Lords Sitting of 26 February 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Opposed Private Bills, Committee of Selection appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Office of Judge in the Admiralty, Divorce, and Probate Courts (11).
Committee—Public Schools (4–29).
Third Reading—British North America (9), and passed.
Royal Assent—Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act Continuance [30 Vict. c. 1].

H. R. H. THE PRINCESS OF WALES.
THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN (the Earl of BRADFORD)reported the QUEEN'S Answer to the Address of Friday last, as follows:—
"I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address on the Birth of the Princess, My Granddaughter;—and I derive great gratification from the renewed assurance of the interest you take in the domestic happiness of Myself and My Family."

PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL—(No. 4.)
(The Earl of Derby.)
PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL—(No. 4.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH presented, a Petition of a Committee of inhabitants of Rugby and neighbourhood, interested in Rugby School. The Bill, he remarked, gave powers to the governing bodies and masters which might be exercised in such a way as to injure very materially the privilege of persons entitled to send their sons free to the school. All

  1003
  that the petitioners asked was that before such powers were exercised they should have an opportunity of communicating with the governing bodies on the subject. That, in his opinion, was not by any means an unreasonable request.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I apprehend that there is some little difference between giving notice to a public body, which has a special interest in the subject, and giving notice to the inhabitants generally. If my noble Friend will put the proposed Amendment in my hands, it shall be taken into consideration before the Report is brought up. I had hoped, however, that the Bill would go down to the other House in precisely the same form as was approved by your Lordships last year.
  House in Committee; an Amendment made; the Report thereof to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 29.)

OFFICE OF JUDGE IN THE ADMIRALTY, DIVORCE, AND PROBATE COURTS BILL—(No. 11.)—(The Lord Chancellor.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to read this Bill a second time, I beg to express my opinion that it is one of considerable importance. By its title it is a Bill to provide for the execution of the office of Judge of the Admiralty, Divorce, and Probate Courts; but it is virtually a proposal for a union of the three courts of Admiralty into one, preserving, at the same time, the separate power, jurisdiction, and authority of each. Such a proposal has already been in the contemplation of the Legislature. When the Probate Court was established in 1857 provision was made in the Act that, on a vacancy occurring in the Admiralty Court, the Judge of the Probate Court should become Judge of the Admiralty Court also; and that on a vacancy occurring in the Probate Court, the Judge of the Admiralty Court, with his consent, should become Judge of the Probate Court. In the same Session the Divorce Court was established, and the Judge of Probate was made Judge Ordinary of that Court. Of course, it was supposed that the business of the three courts would not be of such an amount as that it might not be disposed of by a single Judge; but experience has shown the in-
  1004
  crease of business to be such as renders it impossible that one or even two Judges can do the business of the three courts. I will call attention very briefly to the increase of business that has taken place in all of them. I will take first the Admiralty Court, which is presided over by an eminent person, of whom it is impossible to speak too highly, my right hon. and learned friend, Dr. Lushington. The business of that court has increased to a wonderful extent. In 1841 there were 237 causes tried; in 1866 there were 657. Among those are many collision cases involving a considerable amount of property; in a recent case—that of the Amazon and the Osprey—the damage to the former was estimated at £60,000, and that of the latter at £20,000. It is to be observed, that witnesses are now examined in that court vivâ voce, instead of by au Examiner, and the questions are frequently very complicated and embarrassing. While in 1841 the number of collision cases tried was forty-nine, in 1866 the number was 264. The business of the Admiralty Court is of a most important description; and, though small salvage cases and cases of seamen's wages have been withdrawn from the court, its jurisdiction has been extended to the ownership of vessels, mortgage claims, and damage to cargo; and I anticipate that in a short time the business will be still further increased. There is a Bill which I expect will be very shortly in your Lordships' House, by which it is proposed to extend the ancient jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty over insurances, freights, charterparties, general and particular average, and other maritime matters. As to maritime contracts, Justice Story, in the case of "De Lovis v. Boit," observed—
  "The next inquiry is, what are properly to be deemed 'maritime contracts?' Happily, in this particular there is little room for controversy. All civilians and jurists agree that in this appellation are included, among other things, charter-parties, affreightments, marine hypothecations, contracts for maritime service in the building, repairing, supplying, and navigating ships, contracts between part owners of ships, contracts and quasi-contracts respecting averages, contributions, and jettisons, and policies of insurance."
