Lords Sitting of 14 May 1878

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Bishop of Saint David's.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue*.
Second Reading—Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Dungarvan, &c.)* (65); Inclosure Provisional Orders * (64).
Third Reading—Bishoprics (70), and passed.

NEW PEERS.
The Right Honourable Gathorne Hardy having been created Viscount Cranbrook of Hemsted in the county of Kent—Was in the usual manner introduced.
The Right Honourable Sir Charles Bowyer Adderley, Knight Commander of the most distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, having been created Baron Norton of Norton-on-the Moors in the county of Stafford—Was in the usual manner introduced.

CATTLE DISEASES BILL—CORRESPON DENCE.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONasked the Lord President, Whether he would lay on the Table the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and foreign Governments on the subject of the Cattle Diseases Bill?
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, there would be no objection to the production of the Correspondence when the consent of foreign Governments had been obtained.

MILITARY FORCES OF THE CROWN— EMPLOYMENT OF INDIAN TROOPS.

  POSTPONEMENT OF NOTICE.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, he understood that Her Majesty's Government, in the other House of Parliament, had found it convenient to make an arrangement for the discussion of the question of Constitutional Law relative to the movement of troops from India to Malta being taken on Monday next. Under those circumstances, perhaps their Lordships would be of opinion—at least, he had reason to think that the opinion

  1855
  would be entertained by some on that side of the House—that it would be convenient that the discussion in both Houses should take place on the same evening; and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would see its way to allow the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, which stood first for Monday in that House, to be postponed to some other day, in order that the discussion on the constitutional question might take place in both Houses on the same day.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he would postpone the Bill referred to until Tuesday, in order that the discussion on the constitutional question might be proceeded with on Monday.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDsaid, he would take the present opportunity of asking the noble and learned Lord (Lord Selborne) whether, when calling attention to the constitutional question referred to, he intended to conclude with a Motion?
  LORD SELBORNEwas understood to say that it was no unusual practice of their Lordships' House to raise a discussion on a question without concluding with a Motion, and he did not intend to conclude with a Motion on the present question.

BISHOPRICS BILL—(No. 70.)
(The Lord Steward.)
BISHOPRICS BILL—(No. 70.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Steward.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY THE EARL OF ROSEBERY rose to move, as an Amendment—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, any necessity that may exist for additional Bishops should he met by an addition to the number of suffragan Bishops."
  The noble Earl said, that in moving his Amendment, he would not occupy the time of their Lordships more than was absolutely necessary. Their Lordships would observe that the proposition contained in his Amendment was not aimed at the principle of the Bill—it raised, on the contrary, a very simple question—simply a question between Bishops and Bishops. If their Lordships looked at the Bill, they would perceive that the Bill proposed one kind of Bishop, and
  1856
  his Amendment proposed another kind; and the few remarks he would make in support of his Motion would be more conservative than any, he thought, which would be made against it. In the first place, he must say that there were several objections against the Bill as it stood. The first was, that it was founded, he believed, on the theory that the population of this country was larger in proportion to the number of Bishops than it had been at any previous period. He ventured to question that—he thought it was a fallacy. It was, no doubt, correct to assert that the number of right rev. Prelates having seats in that House was not so great relatively to the population of the country as it was some years ago; but he ventured to say, on the other hand, that there never were so many Bishops as at the present moment. This might well be due to the cause that, as Christianity and civilization spread throughout the Empire, numerous and important Sees had been created. Many of those Sees, indeed, did not fulfil the conditions on which they were founded. Many of those which had been founded in the Colonies possessed a disagreeable climate and a disagreeable population, and did not invite a very prolonged residence. Consequently, there was a very great number of ex-Colonial Bishops—Bishops in partibus, as they might almost be termed—and his proposition was based on the consideration that there was an ancient and constitutional method of utilizing those of them who were still anxious to serve the Church, which was much preferable to the method proposed by the Bill of the Government. It was not only that there were at present so many Bishops, but that there were so many classes of Bishops. There were too many classes of Bishops already, but the Government were seeking to create a new class in addition. There were the Archbishops and the Bishops who presided over the Sees of Winchester, Durham, and London, who held seats in that House by virtue of their Dioceses. There were the other Bishops who had seats in their Lordships' House, and who were taken by rotation. There were next three Bishops who were Peers expectant, who would enter the House on vacancies occurring; and next, those four Bishops whom this Bill proposed to create—there

