would be undesirable to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, and I presume that my noble Friend who moved that Amendment is satisfied with having given himself an opportunity of stating his views on this subject, which I know he has considered very much for several years. This is a measure affecting the constitution of the other House of Parliament, and that House has not thought it necessary to refer the measure to a Select Committee—indeed, it is not usual to refer constitutional questions to Select Committees and although, no doubt, it is the duty of this House to oppose this or any other measure which appears to it not to be founded on a right principle, yet, if no such objection can be raised, I think your Lordships would naturally be disposed to receive from the other House the details of a Bill which appears to them to offer the best means of filling up any vacant seats in their own Assembly. To refer the Bill to a Select Committee at this time of the Session would be to reject it altogether, and I hope, therefore, that my noble Friend will not persist in his Amendment. As to
1722
the Government proposals respecting this Bill, it is agreeable to find that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) regards them favourably, and I think your Lordships must, at all events, be persuaded that in submitting them we were not actuated by any party motives. Nor were the changes introduced during the progress of the Bill in the House of Commons of a very grave character. The measure remained the same as before, with the single exception that no seat was given to Chelsea and Kensington, and that a seat was instead bestowed on the West Riding. The noble Earl opposite has made a pointed allusion to my noble Friend Lord John Russell. Had I known that it was his intention to do so I would have asked your Lordships to postpone the Bill till to-morrow, when I trust to have the honour of introducing my noble Friend, who has been so gracefully referred to by the noble Earl, and to whom I am sure your Lordships will extend that hearty welcome which is never refused to a man eminent in any line of life, and which I am sure will be given to one who has played so great and important a part in directing the affairs of this country, and who combines with his public eminence a singularly high private character. The noble Earl has told us what should be the conduct of the Government in respect of future Reform Bills, and with great fairness administered a reproof to his own and to the present Government for having introduced Reform Bills which did not meet with general assent. I entirely concur with him that nothing would be more improper, after the experience we have had, than for any Government lightly to introduce a Reform Bill without a reasonable hope and expectation of carrying it through Parliament. I say this, though at the same time I am strongly opposed to all finality, and to the notion that it is impossible to improve the Constitution of the country, believing, on the contrary, that an extension of the suffrage may be most just and reasonable, and may in the most Conservative spirit be accorded to the people. I repeat, however, that, like the noble Earl, I think it would be rash in any Government beforehand, and without reviewing the whole circumstances of the case to pledge themselves to a Reform Bill without having some probable reason to suppose they would be able to carry it. The Amendments suggested by the noble Earl are very slight in their character; they are indeed similar to those

1723
of which I have given notice, and I have no objection to adopt them.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Then the original Motion was agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Clause 1 (Providing for the Dissolution of the "West Riding of Yorkshire),
LORD STRATHEDENsaid, that, although the House had, as he thought, unfortunately decided to go on with the Bill, a middle course was open to them. The Bill fell into two parts. By one it was to give two seats at once to South Lancashire and Birkenhead. By the other it gave two, prospectively, at the next general election to the West Riding of Yorkshire. There was not the least occasion for the latter proposition which Clause 1 contained. Common sense revolted at the wanton sacrifice by Parliament of its future right to deal with, these two seats, when the West Riding might not for three years borne into possession of them. It was loss to the whole country, and was not gain to any section of it. As well might a man part with a fund to some one who received it with the condition of its being locked up in a box for a considerable period. Why did he part at all with his discretion as regards it? No man was so foolish as to think that a necessity existed for appropriating all the seats together. A hundred circumstances might occur all showing the impolicy of giving two to the West Riding as compared with other applicants; and they were now asked not to give them, but to pledge them three years before the favoured party would be benefited by this superfluous and reckless prodigality. He suggested that all the clauses should be Struck out until they came to those which are on South Lancashire and Birkenhead.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 7 amended, and agreed to.
Clause 8 (Making Provision for the Issue of a Writ for South Lancashire),
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had to propose an Amendment to this clause. The clause gave the Speaker of the House of Commons the option of issuing the writ at any time before the dissolution of the present Parliament. He had every confidence in the right hon. Gentleman who now occupied the Chair of the House of Commons. He had known him for fifty years; thirty-five years ago they were travellers together, and somewhat later they were fellow-travellers in another sense,
1724
being both members of a small but select party known by the name of the "Derby Dilly." He had ho idea that the power given in the clause would be abused by the right hon. Gentleman; but a corrupt Speaker might issue the writ to suit party purposes, and might even postpone it till the eve of a dissolution and after a registration had taken place. He thought the time for the issue of the writ should be more definitely fixed, and that no unnecessary delay in doing so should occur. If it took place later than the middle of next month it would interfere with the harvest, and he need not point out the inconvenience of having an election at a more advanced period of the year. He would, therefore, propose, that instead of the words "at any time before the dissolution of the present Parliament," the clause should run, "as soon as may be after the passing of this Act," and that in the next line the word "shall" should be substituted for "may."
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
Clause amended and agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments; the Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow.

