Lords Sitting of 15 June 1874

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod (No. 111).
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Militia Law Amendment* (110).
Second Reading—Statute Law Revision (77).
Committee—Public Worship Regulation* (96); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* (37).
Committee—Report—Magistrates (Ireland) and Commissioners of Dublin Police Salaries* (86).
Report—Church Patronage (Scotland) (95–113).
Third Reading—India Councils* (79); Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* (52), and passed.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.

  (NO. 77.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he would take the present opportunity of asking their Lordships' attention for a few moments to the progress that had been made in

  1567
  the revision of the Statute Law of this Kingdom, and, as incidentally connected with it, to the question of the codification of the unwritten law. In 1868, when he had the honour of holding the office which he now filled, a Commission was appointed to publish a revised edition of the Statutes of the Kingdom down to that year. The public were under an obligation to the gentlemen who had undertaken that somewhat laborious task for the way in which they had been discharging it since the day of their appointment. Down to the present time five volumes of that revised edition of the Statutes had been published. They included the Statutes down to the year 1824. The revision proceeded on the principle that only the Statutes now in force should be published in the revised edition; but, in order that there might be no mistake as to what Statutes remained in force after the publication of this edition, there was published pari passu with it a series of Acts repealing the Statutes which had been spent, or had become obsolete. Their Lordships would see that they had not merely the word of the Revisers as a security that the Statutes included in the volumes were the only ones on the Statute Book up to the date of those volumes; but the spent and obsolete Acts were actually repealed, and lists of the repealed Acts were published at the same time as the revised Statutes. In illustration of the extent to which the revision had already been accomplished, he would state that the five volumes of Statutes already printed had superseded 43 volumes of the 8vo., or 26½ volumes of the 4 to. editions of the Statutes. With the Statutes would be published a chronological table and a complete Index of the Statute Law. The first edition was down to 1870, and the second to 1872. He now asked their Lordships for a second reading of the Statute Law Revision Bill of this year, by which it was proposed to repeal all Acts that had become spent or obsolete down to 1837 and had not yet been repealed. The sixth volume of the Revised Statutes would bring down that work from 1824 to 1837, and the expurgation would be continued from 1837 to 1868. As the Revisers got into more modern times they did not get rid of so many Statutes, and to bring the work down to 1868 nine or ten volumes more would be required. It
  1568
  was proposed that the Index should be kept up as an Annual Index, so that anyone who purchased it could have an Index of the whole of the Statute Law down to the end of the last Session of Parliament. It had become of importance now, when we were dealing with the subject as a whole, that there should be a consolidation of the Statutes of the present Reign, and it was proposed that next Session a Bill should be brought in for that purpose. With such a consolidation and the revision now being effected, the country would possess a perfect edition of the Statute Law down to 1868, in about 15 volumes. There would remain, however, a work of difficulty and importance—the codification of the unwritten laws. On this subject various proposals had been made. He thought that a great deal of the difficulty had arisen from endeavours to embrace in the codification the Statute Law as well as the unwritten Law. In his opinion a codification of the Statute Law would be almost impossible. What we wanted was an expression of the unwritten or Common Law. He hoped, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, at the beginning of next Session, to make a proposal for such a codification. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL—(Nos. 96–13.)
(The Lord President.)
CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL—(Nos. 96–13.)

  REPORT OF THE AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that in pursuance of the understanding he had come to on a previous occasion with his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) as to the constitution of the elective body, he now proposed, in Clause 3, page 2, fine 7, after ("communicants") to insert ("and others aforesaid") and in Clause 7, after the word ("communicants") to insert ("and other members of the congregation qualified in terms of

  1569
  this Act,") and at the end of the clause to add this Proviso—
  "Provided always that if any communicants or other members of the congregation of a vacant church and parish, qualified in terms of this Act, shall apply to the presbytery of the bounds, and shall state that the number of communicants and other members of the congregation of such church and parish, qualified as aforesaid, is less than 25, it shall be lawful for the said presbytery, if they see fit, to make an appointment tanquam jure devoluto on the expiration of three months after the vacancy has occurred."
  Amendments agreed to.
  Further Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 113.)

