Lords Sitting of 24 March 1863

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Mutiny; Tobacco Duties (No. 56).
Second Reading—Post Office Savings Banks (No. 47).
Committee—Births and Deaths (Ireland) Registration (No. 30).
Report—Illegitimate Children (Ireland) (No. 57).
Third Reading—Salmon Exportation (No. 51); Consolidated Fund (£10,000,000) (No. 46).

POLISH REFUGEES IN PRUSSIA.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid,
  1794
  that seeing the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, tie wished to ask him, Whether Her Majesty's Government had received information as to certain Poles having been seized in Prussia and handed over by the Prussian Government to the Russian authorities. He had himself heard that a report to that effect was quite true; and he had also heard, in another instance, that some Poles, arrested in the Prussian territory, had been handed over to the Russian police, and subsequently shot. He wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government had received any information upon the subject?
  EARL RUSSELLreplied, that the only information received by him was a despatch from Sir Andrew Buchanan, to the effect that two Polish students had been arrested in Prussia, and that a demand had been made by the Russian authorities that they should be handed over to them. The French Ambassador, however, had claimed those two young men on the ground that they were naturalized subjects of France, and Sir Andrew Buchanan expressed a hope that they would not be given up to the Russians. That was the only account he had received with reference to the arrest of Poles in Prussia.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: Then the noble Earl has not heard of any case in which Poles arrested in Prussia and handed over to Russian authorities, have been shot?
  EARL RUSSELL: I have received no account to that effect.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 30.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE presented Petitions from Boards of Guardians in Ireland, praying that the expenses of carrying out the provisions of the measure be defrayed out of the Imperial funds; and from the President and Fellows of the King and Queen's College of Physicians (Ireland), objecting to certain provisions of the Bill, and complaining that the Returns required to be made would not show the sanatory condition of the population in the various towns. The learned body from whom this Petition emanated did not think it was right that the medical men whose duty it would be, as registrars, to

  1795
  make the Returns should be placed in a position inferior to clerks of unions. After reading the petitions and examining the various clauses of the Bill, he must say, that if it were intended to take effect as a sanatory measure, its provisions were utterly inadequate. If it were designed with such an object, it would be necessary that the Returns should be made by gentlemen of professional attainments; while, on the other hand, if they merely contained a bald statement of the number of deaths in each town, they would be of little use for sanatory purposes. When he first read the Bill, he did not think it had any sanatory object, and if it was looked to to give the Government of Ireland sanatory information it would entirely fail. He thought it would be better to expunge those clauses relating to sanatory regulations, and postpone the consideration of the Bill in Committee till after Easter.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSsaid, he should be prepared to discuss the different points the noble Marquess had referred to in Committee on the Bill.
  THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Marquess that a delay of a few weeks was desirable, with a view to the further consideration of this measure; and he thought that delay the more desirable seeing that there were scarcely any Irish Peers then in the House. In the Bill of last year, the expense of registration was to be charged upon the Grand Jury cess and not upon the poor rate; in this Bill it was made to fall upon the poor rate. It was a known fact that so long as the poor rate was confined to the relief of the poor they gave a stimulus to the ratepayers to keep it down; but that if they added other charges, that stimulus was removed. His opinion certainly was that the charge for the registrars should be on the Consolidated Fund. He entertained a very strong opinion that it would have been a far wiser course for the Government to introduce a Bill to settle the whole question of births, deaths, and marriages in Ireland. A Committee was appointed in the House of Commons to which all the Bills on the subject were referred, and they reported as to the registration of marriages; but the Government had not legislated on that point, and had done so on those on which the Committee did not report. He thought there was nothing so easy to deal with as this question of the registration of marriages; and since this Bill had passed through the other House
  1796
  two or three measures had been proposed on the subject, and all parties seemed to agree that legislation should take place with reference to it. He therefore suggested that this measure should be postponed for the present, with a view to their dealing with the registration of births, deaths, and marriages altogether.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMwas under-stood to dissent from some of the provisions of the Bill, and to urge that its consideration in Committee should be postponed for a short time.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 1 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Appointment of Superintendent Registrar).
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEtrusted the Government would have no objection to alter the title of the clerks of unions, who in this clause were called "superintendent registrars," to "clerks of registrars."
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSopposed the Amendment. He thought it as well to have the same machinery in Ireland as in England.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwould be contented with the omission of the word "registrar," and the insertion of the words "of registries" in lieu thereof.
  On Question, Whether the words proposed to be omitted shall stand Part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 32; Not-Contents 5: Majority 27.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.