  All this business, which is now in the Superior Courts, will be restored to the Court of Admiralty; and I am quite sure that, although these causes are at present satisfactorily disposed of under the existing system, yet I believe that persons connected with maritime affairs would

  1005
  prefer to have those important matters determined by a maritime court, rather than before juries consisting of persons who are not ordinarily conversant with such questions. I think I have shown your Lordships that the Judge of the Admiralty Court, from want of time, is not only incapable of undertaking the duties of another court, but that it is extremely probable he will be hardly able to dispose of all the business of his own court, and therefore the notion of making him Judge of the Probate and Divorce Courts also, seems to me quite unreasonable. Turning to the Divorce Court, I may remark that at the time that court was established it was supposed that as regarded the number of cases, the first year or two would be exceptional, as it was probable that persons who could not afford the expenses attendant on an application to your Lordships' House had waited to take their proceedings in the Divorce Court, knowing that its establishment was in contemplation. Unfortunately, it has turned out not to be the case, for since the first year the business has increased very largely. In 1858 the number of petitions for alimony was 40; in 1865 the number was 86. In 1858 there were 376 motions; in 1865 there were 708; in 1858 the summonses were 163; in 1865 they were 726; in 1858 the causes were 58; in 1865 they were 256; in 1858 the judgments were 52; in 1865 they were 260. Of course, most of those cases are of great importance and of great length; and it frequently happens that if exceptional cases, such as declarations of legitimacy which are tried by this Court, arise, the business accumulates, and falls into arrear. Then as to the Probate Court, in 1858 the number of causes was 380; in 1866 it was 538. In the former year the number of trials was 27; in the latter 69. Now, I think I have shown your Lordships sufficient by these statistics to convince you that what was contemplated by the Legislature in proposing that these three Courts should be under one head and one Judge, who would dispose of the business of all, is utterly illusory, if I may use the expression, and that it is absolutely necessary to provide for the discharge, of the business of the three Courts in a more efficient manner. One proof of the inability of each of the Judges of those Courts to do more than the duty of one of them, is, that though the Judge of the Probate Court and the Judge of the Admiralty
  1006
  Court may sit for each other, on no occasion that I am aware of has either of them done so, not being able from want of time. Another most important circumstance is this:—Formerly the Judge of the Admiralty Court and the Judge of the Prerogative Court—which may be said to correspond to the Court of Probate—used to attend the sittings of the Privy Council, and it is very desirable that these civilians should be members of that tribunal, in which questions of maritime and civil law continually arise. During my time the occasions on which the Judges of the Admiralty, Probate, or Divorce Courts have been able to attend the Judicial Committee have been so rare as scarcely to be worth mentioning. I think, therefore, I have laid the foundation for the proposition that it is necessary that provision should be made for the execution of a portion of the duties devolving upon these Judges in their several Courts. What I propose is that a Court should be established consisting of a Chief Judge and two other Judges, each of whom shall have the same power in any of the three Courts as the Judges of these Courts now possess. By the Bill it is provided that in each of the Courts they shall be able to exercise all the powers and authorities belonging to the Judge of each; but the jurisdiction, authorities, and powers of the Courts are to be kept separate and distinct. In this way I propose to obtain a judicial power which can he concentrated and turned in any direction in which it is required. It frequently happens in the Admiralty Court, for instance, that there is a necessity for the despatch of causes; the witnesses, being generally seamen, are of a migratory description; and it is frequently of the greatest possible importance to be able to examine them at once. Owing, however, to the state of the other business of the Court, the Judge is constantly prevented from entering upon these causes, and the evidence is obliged to be taken before the Examiner. This is a most un satisfactory way of proceeding; because, upon paper, which is all that the Judge, has before him, one witness looks as well as another. Under this Bill it is proposed that there may be two Courts of Admiralty, two Courts of Probate, or two Divorce Courts sitting at the same time, and thus the business of all these Courts will be disposed of with much greater despatch. The three Judges will

  1007