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL. (No. 62.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
Committee (on Re-commitment).
House again in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order).
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, who had given Notice of new Clause to follow Clause 22:—
"And whereas with regard to the following acts relating to public worship in the Church of England, namely,

1. The side of the table at which the minister ought to stand during the prayer of consecration in the Communion Service;

2. The use of the words of administration of the Holy Communion otherwise than separately to each communicant;

3. The use of hymns during divine service;

4. The celebration of Holy Communion during the time of evening service;

5. The preaching of sermons otherwise than as a part of the Communion Service;

6. The daily use of the Morning and Evening Service;

7. The use of the Commination Service,

doubts have been entertained as to the construction of the rubrics applicable to some of such matters, and it is not desirable that the clergy and laity of the said church should be disquieted by litigation as to any of such matters, be it enacted, that no proceedings shall be taken under the provisions of this Act on account of such matters, or any of them; provided that as regards hymns the hymns used shall not have been prohibited by the ordinary, and shall not be used at a time prohibited by the ordinary; and that as regards daily Morning and Evening Service this enactment shall not apply in any case in which the ordinary shall have directed daily service to be used in any particular church,"
said, he wished, before stating to their Lordships the course he intended to take with regard to the Amendment standing in his name, to say a few words as to the precise scope of that Amend-
1570
ment, and what were the real objects he had in view when he gave Notice of it:—because it appeared to him a considerable amount of misapprehension as to that scope and as to his object prevailed not only out-of-doors, but, as he ventured to think, in that House. He did not think that arose from any want of clearness in the terms of the Amendment, because they were very precise, nor from anything in the masterly and statesmanlike speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on going into Committee, in which he had stated the exact aim and precise limits of his proposition. The scope of the Amendment was this—that, as regarded certain transgressions of the rubrics, no proceedings should be taken "under the provisions of this Act" against any clergyman who should have been guilty of those transgressions. His Amendment was strictly limited to "proceedings under this Act." His object was this. It appeared to him that under the provisions of this Bill as originally proposed, there might be a considerable amount of unnecessary and merely vexatious litigation; and in order to prevent clergymen from being disquieted for practices which they had observed in laxer times, he was anxious that the sharper powers of this Act should not be put in force against such clergymen by spiteful persons. He did not propose that no penalties whatever should attach to those who transgressed the rubrics. He did not propose that, because it appeared to him that if a statute of the Imperial Parliament provided that no penalty should attach to the transgression of a certain rubric that statute would completely repeal the Act of Uniformity, so far as regarded that rubric, and if a statute might do away with the coercive jurisdiction of the Church as regarded one rubric, it might do away with it in the case of all the rubrics; and thus Parliament by an Act repealing all penalties for breaches of the Prayer-book might set aside the use of the Prayer-book altogether. What he proposed was this—that when the Bishops of the Church, who were responsible for the observances of the rubrics, said they had not power to enforce the law, and applied for a more summary process, infraction of certain rules, rubrics, and canons was not to be dealt with under this pro-