  CONTENTS.

  Newcastle, D.

  Sydney, V.

  Somerset, D.

  Cranworth, L.

  Camden, M.

  Crewe, L.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Airlie, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Caithness, E.

  Harris, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

  Cathcart, E.

  De Grey, E.

  Llanover, L.

  Devon, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Granville, E.

  Grey, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Russell, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  St. Germans, E,

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Eversley, V.

  Wodehouse, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Bandon, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Belmore, E. [Teller.]

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) [Teller.]

  Hawarden, V.

  Another Amendment moved, and negatived.
  Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 57.)

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL.

  (No. 47.) SECOND READING.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he thought that the interests of the infant depositors were not sufficiently protected by the Act. As it stood at present, the deposits of children over seven years of age could be transferred from the old savings banks to the Post Office savings banks, and afterwards withdrawn by their parents and guardians. He thought, that considering the class of persons who would make use of these banks, there would often be a disposition on the part of the parent or guardian to withdraw the money of the child, rather than allow it to accumulate.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the transfer of such monies must be made with the consent of the Postmaster General and two trustees of the old savings banks. He did not therefore think that the objection of the noble Lord was of any force; but the subject could be considered in Committee.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

THE INDIAN COUNCIL.

  QUESTION.
  LORD LYVEDENrose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they intend in this Session to reconsider so much of the Act 21 & 22 Vict., c. 106, as relates to the Nomination, Election. Numbers, Duration of Service, Salaries, and Retired Allowances of the Councillors of India? In the Bills which were introduced by the Government of the Earl of Derby and Lord Palmerston, at the time the Government of India was transferred from the East India Company to the Crown, the numbers of the proposed Council differed in each Bill. Six was the number at first proposed by himself to the Cabinet to which he had the honour to belong, who altered it to eight, and it was raised by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) to fifteen, its present number. Many objections were raised to the duration of
  1798
  the office; and Motions were made in both Houses to limit the duration to five years; and, altogether, there were great doubts and differences of opinion as to the details of the Bill. Lord Stanley then stated that it was unnecessary to introduce clauses of that nature into the Bill; because the Legislature might, at any moment they pleased, alter the constitution of the Council. After they had had a few years' practical experience of the working of the Council, it was generally felt it would be necessary to revise its constitution altogether. From the time, however, of the passing of the Act, Parliament had been kept perfectly in the dark as to what the Council was doing. One paper, certainly, had been laid on the table, and a very remarkable one it was. It related to the amalgamation of the Indian with the Queen's army—a question on which every one would have supposed that the Indian Council would have been able to give excellent advice. But the Secretary of State (Sir Charles Wood) would not allow them to express an opinion upon it until the matter had been finally decided by the Cabinet. Some of them wished to protest; but the right hon. Baronet pointed out to them that the Act only allowed them to protest in matters which had been decided at one of their meetings, whereas this matter had been decided by the Cabinet before the Council met. However, as a matter of good nature, he allowed those who desired it to enter a useless dissent. The Council, too, would have been very well qualified to arrange the details of the manner in which this measure should be carried out; but the Secretary of State, instead of employing them, had recourse to that last expedient of a Minister at his wits' end—a Royal Commission. As to the amount of work in the Council, he knew from his own official experience, that under the old Board of Directors despatches were read and answered by clerks. Abstracts were made for the Directors; but the principal part of the writing was mere clerical labour. In reply to his demand to have the number of Councillors reduced, the names of distinguished men would no doubt be mentioned. It would be said that Sir John Lawrence was one of the Councillors. That was true; but they did not want fifteen Sir John Lawrences, even if they could find them. Six or eight Councillors, the number proposed by Lord Palmerston's Government in the first instance,