  1857
  would be, therefore, seven Bishops without seats in the House, and who would have to wait until a vacancy arrived for them to enter. There were, then, the large class of Colonial Bishops, or Bishops who had held Colonial Sees, but who were resident in this country. There was also the Bishop of Sodor and Man—a Bishop who stood alone, a recognized Bishop, but one who had no seat in that House; there were Suffragan Bishops, there were Coadjutor Bishops, and there were Bishops of the Episcopal Church of Scotland. He must, therefore, say, that he considered the Government would be doing a serious thing if they added a new class to the numerous and different classes of Bishops already existing in this country. But there was a graver objection than that. They were not only instituting a new class of seven Bishops, who would have no seats in that House, and who would have to wait for seats in it, but these Bishops would have no chapters or deans, and they would have reduced incomes. What would be the result of a comparison between them and the right rev. Prelates who did occupy seats in their Lordships' House? People would say that these Bishops, without chapters, without seats in that House, without large incomes, were quite as efficient as those who possessed those advantages, and would wish to see all Bishops reduced to the same level. He had assumed that these new Bishops were not to have deans and chapters. They were not to have them at first; if they were ever to have them, the expense would be greatly increased, and expense in this case meant delay. It was proposed to raise £14,000 a-year to endow a certain number of Bishoprics, and of that sum £12,000 must be raised by voluntary endowments. If that sum were capitalized, the amount could not be put at less than £300,000. This was a large sum. It was only the other day that a meeting had been held in the proposed Diocese of Liverpool, by far the wealthiest of the new Dioceses, and the greatest disappointment was expressed at the small result of the subscriptions for endowing the new Sees. It would, therefore, clearly appear, that to raise £300,000 by voluntary subscriptions in order to carry out the scheme of the Bill must tend to great delay. But, even supposing that the sum of £300,000
  1858
  was raised, a contrast would, no doubt, be drawn between the good which was to be got out of it compared with the good which would be done by adding to the income of the very large number of holders of benefices in this country who were in receipt of less than £200 a-year. The sum which they proposed to raise, with great labour and with long delay, for the endowment of the new Bishoprics, would, he maintained, double the income of 3,800 livings, which were below £200 a-year value, and so enable their incumbents to maintain themselves and their families in decency and comfort. Therefore, he could not see that, even looking at this question in a Church point of view, their Lordships had any plea for dealing with it in the manner proposed by this Bill. At any rate, he conceived that the Government ought to bring forward some more weighty argument than they had yet adduced in support of the proposition that they should adopt this expensive process, and, in some respects, objectionable method, instead of adopting the ancient and constitutional means offered by the Statute Book. But not merely would this Bill be injurious to the Church—it would seriously impair their usefulness in this House. He would explain his reason for saying so. When this Bill was passed, they would have seven Bishops outside the walls of Parliament, but waiting their time for their admission to seats therein. Consider what this meant. The right rev. Prelate who had this evening taken his seat (the Bishop of St. David's) had to wait four years for his admission. He (the Earl of Rosebery) did not say that 28 years must elapse before the last of these seven took his seat; what he said was, that a considerable period must necessarily elapse before the junior Bishops could succeed to seats in that House; and that, therefore, they could not, in the ordinary course of things, obtain that experience of Parliament which made the bench of Bishops so valuable a constituent of that House. Why, then, were their Bishops to have no Parliamentary experience, which seemed to be so very desirable? Why should they not be able to take their seats as soon as possible after their elevation? He knew there was a large class of persons in this country who were anxious to see the law so altered, that the right rev. Prelates should be altogether