1571
cess. He did not propose to legalize any breach of rule, rubric, or canon. The effect of his Amendment would be, as regarded the matters specified in his Amendment, to leave every clergyman guilty of an infraction in exactly the same position as that which he would have occupied if this Bill had not passed. He had been accused of the wicked sin of legalizing what the Church did not legalize, and he had been warned that a consequence of his sin might be the secession of members from the Church. The fact was his Amendment would not legalize anything; but it would prevent persons from carrying on a war of reprisals for transgressions of rubrics which had occurred in the interregnum of a laxer administration of the law. The difference between proceedings under the ordinary Ecclesiastical Law and proceedings under the Bill as it was when introduced would have been similar to that between ordinary process and summary jurisdiction in civil law. He had now to consider whether he would proceed with this Amendment or not. The first consideration was that the Bill was now by no means the same Bill as when he gave Notice of his Amendment. Their Lordships had declined to create a number of small Diocesan Courts, in which there would have been a cheap and speedy, if not perhaps a perfect, administration of justice. Instead of such tribunals, there was to be one great Court, and one Judge. Then, the Bishops were to have a discretionary power; and there was to be a wholesome sedative to vindictive proceedings in the shape of security for costs. All these things lessened to a great degree the necessity for his Amendment—in fact, the same necessity for the Amendment no longer existed. Again, he had been favoured with a great many communications from all parts of the country on the subject of his Amendment, which had given rise to an excitement he had little expected. He found from these communications that there was a very general concurrence of opinion in favour of Excipienda; but when he came to the question of what should be the Excipienda he found no such concurrence. Each clergyman wished that there should be Excipienda in favour of the practices in which he himself indulged, but that there should be none for those of his neighbour.
1572
Everyone was equally anxious to be himself excepted from prosecution, and equally jealous of the power of prosecuting his neighbour. While all were for peace and a neutral ground, none were agreed as to what should be the terms of peace and what should be the neutral ground. This being so, and considering the alterations made in the Bill, the Amendment did not appear to be now necessary. If a clergyman said—"I will be prosecuted, and no one shall interfere to prevent a prosecution against me," he was unwilling to step in to save him. Another reason had operated to induce him to withdraw the Amendment. It was that he found his list of Excipienda much extended by Notices given by noble Lords, and he began to fear that it might be made much longer in the other House. One noble Earl had given Notice of an Amendment to include the use of the Athanasian Creed—a proposition which would have had his strenuous opposition. Another noble Lord desired to have the Service for the Visitation of the Sick included, though that Service formed no part of the Public Worship of the Church. This Bill applied only to acts done in churches and churchyards, and he had never heard of the Service for the Visitation of the Sick being recited in either. He shrank from making the subjects of some of these Amendments topics of discussion in that House; but he trembled at thinking that they might become the topics of discussion in a House in which expressions might be much less guarded, and many of the Members of which were less well-affected towards the Church than were most of their Lordships. Then the question of time had its influence with him. At first he was in favour of postponing legislation on the whole matter; but the passion and panic existing at this moment had entirely changed his opinion on that point. From what he saw of the tempers which had been already elicited by this Bill, he confessed he did not think it would be safe or wise to wait for a year longer and run the risk of violent meetings and counter-meetings and demonstrations and counter-demonstrations in the meantime. Whoever would take such a responsibility upon him, he for one dared not do it. Even in the interest of that revision of the rubrics, which he hoped would soon come about, he was anxious to see the Bill passed this Session.

1573
Having now stated his reasons, he hoped that noble Lords who had been very severe on the indiscretion of Bishops would be of opinion that he was not making an unwise use of episcopal discretion when he declined to move the Amendment.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, that he did not question the discretion of the right rev. Prelate in withdrawing his Amendment, but he thought he should have given earlier Notice of his intention. Such Notice might have been conveniently given on Friday last, instead of which many noble Lords had come to the House this evening under the belief that the Motion, as it stood on the Paper, would come on for discussion. As the right rev. Prelate had given up his Amendment, the one of which he (Earl Stanhope) had given Notice would fall to the ground. His Amendment, it would be remembered, referred to the Athanasian Creed, which he (Earl Stanhope) desired to include in the list of cases, respecting the disuse of which no further controversy was to be raised. He retained his opinion that the compulsory use of that Creed in the public services was injurious to the best interests of the Church, and kept aloof from its pale many who might otherwise be anxious to enter it. Such being his view, he desired now to state that he should certainly bring on his Amendment in case the right rev. Prelate, or any other of their Lordships, should renew the Motion which had been announced for this evening.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYthought the right rev. Prelate had adopted a judicious course. His Amendment would have placed the Bill in the greatest possible danger. He now hoped that the Bill would go down to the other House and become law this Session.
EARL GREYmoved, after Clause 22, to insert the following clause—
"The following rules shall he in force with respect to the introduction of changes in the mode of performing Divine Service in churches:

"(a.) The incumbent shall make no change in the mode of performing Divine Service actually in use in any church till after he shall have given one month's public notice of his intention of doing so.