  1799
  would be quite sufficient. He said this with the greatest respect for the gentlemen who at present composed the Council. With some of these he was personally acquainted, and he knew that they were all men of business habits and high character; but if even £10,000 a year could be saved by reducing the number, it would be worth while to study economy in the matter. He therefore begged to ask whether Her Majesty's Government intended to submit the question of the number of Councillors to a Committee—which might be a useful course—or whether they intended to bring in such a Bill as might be introduced under the proviso in the Act 22 & 23 Vict., c. 106, which stated that the arrangement made by that Act should stand till "Parliament shall otherwise provide."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he could not help thinking that his noble Friend had addressed this question to Her Majesty's Government rather for the purpose of expressing to the House his own opinion on a very important subject than for that of obtaining from the Government an answer, the substance of which he must be able to anticipate; because his noble Friend must feel, that if it was the intention of the Government to revise and alter the decision which had been deliberately come to by Parliament respecting the nature, tenure, and composition of the Indian Council, it would have been their duty to come down and make an announcement to that effect, and not withhold the information till such time as it might incidentally be elicited in answer to a question from a noble Lord. His noble Friend must be aware that the answer he had to give him on the part of Her Majesty's Government was, that there was no intention at that moment, or at any future time, as far as they could at present speak for the future, to revise and alter the decision come to after much deliberation and by large majorities, when the India Bill was under discussion in 1858. During the debates on that measure the question was raised by a distinguished Member of the House of Commons (Mr. Roebuck) whether it was necessary for the Secretary of State for India to have any Council at all—whether India might not be governed by a Secretary, assisted by an Under Secretary, and some officials acquainted with India. Mr. Roebuck raised that question; but it was not pushed to a division. He (the Duke of Argyll) was not prepared to state that India might not be governed in that way
  1800
  if men acquainted with the country, and of ability and experience, could be got to serve under the Secretary of State in the subordinate position of ordinary officials. But this objection was taken by Parliament, and he thought it was a fatal one— that we should not be able to induce men who had distinguished themselves in India to assist the Secretary under such circumstances. He very much doubted that we could have got such men as Sir John Lawrence, Sir Frederick Carrie, and Mr. Willoughby under that arrangement. The next question was, as to the number of Councillors. He confessed he did not believe the weight of the Indian Council de pended on its number. He believed it depended on the character of the Councillors, more than on their number. Although there were some expressions of opinion in favour of a Council of twelve, it was ultimately decided by a large majority, with the assent of Lord Stanley, that the number should be fifteen. Another question which was discussed was, whether any portion of the Council should be elective, or whether they should all be nominated by the Crown. A new constituency was devised for the purpose of carrying out the elective principle; but the proposal was rejected. He would not pronounce any opinion upon the wisdom of that scheme; but this, at all events, might be said in favour of it, that it provided that in the new constituency the interests of the commercial classes should be represented. The only principle of importance in election was the principle of representation, and that was entirely abandoned; because, although the proposal was adopted that seven out of fifteen Councillors should be nominated by the Council itself, Lord Stanley very fairly admitted at the time that it had nothing to do with the principle of election, and was merely a means of introducing some few persons who would not be selected by the Secretary of State. These successive decisions by Parliament, in divisions which were not influenced by party feeling, ought to be accepted by the Government as settling the question of the constitution of the Council, unless and until some evil was discovered which it was their duty to remedy. He entirely disputed the proposition that any pledge was given by which they were bound, within a certain number of years, to consider the question again of an organic change in the Indian Council, and he maintained that no change ought be suggested which might