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
  LORD REDESDALEopposed the Motion, describing the Bill as a crude and undigested attempt at legislation.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 27: Majority 11.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Amendments made.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYmoved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which he said was to settle doubts that had arisen in consequence of a recent decision of the Court of Queen's

  1725
  Bench, and to make the position and privileges of mayors in provincial towns the same in law which they had been in practice since the establishment of municipal corporations. In consequence of the increased facilities of communication afforded by railways it would no longer be insisted upon that magistrates should reside within seven miles of the borough in which they officiated, on condition that they occupied a house or office within the borough; and it was proposed to extend to magistrates in boroughs where no Quarter Sessions were held the same powers with regard to licensing as were exercised in other boroughs where these Sessions took place. A clause to which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) took exception a few evenings since had been withdrawn. He, therefore, hoped there would be no objection to the Bill.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, many of the clauses of the Bill required modification, and as the matter was not one of pressing importance it ought to be more maturely considered. He objected to the clause providing that mayors should preside at all meetings of magistrates, because a person who had only just been elected mayor might not be the best qualified to discharge the duties of presiding magistrate. The object of this clause was to set aside a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, which was unquestionably right, as grounded on the soundest principles. Why should not the borough justices have the same right as the magistrates of counties who, being obliged for the due conduct of their business to have a chairman, elected that magistrate in whom they had the most confidence, from the knowledge of his character, his knowledge and ability, and habits of business? The circumstance that the office was elective was a great encouragement to the younger magistrates, by study and attention to business, to obtain that distinction. It is true that in counties, due respect would be given to persons of station and consequence in society, if duly qualified, but no more, and the like preference in case of voluntary selection would be given in boroughs. He had a still greater objection to that clause in the Bill which took away the jurisdiction of county magistrates to license in boroughs having no quarter sessions. The object of this clause, also, was of the same objectionable character. It was to overturn a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, which, also, was in his opinion very clearly
  1726
  right—and in cases where those boroughs sent Members to Parliament, the transfer of the power of licensing from the magistracy of the county at large, to the smaller body of the borough justices, who would have local connections, would be likely to lead to the corrupt exercise of that power, for the purpose of obtaining political influence in elections, especially in the smaller Parliamentary boroughs. He had himself on this ground principally opposed a Bill of his noble Friend (Lord Ravensworth) to give the exclusive power of licensing to the magistrates of the borough of Sunderland, some two years ago, and with perfect success.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to defend the provisions of the Bill.
  LORD CHELMSFORDthought that there was a good deal to be said in favour of the postponement of this Bill, because he hoped to satisfy their Lordships that in its present state it ought not to pass. The sixth clause had been given up; the second and third had been, as his noble Friend said, introduced to correct a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench; but, surely, it was a strange kind of legislation, when the Court of Queen's Bench had pronounced a decision giving what was unquestionably a true interpretation of the Municipal Corporations Act, immediately to introduce a Bill to overrule that judgment. The provision that mayors should preside at all meetings of magistrates within the borough by virtue of his office, was, in his opinion, unnecessary and contrary to good policy, and would create great dissatisfaction throughout the corporate towns of the kingdom. It was unnecessary, because, as the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill had admitted, mayors were invariably asked to preside at such meetings, and even at Birmingham, from which the complaint in this matter proceeded, that courtesy had not since the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench been withheld from the mayors. It was a violation of principle to take from the magistrates the power of electing their own chairman. As a general rule the person of the highest rank present was chosen to fill the chair; but still the right of choice lay with the meeting, and if any one insisted on presiding as a matter of right it would be resisted. As had been admitted, the mayor was usually elected chairman, except where, as sometimes happened, he was unfit for the post; but the effect of the Bill would be to compel the magistrates to submit to his presi-