"(b.) If within one month after such notice shall have been given any of the parishioners shall present a memorial to the bishop of the diocese against the proposed change, it shall not be carried into effect until the bishop shall have had an opportunity of considering the subject.

1574

"(c.) If the bishop shall be satisfied that the objections urged against the proposed change are reasonable, he shall have power at any time within two months of the memorial being presented to him to issue a monition to the incumbent prohibiting him from carrying such change into effect.

"(d.) If any incumbent shall, without giving the required notice, change the mode of conducting Divine Service in use in his church, the bishop shall have power, on complaint being made to him by any of the parishioners, to issue a monition to such incumbent, warning him to revert to the mode of conducting the service in use before the alterations complained of.

"(e.) The bishop shall have power to enforce monitions under this clause by the same means as are provided by this Act for the enforcement of other monitions."

On Question? Resolved in the negative.
Clause 23 (Limitation of proceedings against incumbents) amended and agreed to.
Clause 24 (Archbishops shall frame rules, orders, &c.) struck out.
Clause 25 (Places exempt from the operation of Act.) The clause proposed to except from the operation of the Act, the chapels of the colleges and halls in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham; the University church of any of the said Universities when used by such University; and the chapels of the Colleges of Westminster, Winchester, and Eton.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHmoved an. Amendment, in line 41, to insert after "Eton"—
("Any private chapel, free chapel, or proprietary chapel.
"Any chapel coming under the provisions of section 31 of "The Public Schools Act, 1868," and section 53 of "The Endowed Schools Act, 1869."
"Any chapel coming under the provisions of "The Private Chapels Act, 1871."")
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDpointed out that there was a great difference between private chapels and proprietary chapels. The latter were under the Bishop, but his noble Friend might put up any ornaments he pleased in his private chapel; no one would have any authority in the matter. The noble Marquess' exception was therefore entirely unnecessary.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKbelieved the noble Duke had correctly stated the law, and that the service in a private chapel being for the use of the household, the Bishop had no authority over it. It was otherwise, however, with regard to proprietary chapels. The Act of 1871

1575
had been purposely so drawn as to enable private chapels to be used as public places of worship under certain restrictions, and he objected to their being excepted.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that they had in framing this Bill followed the Act of Uniformity as closely as possible. The act of consecration did not of itself make a place public for the public worship of the people. Proprietary chapels came under that Act because they were places of public worship.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, his recollection was that the chapel of the College of Westminster was mentioned in the Act of Uniformity, and he therefore doubted whether the provisions of this Bill would not apply to it. If the most rev. Prelate would say that the Bill should apply only to places of worship connected with the cure of souls, a distinct principle would be laid down which all could understand. The grievance which the Bill was intended to remedy would arise only in presence of a congregation who had no other place of worship to go to, and whose feelings would therefore be injured by the acts objected to. If this was not so—if Westminster Abbey was excluded from the Bill—he should like to know why Westminster should have an exemption which was not to be extended to St. Paul's? Was the Dean to be left to do anything he pleased—to read the Athanasian Creed, or not to read it at his pleasure?
LORD SELBORNEwished to know whether it was really intended that Westminster Abbey should be excepted from the Bill?
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, there was no intention whatever to except Westminster Abbey from the operation of the Bill, although it might be the chapel of Westminster School. The school might at any time be separated from the Cathedral and the chapel might then be distinct from the Abbey.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked whether Westminster School had no other chapel than Westminster Abbey.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that having had the honour to belong to Westminster School some 40 years ago, he could answer his noble Friend that Westminster School had no other chapel. The Abbey might therefore be called the chapel of the School of Westminster.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEunderstood it was intended to keep Cathedrals out of the Bill altogether—he should vote for that exclusion with his whole heart and soul.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, that on referring to the Act of Uniformity, he found that the chapel of the College of Westminster was mentioned in it.
THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNwould move that the chapel of the College of Westminster be excluded.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKproposed that the clause be postponed till the Report.
On Question, Whether the clause stand part of the Bill? Resolved in the Negative.
Clause 6 (Interpretation of terms.)
Amendments moved; some agreed to; others disagreed to.
Page 3, lines 3–5, moved to leave out—
("Or, if not resident as aforesaid, is owner or tenant of lands or tenements in the said parish.")—(The Earl Nelson.)
On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 23. Majority, 44.
Resolved in the Affirmative.
New clause added (Rules for settling fees under this Act.)
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 96.)