  1859
  relieved from their functions in this House. But there had always been one answer to that. It was, that the right rev. Prelates had supplied some of the greatest ornaments that ever sat in that House; and he hoped the most rev. Primate, who presided over the Province of Canterbury, would forgive him if he stated in his presence, that they regarded his Grace as one of their greatest ornaments. But the most rev. Primate had had great Parliamentary experience, for he had been 22 years in their Lordships' House. The late Bishop Wilberforce, one of the most eloquent Parliamentary speakers of his time, was in that House for 27 years. Another ornament of that House—the late Bishop of Exeter—sat for the long period of 38 years He hoped that would not be regarded as a reflection on the most rev. Bench, when he referred to their ages. The Archbishop of Canterbury was 45 when he came into this House. The Archbishop of York, also one of their most effective orators, entered at the age of 42, and Bishop Wilberforce at the age of 40. These right rev. Prelates came in the prime of life, and, therefore, were enabled to acquire all the advantages of Parliamentary experience. Then there was the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough), who, he regretted, was not present. Supposing he had been the junior of these seven Bishops, and a vacancy had occurred every 18 months, he would not yet have sat in that House, and the House would have lost the most eloquent speeches of the last 10 years. Even the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Redesdale), who was not at all a revolutionary person, must have seen the danger which lurked in this Bill; for he brought in, after its introduction, one of the most desperate remedies ever submitted to the House. He proposed that every Bishop who had attained the age of 75 should be allowed to resign his seat in that House, while retaining his See. Well, when they found the noble Earl hoisting the red flag of revolution, and found him introducing a Motion which implied that a Bishop, although not fit to retain a seat in that House, might be still capable of presiding spiritually over his Diocese, their Lordships might take it for granted that the case was not a good one. The proposal he (the Earl of Rosebery) submitted in his Motion was,
  1860
  that they should have recourse to an Act passed in the reign of Henry VIII., for the institution of Suffragan Bishops. That Act happened to fit in exactly with the case in which they found themselves, and enabled them to have more Bishops for their population. He claimed that, as compared with the proposition of the Government, it was more economical, more efficient, more elastic, more immediate in its operation, and entirely unobjectionable in regard to the seats in that House. It stood to reason that an Episcopate of this kind must be cheaper, and he said it was more elastic and efficient; more elastic in this way—that they could at any moment use the machinery without coming to Parliament, and without raising all these questions and debates. He would here notice one objection which had been raised to his proposition, and it was this—They said that the proposition was all very well so far as it went, but that it did not go far enough; because there were only 26 towns mentioned in the Act of Henry VIII. which could give titles to Suffragan Bishops, and they were not situated in the regions where Bishops were wanted. In answer to that, he would suggest that it was not a legislative feat beyond accomplishment to bring in a Bill to add certain towns to those enumerated in the Act. For simplicity, they could find no method to be compared to that. But, further, the highest authority on this question—as he supposed—Sir Robert Phillimore, said—
  "There is no necessity at all that a Suffragan Bishop should take his title from any town in his own Diocese. He may take his title from either of the towns mentioned in the Act, whether connected with the Diocese or not."
  Therefore, the Act of Henry VIII. was amply sufficient. He said, then, that they required very strong grounds before passing by the machinery ready to their hands. He could not understand why anyone wishing to deal in a comprehensive way with this question should pass by the Statute—the 26 Henry VIII.—to which he had alluded. He had now stated briefly his objections to the Government scheme, and had set forth the recommendations of his own. The difficulty in regard to his own scheme was, that he did not know what to urge against the objections to it—when he could not understand that any objections existed. What he urged against the Government