  1801
  lessen the reputation and authority of the Council. In his opinion, nothing had occurred since the passing of the measure to cast a doubt upon the practical working of the system. The Council had, upon the whole, worked smoothly and satisfactorily; and the absence of papers, of which the noble Lord complained, was a proof that occasions did not arise for the Council to record protests and dissents in reference to decisions of the Secretary of State. Some papers, showing what was doing in the Council, had been produced. The amalgamation of the two armies was not an Indian but an Imperial question, and the opinions of some of the most eminent Members were laid before Parliament previous to Parliament being asked to come to a decision upon it. He could not conceive a more important question than the redemption of the land tax and the permanent settlement of the land revenue of India. That question had been discussed and decided in the Indian Council, and valuable papers had been presented to Parliament in which the opinions of the most distinguished Members with regard to it might be read. Another important question, as to the relations between the European planters and the ryots of India, had also been decided, and the opinions of members of Council, eminent for their knowledge of the country, and of Indian affairs, had been made known. In both those instances, the Secretary of State had overruled the decision of the Governor General and his Council, and it was most important to the Secretary of State that he should be able to point to those papers, to show that he had not acted without full consultation and the full support of those eminent and distinguished men. The local Government must sometimes be influenced by local opinion, and local opinion in India, was mainly the opinion of the English settlers and the English commercial classes. He had no doubt that upon the question of the relations between the planters and ryots the local Government had committed a material error; and he was equally sure that the power of the Secretary of State to correct that error was greatly strengthened by his being able to appeal to the opinions of men of equal eminence with the Councillors of the Governor General and free from the vices under which the Legislature of Calcutta more or less conducted its proceedings. In both these cases, of the relations between the planters and the ryots and the settlement of the land re-
  1802
  venue, it was satisfactory to see the opinion of competent men sustaining the opinion of the Secretary of State, and he sincerely believed that the present Council was composed of a body of gentlemen, whose opinions might fairly be trusted in all questions of a similar kind.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he entirely approved of the course which the noble Duke had announced on the part of the Government, namely, that of deprecating any disturbance in the constitution of the Council. He thought it extremely fortunate that the noble Duke had had the opportunity to make that declaration, which would strengthen the Council and give stability to its judgments. He (the Earl of Ellenborough) had always been in favour of a Council, and the stronger the better, as he thought it was always an advantage for the Secretary of State, when he introduced a measure, to be able to tell Parliament that he was supported by the concurrence of his Council. He believed there would always be occasions when the opinions of the Members of the Council would clash, because there were always questions which required to be treated in a cautious and deliberate manner. He confessed that he should never be afraid of a strong Council; but he should have the greatest apprehension of a weak one; for the Indian Minister might be able to manage able men, but might not be able to manage weak men.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, it was the unanimous opinion of the country that the Council did, on the whole, work well; but it might, nevertheless, be a legitimate subject of inquiry whether, even if they should not proceed to an immediate reduction, there might not be a possibility of future reduction, not only without a diminution, but even with an increase of efficiency. His own idea was, that the Council would work better if it were not quite so numerous. The noble Lord, however, had given no indication of the kind of change he contemplated in the Council. But what he complained of, and what his noble Friend complained of, was that Parliament did not know how the Council worked. He thought that great advantage would result from the publication of the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Council, because at present they were utterly in the dark as to when the Secretary of State was opposed or supported, and by whom. It was all very well for the Secretary of State for India

  1803
  to say, "I am supported by Sir John Lawrence and such and such other distinguished men;" but their Lordships did not know whether, or on what points, and how far, he was supported by them. On one most important question the opinion of the Council was not known until the decision of the Government had been taken. If the Secretary of State could appeal to the authority of his Council in support of his views, it was right that Parliament should know when he did so, whether the Council were unanimous, and what were the opinions of individual Members. Without such knowledge, Parliament came to the discussion of questions relating to the Government of India at great disadvantage.
  EARL GREYsaid, that the fact of their knowing very little about the Council was to his mind the best possible proof that it was working tolerably smoothly and well. If difficulties arose, and the Council were unable to conduct the affairs of India in concert with the Secretary of State, he had no doubt Parliament would hear of it soon enough. When they found things working well, he certainly did not wish to see changes introduced.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, what he objected to was that the authority of the Council should be quoted without giving Parliament an opportunity of seeing how far the Members of Council were unanimous,