INDIA COUNCILS BILL.—(No. 79.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
INDIA COUNCILS BILL.—(No. 79.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, that as he was not present on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill, he wished to express his grave doubt as to whether the remedial measure proposed by the Government would effect its purpose. It was true that the original estimates of public works had occasionally been exceeded, but the revised estimates were the proper ones to consult. He complained that the Return obtained by the Government of the increase of ex-

  1577
  penditure over estimates for public works did not show the whole of the case. He was of opinion that the appointment of a public officer as Chief Engineer would not be advisable.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYconsidered that the measure was one which would tend to economize the money granted for public works in India, for not only had many barracks in India been built on insalubrious sites, but also, after a very large expenditure had been incurred, the construction had proved to be so faulty and defective that in several cases it had been necessary to repeat this expenditure. Such occurrences would be prevented by the proposed appointment of a responsible head of the Public Works.
  THE MARQUESS of SALISBURYunderstood his noble Friend to say that, in his judgment, there was no great evil to be dealt with, and that if there was, this was not the proper remedy. He was prepared to dispute both those propositions. His noble Friend had gone into the history of the appointment of the Finance and Legislative Members of Council, and proved, he hoped to the satisfaction of their Lordships, that before their appointment a very unsatisfactory state of things existed, and that after their appointment that state of things ceased. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) was prepared to show that there was now an unsatisfactory state of expenditure on Public Works, and it seemed a fair presumption that a similar effect would follow from similar causes. His noble Friend seemed very much to doubt whether the Returns laid on the Table were a fair exposition of the short-comings of the Department of Public Works. He did not dwell upon this topic when he last addressed their Lordships—it was not a pleasant subject to speak on. Those Public Works officers were men of very high ability; they did their work to the best of their power; and when they went wrong, his belief was that it was the system that was to blame, and not they. The criticism the noble Lord had passed on the formidable list of excesses would hardly bear examination. He said that what we ought to look at was the revised estimate, and if it was not exceeded no harm was done. But, what was a revised estimate? A work was begun on an original estimate, which might be very moderate; it went on for years exceeding the cost of the
  1578
  innocent original estimate; and at last when the Secretary of State called for a revised estimate, it was found to exceed the original estimate five or six times. A certain work bearing an honoured name furnished an illustration of this——it was the Ootacamund Lawrence Asylum; and Lord Mayo's Government had given a graphic account of what had happened in the case of that work. The original estimate was £18,000; the revised estimate was £112,000; and the work was not finished then. The actual cost to the end of 1872–71 was £88,455—an excess of £70,440 over the original estimate. The revised estimate on which his noble Friend relied was not produced until a great deal more than the original estimate had been expended. In fact, a revised estimate was a confession that the original estimate had been exceeded. The Duke of Argyll, writing on the 18th of December, 1872, in reference to the expenditure on a tank near Madras, of which the engineer was Mr. Fraser, said:—
  "It is apparently not so much himself as the system that was to be blamed. But if so, no condemnation can he too severe for a system, according to the ordinary routine of which it is possible for a project to be submitted with all the parade of detailed elaboration and of no less than 23 sheets of plans, for an expenditure thereon of 3½ lacs to be authorised on the assumption that the annnul return would be at least 9, and might be 20 per cent. and for the project to he, after an interval of three or four years, abandoned on account of its containing inherent defects that would inevitably cause the result of its continued prosecution to be, instead of high profit, heavy loss; yet not abandoned without more than £11,000 being-expended subsequently to the detection of the glaring and fatal defects. For that this is no exceptional case is clear from the fact of my having, within the last few months, found myself called upon to animadvert on similar heedlessness in the preparation of irrigation projects, in three several instances—those of the Moota Valley, the Madras Water Supply, and the Orissa Works, with regard to each of "which confident promises of signal financial success were at first held out, and of which one has already proved, and the other two threaten to prove, and long to continue, signal financial failures. There must plainly be something radically wrong in a system under which such results are of such frequent concurrence, and I must desire your Excellency's Government to give to the subject your immediate and most serious attention, with a view to the application of a proportionately radical remedy."
  The Duke of Argyll saw there was something radically wrong which required the application of a proportionately radical remedy. The late Lord Mayo, who had paid more atten-