  1861
  plan was, that it was calculated to injure indirectly the interests of the Church, and seriously to impair the efficiency of that House. On the other hand, he claimed for his proposal, that it was more elastic, efficient, and economical, and did not interfere with the seats in that House. He claimed for it that which, should recommend it to noble Lords opposite—namely, that it was the ancient, historical, constitutional way of dealing with the question. The Act of Henry VIII. was not obsolete; for under it, within the last 10 years, three Suffragan Bishops had been created. If the Primate and the Bishops of Lincoln and Winchester were prepared to say that the Suffragan Bishops of Nottingham, Dover, and Guildford had been failures, it might detract from his argument; but, in the absence of such a declaration, he had, he hoped, said enough to recommend his proposition to the unbiassed consideration of that House.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out all the words after ("that") and insert ("in the opinion of this House any necessity that may exist for additional bishops should be met by an addition to the number of suffragan bishops.")—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN: My Lords, I should not have ventured to trespass on your attention at this early stage of the debate, if I had not been in a position, from special and exceptional circumstances, to corroborate a great deal that has fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) in moving his Amendment, at the same time that I am constrained to dissent from his conclusions. I am emboldened, also, to crave your indulgence, because I am thus enabled to express publicly my sentiments of loyal and dutiful gratitude to the Crown for complying with the prayer of a Petition which was presented by me eight years ago; and which, I am thankful to remember, was cordially supported by the then Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) for the assistance of a Bishop Suffragan in the Diocese with which I am connected—the Diocese of Lincoln—under the provisions of the Act of Henry VIII., to which the noble Earl has referred. In consequence of that Petition, a Bishop Suffragan of Nottingham, in the Diocese of Lincoln, was appointed in 1870—the first Bishop Suffragan in England for more than 250 years. For a period of nearly eight
  1862
  years, the duties of that office were discharged in the most exemplary manner by my dear Friend and right rev. Brother, Bishop Mackenzie, to whose valuable services, in the name of the Diocese and my own, I feel bound, in your Lordships' presence, to bear a grateful and honourable testimony. And when, inconsequence of failure of health, he was compelled to retire from that office, I received from the noble Earl, the present Head of Her Majesty's Government, a generous assurance that the benefit of that assistance of a Bishop Suffragan would be continued to me. My Lords, I frankly and fully acknowledge the great blessings which the Church derives from the services of Bishops Suffragan. May I be allowed to illustrate this by an example? In the spring of this year the present Bishop Suffragan of Nottingham, Bishop Trollope, has been holding Confirmations in the county of Nottingham, while I have been engaged at the same time in confirming in the other county of the Diocese, the county of Lincoln. Each of us has thus confirmed about 2,000 persons. This could not have been done without a Suffragan. Pardon me, my Lords, for saying that in this way a great benefit has been conferred upon that Diocese. I do not merely refer to the spiritual blessings imparted in the Apostolic rite of Confirmation itself, but I speak of the benefits which arise before Confirmation in stirring up the parochial Clergy to prepare their young people for it, and which also arise after Confirmation in exciting them to prepare their young people for Holy Communion. Your Lordships will not, therefore, imagine that I depreciate and disparage the office of Bishops Suffragan. I go quite as far as the noble Earl in magnifying that office in its proper functions. But then, my Lords, I must beg leave to add that it is not adequate to the needs of the Church. And why? Because a Bishop Suffragan has no Episcopal jurisdiction. He cannot relieve the Diocesan, in the least degree, from the heavy burden of administering that jurisdiction. It greatly increases the amount of good work done in Confirmations; but he cannot provide any relief for the other anxious and arduous cares which press so heavily on Bishops as Diocesans, especially in a restless age like the present. My Lords, pardon a

  1863
  personal reminiscence. The Church of England has just sustained a very heavy loss. She has been deprived of the greatest missionary Bishop of the Anglican Communion—perhaps even of Christendom—in the present age, the Bishop of Lichfield, Bishop Selwyn. Nearly the last time I was present in your Lordships' House I was seated here at his side, and he then showed me, with honourable pride, a letter which he had just received from the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, announcing to him the royal recognition of his services as the great missionary Bishop of the English Church and of the British Empire, and nominating him to the distinguished rank and title of Prelate of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. The last time that I saw Bishop Selwyn on a public occasion was when he was decorated with the insignia of that Order. My Lords, it is not too much to say that if the present Bill for the increase of the Episcopate, which provides for the division of the Diocese of Lichfield, had been passed five years ago, Bishop Selwyn might probably have been spared to us. He might have been assisting at our deliberations to-night. Let me remind your Lordships that Bishop Selwyn had the advantage of two coadjutor Bishops—two Eton schoolfellows of his own—Bishop Hobhouse and Bishop Abraham—he had, we may say, the benefit of the assistance of two Bishops Suffragan. But, not with standing this advantage, he sank beneath the over whelming pressure of the labours of his enormous Diocese, containing a population of 1,300,000 souls. It may be almost said that he fell a martyr to his Episcopal work. Your Lordships will forgive one word of reference to the Diocese of Lincoln, which is also dealt with in this Bill. It is the largest in England in territorial area. It extends over more than 2,250,000 acres; it contains 800 benefices, and more than 1,000 Clergy. It is proposed in this Bill that it should be divided; that the county of Nottingham should be taken from it and be added to the county of Derby, withdrawn from the Diocese of Lichfield, and that a new Diocese should thus be formed. There can be no doubt that the Diocese of Lincoln, as well as that of Lichfield, ought to be divided; and I thankfully accept this Bill as an instalment in the right direction. At the same
  1864
  time, I venture to think that the important county of Nottingham ought to form a distinct Diocese by itself. Indeed, I should be glad to see English Dioceses, as a general rule—of course, there are exceptions—made conterminous with English counties. But I will not say more. For the sake, not only of the Church, but of society at large, which will derive great spiritual and moral benefits from a division of our larger Dioceses, let me entreat your Lordships to give your cordial assent to a third reading of this Bill.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that having, on the second reading, praised the then existing arrangement for the Diocese of Lichfield—before Bishop Selwyn's life was shortened by overwork—he might explain why he thought the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) unnecessary, and now gave entire support to this Bill. He believed that Suffragans might exist notwithstanding this Bill, as they did before; and having, in 1856, protested in favour of the re-institution of Suffragans, and desiring an increase of their powers, he might urge that the subscription of the large sums required for each new Diocese would prove the concurrence of its inhabitants in the necessity of each extension; and he hoped that the coadjutors, or separate Bishops, might have such powers as greatly to relieve the Bishops—whom they aided—from anxiety and overwork.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPcongratulated the noble Earl who had moved the Amendment on his industrious occupation of the Recess—so that, during his researches, he had discovered the Act of Henry VIII., and was now prepared to act upon it. But he must remind his noble Friend, that neither the state of the country nor the conditions of the population at present bore any relation to what they were in the reign of Henry VIII.; and, therefore, that the partial relief afforded by the creation of Suffragan Bishops at that day was not sufficient to meet the emergencies of the Church at the present. Those needs it was the object of the Bill the Government had introduced to supply. As to the regret of the noble Earl that the scheme for erecting the new See of Liverpool progressed but slowly, he had had a letter from a gentleman occupying one of the highest official positions in that town, which expressed the fullest confidence