  also constitute a Full Court of Divorce. Your Lordships are perhaps aware that in order to constitute a Full Court of Divorce at present it is necessary to borrow from the Common Law Courts two Judges, who, being called upon only occasionally to administer a kind of law to which they are unaccustomed, are perhaps led to yield their own opinion too much to that of the Judge Ordinary; and may not exercise their independent judgment to the extent it is desirable they should do:—so that, practically, it is an appeal from the Judge Ordinary to the Judge Ordinary himself. There will also be a Full Court for granting new trials. I have now explained to your Lordships, sufficiently I think, the general objects of the Bill; it is probably unnecessary to enter into minute details, which can be better considered in Committee. I know that my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) has turned his attention particularly to this subject, and I hope with some confidence that we may have his assistance and support. There is a further advantage which I propose to gain by the constitution of this new Court in the way that I have described, and that is, that the Chief Judge will be released from time to time, and so enabled to attend the Judicial Committee, and thus add to the strength of that tribunal. My noble and learned Friend evidently considers this a point of some importance; because last Session he laid a Bill before the House for the object of adding strength to the Judicial Committee. If the Bill should receive your Lordships' sanction, I expect that I shall have the satisfaction of establishing a most high and important Court, governed by the principles of civil law, in which Court will be collected a body of advocates learned in that law. I need hardly say that if war should unhappily occur, the prize causes will be tried in the most solemn, and decided in the most satisfactory manner; and even if questions of International Law should arise, provision may be made for having them determined in that Court. I perhaps may add a word regarding one of the clauses of the Bill relating to the Court of Arches. The Dean of Arches is a Judge of high authority and dignity, appointed by my most rev. Friend the Archbishop of Canterbury. Now, the Dean of Arches is in this extraordinary position: he is a Judge, as I have already said, of high dignity and great authority, but I believe his salary
  1008
  hardly amounts to £40 a year. [The Archbishop of CANTERBURY: Not £4.] Well, I will strike off the 0, and leave the salary at £4 a year. Of course, the most rev. Prelate finds it extremely difficult to appoint a Judge who has not some other means of supporting the dignity of his high office. Formerly, the course was to appoint the Judge of the Prerogative Court. Latterly, the office has been held by my right hon. Friend, Dr. Lushington. Of course, one must make some provision for vacancies occurring in the office of Dean of Arches, and what I propose is that the most rev. Prelate should have the power of appointing one or more of the new Judges to this Court. I am certainly anxious for the success of this Bill. I believe it will be one of great utility, and that it will provide a well constituted tribunal for the administration of justice in the Courts of Admiralty, Probate, and Divorce, and I trust your Lordships will grant the measure a favourable consideration.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that he gave his cordial assent to the principle laid down by the noble and learned Lord, that the judicial power of the country should, if necessary, be strengthened; and their Lordships, he thought, would be very reluctant at any time to be niggardly in affording sufficient judicial strength to all the important Courts of the country. During the short time last year that he had the honour of holding the Great Seal he looked into the question, and found that if the time had not actually arrived, it was fast arriving, when some addition of strength must be made to almost all the Courts. But he was bound to say that the two Courts which seemed to him least to require such an addition were these very Courts of Probate and Divorce and of the Admiralty, and nothing which he had heard from his noble and learned Friend had convinced him that his opinions on the subject were erroneous. His noble and learned Friend had referred to the figures supplied by the gentleman who held the office of Registrar of the Admiralty Court—and of his fitness in every way to discharge the duties of that office no one could entertain a doubt—and those figures certainly showed a great increase of business. Returns, however, merely stating the number of causes heard

  1009
  constituted a most fallacious test, unless they knew what the nature of those causes was—and no difference was shown between those which were important and those which were unimportant. The number of days during which the Court was occupied formed a more reliable indication of the business done; and from this point of view also a great increase had taken place; for whereas in 1841 the sittings of the Court of Admiralty had been held only on thirty-eight days, in 1866 they covered 147 days, which, at the rate of six days in the week, would be between twenty-four and twenty-five weeks. In the previous year, however, the sittings had only been ninety-nine; and one great cause of the increase in the year 1866 was the Banda and Kirwee Booty case, which by itself occupied the time of the learned Judge for above a month. Deducting those sittings from 147, the number would be reduced to about 125; and taking an average of five years, as it was right to do, the sittings of the Court would be only 111 days, or about eighteen weeks and a half during the year. He did not think those figures represented such an amount of labour as to call for