  1579
  tion to Public Works in India than perhaps any other statesman had done, wrote to the Duke of Argyll on the 24th of August, 1869, and said:—
  "That you should then, early next Session, pass a short Act enabling the Secretary of State to appoint by Sign Manual 3, instead of 2, ordinary members of Council, with a view of nominating a person who would fill the office of Minister of Public Works. This step is, in my opinion, indispensable. I am now discharging with great labour the duties of the Member in Council in charge of the Public Works Department. I am very strong and can work 12 hours a day; but I have seen enough to know that the Member in charge of what is now becoming almost the most important department in the Government, ought to be able to devote his whole time and thoughts thereto—ought to have much special knowledge—and, moreover, should from time to time visit, with the Secretary to Government, the various great works in progress.'
  Independently of these high authorities it seemed reasonable that matters so technical as Public Works should be supervised by a person of special qualifications—quite as necessary as that military matters should be superintended by a man of military experience. As to the fear that the presence of an Engineer in the Governor General's Council would lead to an increase of expenditure on Public Works, the real danger of undue expenditure was not in the Council. The Financial Member would there state how much money he had to spend, the Public Works Member would be required to submit his estimate; and the Viceroy would have the absolute power to say, "You shall go thus far and no farther." The danger of extravagance was not inside but outside the Council; and the root of the danger was that there was no one person vested with responsibility and power and whose reputation was pledged to the furnishing of proper estimates and seeing that they were not exceeded. This Bill had in view a remedy for this defect—a remedy which was supported by the high authorities he had cited, and by the large excesses of expenditure which the Returns displayed. As to the supposed intrusion of the Public Works Member upon the provincial Councils, he did not fear that it would provoke jealousy. The truth was their relations with the Governor General's Council were, in diplomatic language, "somewhat strained"—especially in reference to Public Works; and his belief was that the visits of the proposed new Member would produce a better understanding in two days than
  1580
  two years' writing of elaborate despatches—especially with reference to irrigation works. The idea of interchange between the Councils of these Presidencies was a new one, which required reflection, and he therefore proposed to omit that clause from the Bill, leaving himself free to renew the proposal at a future period. With that alteration he believed the Bill would introduce order where there was now something slovenly and disorderly, and would have the effect of restraining excessive expenditure in Public Works. His noble Friend objected to diminishing the number of the Council in order to make room for the Public Works Member; but he (the Marquess of Salisbury) made that proposal in deference to the suggestion of the Viceroy. As to whether the number should be afterwards increased, he should be very much guided by the wishes of the Viceroy. His noble Friend had taken some objection to his conduct in not having taken the advice of his Council in this matter. But a high authority had stated to him to-day that it would have been illegal to do so. The Council was appointed for a special duty. It was no part of that duty to supervise the action of the Secretary of State in Parliament, and he did not think it would be a constitutional improvement to give them that position. The Members of the Council were not only a check on the Secretary of State, but in the administration of the Office were a great assistance to him. When any one of his Colleagues in the Cabinet was about to introduce a Bill, he would naturally consult his Under Secretary, but would not tell what the opinions of his Under Secretary were. It was the business of the Minister to introduce a Bill on his own responsibility, having taken in his own Office such advice as he might have thought fit; but it was not his business to tell their Lordships whom or how many he had consulted. He should have violated a salutary rule if he were to throw on others a responsibility which he should have taken on himself.
  LORD LAWRENCEwas understood to say that as he had been a member of the Council in India, and had been for 40 years well acquainted with the working of the Public Works Department in India, during 25 years of which he had had peculiar facilities for observation, he could not allow the Bill to pass without making a few remarks upon