NEW SOUTH WALES, VICTORIA, AND SOUTH AUSTRALIA.—PETITIONS.
EARL GREY presented Petitions of Inhabitants of the District of Clarence and Richmond Rivers for the Separation of the District of the Clarence and Richmond Rivers from the Colony of New South Wales, and for including the same in the Colony of Queensland; and of Inhabitants of Bridgewater, Portland, and Heywood, in the Western District of the Colony of Victoria, for Separation of Western Portion of Victoria from Victoria, and of the South Eastern District of South Australia from South Australia, and for the Union of these into One separate Colony. The noble Earl said, that in the Act of 1850, for the better Government of the Australian Colonies, power was reserved to the Crown to detach portions of the colony of New South Wales in order to form other colonies if necessary, and to alter the boundaries
1804
of the several Colonies from time to time. In the year 1859 that power was acted upon, and the colony of Queensland founded; but, instead of following the course contemplated when the Act was passed, different boundaries were chosen. The Petitioners in the first Petition, which was from the district of the Clarence and Richmond Rivers, complained that, in consequence of the boundary of the Colony of New South Wales being fixed at the 28th instead of the 30th parallel of south latitude, they had been separated from Queensland, the colony with which they were naturally connected, and remained attached to the colony of New South Wales, from which they were divided by a range of mountainous country. They were 500 miles from Sydney, the capital of New South Wales, from which they were also separated by this natural boundary, and only 100 miles from Brisbane, the capital of Queensland, and they stated that they had no material interests in common with New South Wales. They therefore contended that they ought to be separated from the former and attached to the latter colony. They complained, moreover, that they were unfairly dealt with in the matter of taxation, having been made liable in part for a public debt with which practically they had no concern; that they were not fairly dealt with in the appropriation of the revenue, not having a fair proportion of the advantage in proportion to the revenue they paid; besides which, they had no hope of good government until they were attached to Queensland, with which they were connected geographically and by inclination. Upon those grounds they prayed that such steps might be taken as might seem proper to annex them to Queensland. It appeared to him that the complaint of these petitioners was just, and that the district in question ought to belong to Queensland rather than to New South Wales. There were three other Petitions—from Portland, Bridgewater, and a third district in the western portion of the colony of Victoria. They complained of their distance from the seat of Government, and alleged that they were subjected to legislation unsuited to their circumstances. The same prayer proceeded from the districts forming the eastern portion of the colony of South Australia, who were circumstanced in regard to South Australia as were the other petitioners in regard to Victoria, and who therefore prayed that they might be formed into a distinct

1805
colony. They stated that they were together quite large enough for this purpose, and that they were larger than the colony of Port Phillip when it was separated from New South Wales. He was not so well acquainted with the merits of this Petition as of the other, but all these representations were well deserving of the attention of the Government and of Parliament.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that the letters patent constituting the colony of Queensland were issued by his predecessor in the early part of 1859, and he could not explain the reasons which influenced him in adopting the line of division he had made. Some time after his acceptance of office he received an application, not from the colonists, but from their representative in this country, urging that the particular district referred to in the Petition should be added to Queensland; and another series of applications asking that it should be retained by New South Wales. To those applications he replied, that as the boundary lines had been laid down by letters patent, it was beyond his power to interfere; he said, however, that if they could come to any agreement between themselves as to any other line of boundary, he should be willing to adjust their differences. Since then he had had no communication on the subject, and he had hoped that they had acquiesced in the arrangement which had been made. With reference to the formation of a new colony from fragments of Victoria and South Australia, he could assure his noble Friend that applications for the formation of new colonies out of the existing Australian colonies came so frequently, that if it were possible to accomplish the wishes of all the people of New South Wales, Sydney and a very limited district around it would be the only surviving portion of the colony of New South Wales. The settlers in many districts averred that they would be better off if separated from the mother colony; and he considered that it would be exceedingly bad policy to multiply colonies in Australia to an indefinite extent, especially until certain districts were thoroughly populated. Of course, the expenses of new Governments would be large, and all the difficulties which existed, with reference to customs duties, between the different colonies would be greatly magnified. In short, his opinion was, that generally speaking, until a portion of a colony was completely populated, it would be very unadvisable to in-
1806
terfere. There were applications, no doubt, that must shortly be attended to. He had been recently appealed to, for instance, to form a new colony south of the Gulf of Carpentaria. The time had not yet arrived for such a step; but the progress of exploration and the vast influx of people into that pastoral district would justify, before long, the establishment of one, if not two, additional colonies—one at Victoria River, and perhaps another at Albert River. For the present, however, deprecating these constant applications for separation, he had decided on this provisional arrangement:—that the large district extending between the Gulf of Carpentaria and Port Essington, and including an area of 730,000 square miles, should be temporarily annexed, one portion to Queensland and another to South Australia. He thought it would be undesirable to sever the other districts alluded to by his noble Friend unless more valid reasons than any he had yet heard could be assigned.
Petitions to lie on the table.

NEW SOUTH WALES, VICTORIA, AND SOUTH AUSTRALIA.—PETITIONS.
  MUTINY BILL.
  Read 1a; and to be read 2a on Thursday next: (The Earl De Grey.)

  TOBACCO DUTIES BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next; and Standing Orders No. 37 and 38 to be considered in order to their being dispensed with; and the LORDS SUMMONED: (The Lord President.) (No. 56).
  House adjourned at a half past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.