the assistance of a second Judge. The Returns with regard to the other Courts did not afford the means of calculating the number of days which they had sat, but only the number of causes heard. He admitted that it would be of great advantage if some high judicial functionary were appointed, whose duty it would be to attend the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; but he confessed he did not sec any great reason for the appointment of additional Judges to the Courts referred to; and he did not think his noble and learned Friend had made out a case for any increase of the judicial staff in the direction referred to. He was not one of those who thought the House of Commons wanting in liberality in providing salaries for new Judges when a good case for appointing them was made out; but he calculated that the Bill under consideration would involve an expenditure of £17,500 a year, and that, he thought, the House of Commons should not be asked to provide, unless it could be well assured that the business of the Court would increase to an extent justifying such an expenditure. It was true that his noble and learned Friend had spoken of a Bill now pending in the House of Commons which proposed largely to extend the juris-
  1010
  diction of the Admiralty Court; and if that Bill passed a good case might be made out for the appointment of the new Judges. If, indeed, that Bill had passed the House of Commons and was before their Lordships, it might be that no objection could be raised to the noble and learned Lord's Bill. He would therefore recommend their Lordships to give the Bill a second reading, and postpone its further; consideration until the Bill now in the House of Commons, referring to the Admiralty Court, had been disposed of by that House, and that then the two measures should proceed together. He did not object to the appointment of now Judges, if a necessity for them should be shown, and concurred in the proposal to put them on the same footing as other Judges as regards salary; but he contended that it was contrary to every principle of legistion to recommend a great increase of salary, and the constitution of a great Court before they were sure the business of the Court would increase to an extent justifying such a course. A precedent for carrying out his proposal for postponement was to be found, in the conduct of their Lordships with reference to the Bankruptcy Bill introduced by Lord Westbury; they declined to create one of the Judgeships he recommended, on the ground that it was not clear he would have sufficient work to occupy his time. As to the introduction of a body of advocates learned in the civil law, he thought his noble and I learned Friend rather sanguine, because the greater part of the business of the Court would be ordinary common and: statute law. He quite approved, however, of the principle contained in the Bill, which proposed to bring into one Court the consideration of various descriptions of law; for he believed with Jeremy Bentham that every Court ought to administer all law.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said, that the business of the three Courts combined would be sufficient to occupy the whole time of the Judges. If those Courts were not fully occupied now, how was it that the Judges did not give their attendance at the Judicial Committee, where they were seldom seen, although they were qualified to sit there. The answer was that they would be glad to give their assistance if they had any spare time. His only desire was to see a good and useful Bill passed—one which would answer all the purposes intended—and he

  1011
  had no desire to press the measure on the House without sufficient information. He had not the slightest objection to act on the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend, and would accordingly, after the second reading, consent to the postponement of the Committee.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL.
(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL.

  (NO. 9.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  LORD CAMPBELL: My Lords, the notice I have given will at once convey to your Lordships the intention to raise the only question on the Bill which can divide opinion—namely, whether it ought to stand over the Nova Scotia General Election, as a large body of petitioners desire, or be hurried through the Legislature.
  My Lords, the noble Earl the Secretary of State, together with his Colleagues, no doubt deserves praise for having introduced the measure first into this House, as such a course was likely to advance its dignity and credit. But would that dignity and credit be maintained if no debate was tolerated on a subject which involves the fate of interests not to be surpassed, and territories hardly to be calculated; above all, if silence was imposed, and unanimity exacted, on topics which beyond our walls are variously agitated? On Tuesday the whole evening was consumed by speeches from official men in favour of the measure. On Friday the Committee came on at an hour which made discussion quite out of the question, The same thing occurred last night. By interposing now, I take the latest moment to advert to views which should have had a more effective organ; but which, if they were not adduced at all, the injurious conclusion might perhaps be drawn, that great measures ought not, until they have passed the other House, to be submitted to your Lordships.