  1581
  it. It struck him that as regarded the Return which had been laid on the Table of the House, there was something more to be said in favour of the Public Works officers than had been stated to the House. He did not think that many of the officers who had made the estimates referred to, were so much to blame as the noble Marquess seemed to think. He did not deny that the works had occasionally turned out to cost very much more than the original estimates. The Returns for 10 years from 1862–3 to 1872–3 were not a fair criterion of the cost of the works within those years. The estimates for the works mentioned in the Return between 1862–3 and 1872–3 could not be considered as a fair result for those works unless all the other works which had been constructed during those years were brought into consideration. It should be remembered that public works were often commenced in India under the greatest emergency, and that therefore the estimates were not sufficiently elaborated. Then he thought it would be found on examination that the great excess was in respect of the early irrigation works, when the engineers were not so well acquainted with the principles of hydraulics when applied to that description of works in India. It was impossible, in framing estimates, to take into account the dangers from accidents which often subsequently occurred through the overflow of rivers and the rush of waters from the mountains, which washed away bridges, embankments, and other works in a few hours. He mentioned these things to show that it was at times impossible to make original estimates which would prove reliable. These accidents did not occur through any fault of the present system. There was also also a great and peculiar work to be done during a period of years succeeding the Mutiny, and a number of the officers employed had had no special training for the work with which they were entrusted; and therefore it was no wonder that some of those works cost considerably more than the original estimates. Notwithstanding that, however, many of the works were well executed; and in other cases the officers learnt by experience. From the Returns for 1871–72 it appeared that, taking all the public works together, their cost had exceeded 3 per cent the original estimates. He thought that this was a very
  1582
  fair result. He admitted that there had been some grave mistakes made which required consideration; but he contended that the best way to remedy such errors would be to exact greater responsibility from the officers who committed them. If that were done, he believed very few errors would be committed. He desired to point out that the civil Members of the Council of the Governor General had been reduced by two. It was now proposed to have seven Members of that Council, and he feared that an increase of an additional Member would make the Council difficult to work and to control. Still, he preferred an addition to the Council rather than a reduction of one of the civil Members. He, however, believed that in the long run the engineer Member of the Council would make his influence unduly felt, and that there would be a greater expenditure on public works. It would be vain, he feared, to resist the Bill, but he hoped that its passing would be suspended until the India Office had received from the Governor General and his Council their opinion upon the subject.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNventured to confirm all that his noble Friend, the noble Marquess, had said in favour, not only of the advantage, but the necessity of efficient supervision of the Public Works Department in India. He spoke under the influence of five years' experience as Commander-in-Chief in India and as a Member of the Council of India. On the other hand, he quite agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Lawrence) that it would be wise to add another Member, rather than to displace one. The labours of the Council were so great that it could not afford to lose one of its present Members.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, 'till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.