  1865
  that the requisite funds would be raised in a very short time. In proposing this measure, Her Majesty's Government were not embarking on any idle or extravagant schemes. They had the experience of the Colonial Churches to guide them, by which it appeared that the most effectual method of organizing the Church and providing adequately for the Clergy was to establish a Bishop as the head of the organization, and that through his influence it invariably resulted that endowments were provided on a more liberal scale than where the Clergy were unsustained by direct Episcopal authority. It had been objected to their proposals that these new Bishops would have no deans and chapters, and that they would be without seats in the House. It was, no doubt, a misfortune that they were not in a position to provide deans and chapters for the new Sees, and that the new Bishops should not all have seats in their Lordships' House. The whole question was beset with difficulties and dangers, but the greatest difficulty and danger was in leaving things as they were. Those living among the dense masses of population which were comprehended within the districts affected must be convinced that benefit would result from the proposed scheme. Greater efficiency would follow from the development of the scheme. The principle of the Bill was to bring about a better organization in the Church; and, as that principle would be interfered with by the Amendment of the noble Earl, he felt bound to oppose it.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in reply, pointed out that there were already, without the passing of an Act of Parliament, in four Dioceses, no less than 13 official Bishops. He also observed that the noble Earl have not even touched on his arguments with regard to the bearing of the Bill on the House of Lords.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, it was not a question of increasing the number of Bishops, but of increasing the strength of the existing Bishops, who had not shown themselves capable of dealing with objectionable practices within the Church. Some time ago, the right rev. Bench met in Convocation, and condemned the practice of confession in connection with the Church of England; but when, last year, the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees,
  1866
  (the Earl of Redesdale) brought the question before the House, only three or four Members of the right rev. Bench condescended to be present. Since then, a very remarkable book had been made public by Dr. Pusey, which advocated confession; but he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) was not aware that the right rev. Bench had said anything against its teaching. He did not think that the people generally—however much some might be disposed to run after strange practices—were at all satisfied with the manner in which the existing Prelates governed their Dioceses, and they would not be anxious that their number should be increased until they saw something like unanimity on the part of the Bishops now existing, in putting the law in force against practices already pronounced illegal. In the present state of things, he felt sure that public opinion and the voice of the people, if it could be taken on the subject, would in no way sanction this Bill, and he should vote against it.
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 107; Not Contents 33: Majority 74.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Nelson, E.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Powis, E.

  Redesdale, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Manchester, D.

  Stanhope, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Verulam, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Cranbrook, V.

  Bristol, M.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Hertford, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hardinge, V.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Amherst, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Durham, L. Bp.

  Belmore, E.

  Ely, L. Bp.

  Bradford, E.

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Cadogan, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Coventry, E.

  Llandaff, L. Bp.