  My Lords, the Nova Scotian claim, endorsed by 30,000 persons, is founded mainly on a circumstance which has not yet been even hinted to your Lordships. And yet it is not doubtful or unknown, since, in the course of the vacation, it was
  1012
  referred to in a published letter by so conclusive an authority as the Under Secretary of the Colonies. A series of events has taken place in Nova Scotia on the franchise. The old 40 s. freehold having been deserted as a basis, innovations were adopted which led on to universal suffrage. Universal suffrage called into existence the assembly by which the resolution to empower delegates was carried. It involved so much corruption as to lead to its repeal. The next General Election will be held in May, under the amended system which experience has prompted. The question is not, should a great intercolonial scheme affecting Nova Scotia be referred from the Assembly to the people; but should it be determined by a body whose foundation is condemned when the delay of weeks might ascertain the judgment of a body whose foundation is unquestioned.
  My Lords, the authority of Mr. Pitt has been advanced to show that Parliaments may join kingdoms without consulting the electors. On a point so abstract, Mr. Pitt was not unnaturally led to favour the solution by which his policy was vindicated. Locke, in an essay, has maintained the opposite opinion. But, granting the doctrine of Mr. Pitt to have been sound, and that of Locke to be mistaken, Mr. Pitt never ventured to maintain that an Assembly, whose essential principle had been recently discarded, ought to be permitted to cast into new and foreign combinations of existence the society it governs with a contested right and an invalidated efficacy. Neither philosophers or statesmen as yet have countenanced the principle. The power by which the Resolution was adopted is not the power to which Nova Scotia wishes to confide its destiny and government. Are they not entitled, on a matter which affects name, dignity, existence, commerce, and defence, to appeal from a system their intelligence rejects to a system their intelligence has chosen? But, my Lords, beyond this, the facts are not such as to imply, even on the part of the Assembly whose verdict would be so far from unimpeachable, a clear decision for incorporating Nova Scotia in the project now before us. The Bill is founded, I believe, on what is termed the Quebec scheme of 1864. When the Resolution, which alone engages the Nova Scotian Parliament, was in debate, its whole tenor, as our papers show, were against that project. The Leader of the Government was

  1013
  understood distinctly to renounce it. Our lights, indeed, may be imperfect upon this part of the subject, and I will not dwell upon it. But one thing is clear, the preamble of the Resolution comes before us in full and perfect authenticity. The preamble lays down the expediency of confederating British North America. But the decision of Prince Edward's Island, and Newfoundland, have been fatal to that object. It is one line of conduct for Nova Scotia to become combined with British North America, and another line of conduct for Nova Scotia to become isolated, or, at least, divided from the maritime dependencies. The conference at Quebec, in 1864, grew out of a conference at Charlotte Town, in Prince Edward's Island, of which the purpose was to combine the latter colony with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The original impressions from which the Resolution gradually sprung, would therefore now appear to militate against it. The whole history of the movement to unite the maritime dependencies, affords a fair presumption that Nova Scotia would not willingly, or without long deliberation and much division, separate her fate from that of the communities to which she had been so long and uniformly gravitating. We cannot, therefore, be surprised at the appeal which has been made, or the petitions which support it. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Normanby), who has lately governed Nova Scotia, in an interesting speech, and in a warrantable manner, has endeavoured to throw doubt on the reality and power of the movement he referred to. He attributes 30,000 signatures to the machinery and eloquence exerted to obtain them rather than to any genuine conviction in the body of the people. Remarks, such as the noble Marquess made, might bear on any agitation at any time, in any country, and they have too large a sweep to be conclusive for their object. On what refers to Nova Scotian opinion, it would be presumptuous in me to controvert the noble Marquess. But the task has been already done by one more qualified to meet him. If the noble Marquess is disposed to reduce the agitation to a shadow, the noble Earl the Secretary of State enhances its importance. The noble Earl insisted that, if the limited delay in question was conceded, the whole scheme would be defeated. My Lords, by whom and what would it be in such a case defeated? It would not be by Canada, or by New Brunswick, to whom no refer-