  1727
  dency even when notoriously unfit. Although the magistrates, in nine cases out of ten, voluntarily paid a compliment to the mayor by selecting him, they would naturally resent being forced to do so, and ill-feeling would be apt to be produced by that provision. He, therefore, hoped that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would not insist upon retaining it.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYobserved that the noble and learned Lord had proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the mayor was generally chosen to be chairman as a mere compliment. He believed that the prevailing understanding was that the mayor was ex officio the chairman of the meeting, and such was obviously the intention of the framers of the Municipal Corporations Act. He was of opinion that to confirm that impression by law would be much more likely to remove ill-feeling than to allow the matter to be the constant subject of dispute.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that what he had remarked in conversation on this Bill to the noble Earl opposite was that in his opinion the question of the precedence of mayors was very unimportant, but that he did not see that there would be any great advantage in the Bill in that respect. He added that if Her Majesty's Government were desirous that it should be carried he would not offer any opposition to it. He stated, also, in the same conversation, that it was Clause 6 of the Bill which he deemed most objectionable, and that the question of granting licences was one on which there was a good deal to be said. After that conversation, he felt bound in honour not to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but be held himself at liberty in Committee to deal with the remaining clauses, apart from that on the precedence of mayors, as he thought fit.
  On Question? their Lordships >divided: —Contents 44; Not-Contents 27: Majority 17.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 2a, accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.

EAST INDIA (CIVIL SERVICE) BILL.

  THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD MONTEAGLEcomplained that this Bill had been brought up to their Lordships at a period of the Session when it was impossible it should receive proper
  1728
  consideration. It was a Bill which ought to have been introduced at an earlier period of the Session, and in their Lordships' House, when and where it could have been more properly discussed. This, and other Bills referring to India, had been needlessly postponed to a period of the Session when it was impossible they could be considered with that weight which their importance demanded. He protested against this mode of transacting public business. By this Bill the pledge which the Government had given to encourage the employment of the Natives was indirectly broken, inasmuch as they had introduced such conditions preliminary to their employment as to render them, generally speaking, ineligible for those offices which it had been intended to open to them. He referred in especial to the grievance which would be inflicted on the Natives of India by their being practically debarred from the army medical service. It was true that there was no express change in the law making them ineligible for these appointments; it was the indirect effect of the amalgamation of the Queen's and the Indian local armies. The ground alleged was their physical incapacity; but in a letter which he had received from a most intelligent Native gentleman the writer said the true cause of this retrograde step was to be found, no doubt, in the foolish prejudice against men of colour. The present measure was, he felt sure, introduced in a kind and friendly spirit towards the Natives, but he wished to insure, if possible, that the spirit of the law—namely, that the Civil Service should be open to the Natives of India, should be properly carried out. He, therefore, proposed a clause which would not give to the Natives any new right whatever, but only secured them against the loss of any right which they at present enjoyed, and enacted that the provisions already in force on this subject should he taken to be part of the present Bill, and should be construed with it as confirming the Natives in the rights, privileges, and immunities already granted to them, The noble Lord moved a clause embodying the views he had expressed—
  "That in page 2, line 19, after ('India') to insert the following Clause:—
  "Whereas by Section Eighty-seven of an Act of the Third and Fourth of King William the Fourth, Chapter Eighty-five, it was enacted that 'no Native of the Territories of India, nor any natural-born Subject of His Majesty resident therein, shall by reason only of his Religion, Place of Birth, Descent, Colour, or any of them, be dis-