  1014
  ence is called for, and whoso opinion is pronounced, but by the Nova Scotian movement, numbers and convictions of which the noble Marquess questions the existence. My Lords, I cannot but think the noble Earl the Secretary of State has been too prodigal in his admission. Looking to the evidence before us, I cannot take advantage—at least not to the full extent—of what he liberally offers. The appeal to the legitimate constituency might evidently bar the accession of Nova Scotia to the project; but wishing to avoid exaggeration—even when an adversary on the immediate question sanctions and invites it—I cannot go so far as to maintain it would inevitably do so. I will not lay down, what the noble Earl in substance has advanced, that the General Eleci on which he fears would be quite certain to restrict Confederation to New Brunswick and to Canada. I do submit that we are bound in justice to appeal to it unless some Imperial necessity forbids us so to do. My Lords, if that necessity existed, we all know that it would have its origin in Canada. We know, also, that the noble Viscount (Lord Monck), who has just crossed the wintry Atlantic to enlighten the House upon the Bill before us, would never have omitted to explain it in his speech on Tuesday last. He did not point to such an exigency, either as regards the vulnerable frontier or the party complications of the colony he governs. Men of Parliamentary ability may sometimes lose command over a portion of their argument; but this essential link would never have escaped him. The noble Viscount did, indeed, remark that one central Legislature was better framed than four or five dispersed assemblies for the purpose of defence; but he certainly did not suggest that such a central body might control the operations of an army; and if he did, would scarcely recommend it to our confidence. The only military writers who have gone into the question of how far Confederation would increase the strength of British North America are two officers of artillery named Weber and Bolton, stationed in the garrison of Halifax, as well-informed as they had every reason to be impartial on the subject. The conclusion they support with masterly acuteness is that no further power of defence would accrue to these dependencies from a project which neither adds to population, or revenue, or to strongholds, which does not multiply armed men or bring new mili-

  1015
  tary genius into action, or mass together troops which would be otherwise divided. No exigency, therefore, to which this measure would respond is stated to exist as a reason for anticipating the Nova Scotian General Election. My Lords, if no exigency is in the way of an appeal to it, can it be said that no policy imposes and requires it? My Lords, unless I thought it did so I should not have come down to this House to-night, and still less have ventured to address it. The real issue—looking to Imperial security—which facts bring before us, has not been yet suggested to your Lordships. It is not whether British North America ought to be combined, but whether of the two combinations which will come into existence, the Canadian and the maritime, Nova Scotia ought to be attached to the latter or the former. My Lords, we must depart from general ideas, and weigh the very situation which presents itself before us. Prince Edward's Island and Newfoundland have declined to join the Confederacy. If they eventually resolve on joining it Nova Scotia is nearly certain to share their resolution, and the question is disposed of. To hurry Nova Scotia in that direction is superfluous. But if Prince Edward's Island and Newfoundland persist in keeping out of the Canadian or Continental system which invites them, the issue plainly is, with which of the two divisions ought Nova Scotia, for Imperial advantages and objects, to be blended, And that question can only be determined by referring to another—namely, whether or not, looking to the future, the retention of Nova Scotia may be important to the Empire. My Lords, that question opens large considerations, which I have no desire to approach, because it is enough to show the point to be a doubtful one in order to arrive at the conclusion that Nova Scotia ought not to be violently urged, against intelligible claims, into the Canadian system of the two which British North America exhibits. Arguments may be used to show that Nova Scotia ought to be eventually abandoned, and arguments to show it ought to be eventually retained. On the one hand, it might divert a portion of our naval force from objects more important. It must, like Aden, Malta, Gibraltar, augment the national expenditure. On the other hand, in wars with France and the United States it has been found essential as a basis. Its geographical position ren-
  1016
  ders it defensible. Bermuda, wanting coal, could never possibly replace it. If these considerations are only difficult to balance, if no maturity of judgment on them has been reached, they would suffice to prove that no step is wise which tends to pre-determine the detachment of Nova Scotia from our colonies. But how would this step do so? My Lords, it will not be denied that when Nova Scotia is attached to the system which the Bill creates it will most likely share its destiny and movement. It would scarcely be possible to break the artificial unity we now propose to organize. Is that unity itself without a germ of separation from the Empire? Is not a centrifugal direction, if not a centrifugal velocity, imparted to it? My Lords, I am led to think there is, without at all impugning it as regards Canada and New Brunswick, from a few circumstances which cannot fail to strike us. The new system will have a magnitude not much in harmony with the character of a dependency. Its type—that of federation—will be one under which dependencies have not as yet, I think, in any age been governed. But the language of the noble Earl the Secretary of State is still a graver omen of the future. The noble Earl has spoken of a new Power qualified to exist by the United States in dignified equality. But to let your Lordships see more fully the grandeur of the national conception he has formed, he added that Russia would hardly stand in a higher order of communities. I neither blame the calculation or repudiate the policy; but I submit to this House that, until we are prepared to surrender Nova Scotia, with the harbour, the garrison, and depot it affords, it ought not to be abruptly and harshly plunged into a system over the destiny of which so little practical control appears to be anticipated by its founders. My Lords, I am perhaps exposed to the remark that Nova Scotia ought not to be incorporated in the scheme, if my view is just, whatever be the verdict of the General Election. But on questions of this kind it is allowed that colonial wishes and Imperial advantages should weigh together on our policy. Reproach will scarcely fall on individuals because they ask for less than argument would warrant. It would rather descend on Governments who resist a limited demand when policy would vindicate a more unqualified concession. A more unhappy moment could not be selected for sending

  1017
  the Bill to the other House of Parliament, unless the avowed object is to bar deliberation and make a chorus to repeat the statement of a Minister, or tribunal to register the edicts of his office. Distracted by a prospect which affects its own existence, the House of Commons cannot give its mind to British North America. I well know that the noble Earl the Secretary of State will be deaf to this consideration. He has now embarked on a career of irresistible velocity—
  "Fertur equis auriga neque audit currus habenas."
  But I do venture, in no factious spirit and for no factious end, to appeal a single moment to his Colleagues, and to ask them whether I have at all misstated the events as regards the Nova Scotian franchise. Is the principle unsound that when the basis of a Parliament is seriously changed the amended system should determine questions vital to the people? Are we prepared, on military grounds, to part with Nova Scotia? Has the Bill, as it now stands, no tendency to separate it? Is it, therefore, a judicious course to repel the constitutional, the legitimate, and moderate demand that the verdict of the General Election in Nova Scotia should be listened to? When ought justice to control and generosity to influence if not when interest is dark and policy uncertain? When ought a scrupulous, a liberal and high-minded path to be adopted by a State if not when every other path is full of insecurity? The colonial measures of the Government will be scrutinized with more than ordinary rigour. The course of hurrying this Bill with unexampled haste through both the Houses, in order to defeat a claim which cannot be refuted, and to accelerate a loss which ought, at least, to be delayed, will never gain the approbation of posterity, even if in the distracted and heated times in which we live it should by any chance escape the censure of the public. The noble Lord moved that the Bill be road a third time that day month.
  An Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Month.")—(Lord Campbell.)