  1729
  abled from holding any Place, Office, or Employment under the said Company:' Now be it enacted, That the said Eighty-seventh Section shall be deemed and taken to be Part of this present Act, and shall be construed therewith in all respects as re-enacted and continued therein, and as assuring to the Natives of India and all natural-born Subjects of Her Majesty resident therein all the Rights, Privileges, and Immunities granted to and conferred on them by the said Eighty-seventh Section."
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that the reason why these Bills were not introduced earlier was that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India had decided to wait for the latest and fullest information before the views of the Government were formed. The noble Lord must remember that his words were addressed not to that House only, but to the world at large; it was, therefore, imperatively necessary that the most accurate strictness and the most correct language possible should be employed. The noble Lord had addressed himself to the consideration of two questions which had no connection with each other, except that they related to the Natives of India. Some time ago a question was put by the noble Lord with reference to the non-admission of Native gentlemen to compete for assistant-surgeoncies. On that occasion his noble Friend the late Secretary of War (Lord Herbert) was present in the House, whose continued absence their Lordships must so deeply regret. He (Earl De Grey) could add nothing to what was then stated by his noble Friend. The noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) said a new construction had been put on the Act of 1833 by the Government regarding the admission of Natives to the Civil Service, and he stated that this had given rise to the greatest discontent in India. Now, the simple fact was that the only branch of the Service from competition for which Native gentlemen had been excluded was that of assistant-surgeons, not to the Native, but to the general army. They were not excluded from the Native army; but it was believed that their constitutions would not fit them for those changes of climate to which the British soldier was exposed, and that they would not if attached to British regiments attract that respect and obedience which it was so important the medical officers of the army should receive. He thought the interests of those gentlemen who had been excluded from this competition might be very safely left in the hands of Lord Canning. This and other Bills would open up
  1730
  for the Natives of India entirely new sources of employment. They were about to be made eligible for seats at the Governor General's Council, and to places on the bench in the highest court of justice in India, and yet this was the time chosen by the noble Lord for asserting that they were limiting the privileges of the Natives of India. The whole object of the Bill was to open to the Natives opportunities of employment under the Crown, and to legalize appointments hitherto made in contravention of law. If the Indians were discontented after the present debate, it certainly would not be in consequence of any provisions of the Bill. Her Majesty's Government cordially accepted the enactment of 1833, and had done more than any previous Government to carry out its spirit, but they did not think it advisable to re-enact it, in the terms of the noble Lord's Amendment, as it might lead to a belief among the Natives on the one hand that the Bill contained some secret and insidious attack upon their rights; or, on the other, that it was intended to do more than the Bill professed, and to open to them all competitive examinations in this country, and to sweep away all the restrictions of the covenanted service. No more unwise course could be taken than to add to a Bill conferring substantial benefits on the Natives of India the vague and general clause suggested by the noble Lord.
  LORD LYVEDENacquiesced in the view taken by the noble Earl (Earl De Grey), whose services had been given with such advantage to India since his appointment to the office which he was now about to vacate; but he maintained that since 1833 the Natives had been systematically misled, as they never practically were admitted into the Civil Service. If Natives were deemed inadmissible they ought to be told so, but it was a mockery to admit them in name, when not a single instance had occurred of their actual appointment.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that it was true that the Civil Service was, by the letter of the law, now open to the Natives of India, but in practice no Native had ever been admitted to that service. It was, therefore, desirable to reinform and reassure the people of India that we adhere to the sentiments which we had previously expressed, and were anxious that they should be treated as on a perfect equality with Europeans.
  Lord MONTEAGLEhaving said a few words in reply,
  Amendment negatived.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEmoved an Amendment to the effect that the Governor General should have power to give appointments to persons after a residence of five, instead of seven years, as provided in the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill passed.

IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL.

  THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDprotested both against the measure and against the reasons which had been given for adopting it. He had received Returns from a very well managed union in Ireland where the system as to residence was the same as would be introduced into England under this Bill, which showed that while in 1835 the paupers chargeable on the union at large were 1 to 11; the proportion in 1861 was 1 to 2 1/2. He moved to omit from the end of the first clause the words which gave to residence in any part of a union the effect of residence in a parish.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he could not consent to the Amendment. The words proposed to be omitted contained a very valuable part of the Bill, and if struck out would defeat one of the main objects for which the measure was introduced. One of the purposes of the Bill was to mitigate, for it was not pretended that it would remove, the great hardships which arose from the removal of poor persons from one part of the country to another. It was obvious that where there were, as in London, a large number of small parishes, removal from one to another would at present destroy the status of irremovability which a person had acquired. These removals were a great source of expense to the ratepayers, and if diminished would tend to a saving. The arguments of the noble Lord being drawn from Ireland were not strictly applicable, as there was no settlement in that country.
  LORD REDESDALEwas as anxious as the noble Lord to secure a diminution of expense, but doubted whether that would he attained by the Bill.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONentered his protest against a Bill of such importance being brought forward at that late period of the Session.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the question of rating had not yet been fairly and fully considered. On a former occasion he had shown the disproportion between the rating in Berwick and Lancaster. He had since received additional returns, from which it appeared that while in one of the parishes of Croydon there would be, under the Bill, an increase of £1,000 a year, there would be a decrease of £800 in another parish. These discrepancies were very unjust and inexpedient. He thought the Bill would also bear unfairly on the owners of tithes, which, when commuted, were an unimprovable property. He should move the omission of Clause 9, and subsequently move the addition of a clause limiting the continuance of the Bill to three years. The Bill was being passed with a great deal too much haste, and as it was doubtful whether the change would be just it ought to be an experimental and not a permanent measure. The noble Lord proposed to leave out Clause 9.
  LORD WODEHOUSEdid not deny that the Bill would shift the burden from parishes which were unfairly taxed to parishes which were unfairly exempted, but he maintained that it was a desirable object, and that the omission of the clause would aggravate the inequality, because other provisions in the Bill would bring on the open parishes a still larger burden, and leave those which did not bear their fair share more exempt than before. As regarded unions in two different counties, inequalities might arise from the county assessment being taken as the basis; but, as the county justices could order a new assessment and correct any injustice, he did not deem it a defect in the Bill. With regard to tithes, the Act of 1848 first made a change, and this Bill merely adjusted the burden more fairly. Some tithe owners might have to bear an increased charge, but others would bear a less charge. It could not be contended that the bargain with the tithe owners was such as to preclude Parliament from making any change. He should not consent to omit the 9th Clause, or to make the Bill temporary. They had been passing temporary Acts for fifteen years, and the time was arrived when they were bound to render their legislation permanent. As to the Bill being passed in haste, he would remind their Lordships that in the other House it had received a great deal of consideration, and that their Lordships being well acquainted with the subject could have proposed

  1733
  Amendments if they had thought them necessary at any of the previous stages.
  Question put, "Whether the said Clause shall stand part of the Bill."
  Resolved in the Affirmative,
  LORD REDESDALEthen moved "at the end of the Bill to add the following Clause: 'This Act shall continue in force for Three years only.' "
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Bill passed.

REMOVAL OF IRISH POOR BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSsaid, the Bill only proposed to amend the machinery of removal. According to the existing law the poor were sent over to Ireland, badly fed and badly clad, and often landed on a quay, and there left to find their way to their places of destination as best they could. A Committee of the House of Commons on the subject sat in 1854 and 1855, presided over by Mr. Baines, then Chairman of the Poor Law Board; and another Committee in 1858,1859, and 1860, presided over successively by Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, Lord March, and Mr. Villiers, the latter also Chairman of the Poor Law Board. The Bill was founded on the recommendation of both those Committees; it had passed the Commons, and he hoped their Lordships would also agree to it. This was peculiarly a favourable time to pass the measure; for whereas, in 1850, 77,000 persons landed at Liverpool from Ireland who were manifestly paupers, in the last year only twenty-one such persons from Ireland so landed at Liverpool. He meant not 21,000, but twenty-one individuals only. So that the cost of the removal of the Irish poor would now be exceedingly small. The object of the Bill was that they should not be left destitute on the quays, but be passed to their abodes.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  In reply to Lord REDESDALE,
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSsuggested that alterations, if needed, could be made in Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.