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: Considering how fully I trespassed on the patience of the House some days ago in respect to this subject, I do not think it will be necessary for me to go into all the arguments and precedents referred to by
  1018
  the noble Lord opposite, more especially as the larger proportion of the topics I dealt with on that occasion are identical with those brought forward by the noble Lord this evening. It is right for me to say at once that it is utterly impossible for me to agree to the Motion of the noble Lord for two or three reasons, which, I think, the House will at once admit to be conclusive. In the first place, the delegates who are at present in England, to the number of fourteen or sixteen, are gentlemen accredited by their own local authorities—they are the heads of opposite parties, or are the chiefs of important departments; they have been detained long in England awaiting the negotiation and passing of this measure, at great personal inconvenience to themselves, and, I must also say, to the great public inconvenience of their respective localities. I therefore greatly object to Parliament now, without any real and valid reason—and I can hardly admit that any such reason has been urged this evening—detaining these gentlemen for a fortnight or a month longer. And then as to the question of these 30,000 petitioners. We have never had any explanation as to who these petitioners really are. I believe the population of Nova Scotia is upwards of 250,000. Now, I am willing to take it as a fact, on the word of the noble Lord, that 30,000 of these are petitioners against this measure, but I must say that the evidence of that fact is wholly wanting. I understand that a petition has been presented in "another place;" but no petition whatever against this measure has been presented to your Lordships; and this House, therefore, is in no way cognizant of this petition. There are, indeed, various petitions in the blue book, which I laid upon the table of the House some time ago; but I found, as I stated when this Bill was read a second time, that all those petitions, one only excepted, were signed by the chairmen of the meetings, no statement being made either as to the number or the character of the petitioners on whose behalf they were signed. Then the noble Lord has founded an argument on the circumstances of some recent alterations in the franchises of Nova Scotia; but really, if this House is to go into all the intricacies and details of colonial government there can be no end to the matter. Such a course would have the effect of raising questions on every clause of the Bill. The House has simply to ascertain who are the

  1019
  constituted authorities of Nova Scotia, whom we are bound to listen to, and whose opinion we are bound to accept. Now, what have they said? In 1861 the then Parliament of Nova Scotia passed a Resolution in favour of Confederation in general terms. In 1863 that Parliament was dissolved, and a fresh Parliament was elected, and is in existence at the present moment. Well, it was only in June last that that Parliament came to a distinct Resolution in favour of Confederation—a Resolution as distinct as words could express it. That Resolution empowered certain gentlemen to proceed on their behalf to England to negotiate with Her Majesty's Government the terms of a measure to carry that vote into effect. These accredited envoys were accordingly sent, and the terms have been negotiated and embodied in this Bill. It appears to me that it is not competent for us to look behind that vote of the Nova Scotian Parliament, and to inquire what other parties may be in the colony, and under what circumstances the colonial local authorities and Legislature were elected. If responsible government means anything it means this—that you not only give to a colony free institutions, and enable the inhabitants to elect their own Parliament, but you also undertake, in matters of colonial policy, to deal only with that colony through the legally constituted authorities. Any other view of the case would lead us to endless difficulty. The fact is that in all oases like the present there must be a certain amount of opposition. The measure might be the most perfect that could possibly be framed; but, looking to the state of colonial society, there must be inevitably a certain number of dissentients. The noble Lord opposite says, "Delay this measure for another month in order to give time to the Nova Scotian Parliament to expire by the natural efflux of time, and see what the opinion of a fresh Parliament will be." Now, if I mistake not, the Nova Scotian Parliament expires in June, and the Canadian Parliament in July. Therefore, if you postpone this measure to June, you must also, in common fairness, again postpone it till after July, in order to give the Canadian Parliament an opportunity to express their opinion also. If this were done I would ask the House at what time it is likely that the measure would return to us, and in what shape it would return? The truth is that this measure has been
  1020
  brought about only at the sacrifice of great personal and local interests; and when I reflect how great that sacrifice has been, I feel quite astonished at the result which has been attained. A great responsibility would rest on Parliament in this country if they deliberately invited opposition to the measure by remitting the subject again to the colony, and stirring up every dissentient person to come forward and agitate the question. I do not say that this measure is a perfect one, for it is impossible that it could be. There are defects in it, no doubt; but, at the same time, the enormous advantages of the measure so completely outweigh its imperfections that I have no hesitation whatever in pressing it upon Parliament, and in urging that it may be speedily passed into a law. For these reasons I do not feel it my duty to accede in any way to the request of the noble Lord opposite. The Bill passed through the second reading in this House without any substantial objection being made to it, and I trust it will also be allowed to pass through the other House of Parliament.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, in explanation, that he had never advocated a further reference to the Assemblies of Canada or of New Brunswick. He did not even think it would be essential to refer to that of Nova Scotia, which would soon be called into existence. The language and the indications of the General Election might alone suffice to point out whether Nova Scotia should be incorporated in the scheme, or left in the position of Prince Edward's Island and Newfoundland.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn: Then the original Motion was agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly: Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.