  Dartmouth, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  De La Warr, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Erne, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Feversham, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Fortescue, E.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Haddington, E.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Harrowby, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Jersey, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Airey, L.

  Mount Edgecumbe, E.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  1867

  Aveland, L.

  Hastings, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Bagot, L.

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Bloomfield, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Leconfield, L.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Clinton, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Norton, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Cottesloe, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Delamere, L.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Denman, L.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  de Ros, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Digby, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Selborne, L.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Forester, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Sondes, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Gordon of Drumearn, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Gwydir, L.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Hanmer, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Saint Albans, D.

  Chesham, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Foley, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Hammond, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Abingdon, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Granville, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Grey, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Lovelace, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Morley, E. [Teller.]

  Spencer, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.) [Teller.]

  Cardwell, V.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Truro, L.

  Abercromby, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Belper, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative; Then the said Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

NEW SOUTH WALES—COLONIAL FINANCE.

  QUESTION. ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, in rising to put the Question of which he had given Notice to his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, could
  1868
  assure their Lordships that, upon the present occasion, he did not intend to invite them to discuss upon their merits the differences which had lately arisen in the Colony of Victoria. But a question of wide constitutional importance, not confined to a single Colony, had been raised in the course of them—by no means for the first time—namely, when the public money was "legally available." The Constitution Acts of both New South Wales and Victoria, which instituted Responsible Government, and two Houses of Legislature, were passed in 1855. Public money was issued upon the warrant of the Governor. Therefore, Colonial precedents prior to 1855 were irrelevant. On the 18th December, 1857, the Commissioners of Audit in Victoria, having reason to believe that the Annual Appropriation Act would not have become law before claims upon the Treasury for 1858 would have become due and payable, requested the Colonial Treasurer to submit the following case for the opinion of the Law Officers, in order to satisfy their doubts upon the subject of their duty in the matter:—
  "The Audit Act, 21 Vic. No. 24, provides (Clauses 17, 18, 19) that no moneys, shall after the 1st January next, be issued from the Treasury, until the Commissioners of Audit or two of them, shall have countersigned a warrant addressed to the Treasurer. Before signing the warrant, the Commissioners are to ascertain that the sums included in it are legally available for, and applicable to, the service or purpose mentioned; they cannot sign unless such be the case; and without their signatures the moneys may not be issued. No moneys, therefore, are to be issued from the Treasury until the same are legally available. The question arises, whether the words 'legally available' imply, as would seem to be the case, that the Appropriation Act must have passed both Houses, and have become law; or, whether, on the ground of custom and precedent, the resolutions of the Assembly, duly agreed to by the House, but without the consent of the other branches of the Legislature, may be considered as making the money legally available for issue. Of course, the Governor's signature was finally necessary."
  At first, the Solicitor General (afterwards Mr. Justice Fellowes) was of opinion that the House should be consulted; but, on the 11th January, 1858, he gave a second opinion as follows:—
  "I think the resolutions of a Committee of Supply reported to, and adopted by, the House, make the amount 'legally available.' In point of fact, Votes of Credit were passed, and moneys issued on them in 1857, when changes of

  1869
  Ministers took place, and which, have never been questioned. It is, moreover, in accordance with the practice of the House of Commons."
  In the year 1858, the Commissioners of Audit submitted a case to the Attorney General; and it was out of this case, that his (the Earl of Belmore's) question arose. The Commissioners say—
  "The Commissioners of Audit are required, before certifying the warrants for the issue of money, to ascertain whether it is legally available. It has been the practice both in England and in this Colony, to issue money from the Treasury during the Session of the Legislature in payment for services voted in Committee of Supply, and agreed to by the House, the subsequent passing of an Appropriation Act in the same Session, making the supplies ex post facto, the Supplies authorized by law. The Commissioners were doubtful in how far this custom, which in England had prevailed for some centuries, had the force of law here."
  On consulting the Law Officers, they had received an affirmative reply as to the legality of the practice, and it had been continued. A further question had arisen as to Votes taken too late to be included in the Appropriation Act of the year, and upon this they required advice. The Attorney General (Mr. Chapman) admitted that in principle no grant of the Commons in England was effectual without an Appropriation Act. He said—
  "But in practice the rule was not observed; and if it were, the public service could not be carried on without a number of Appropriation Acts;"
  And, after some further remarks, and alluding to the case of the Dissolution of 1831, ended his opinion as follows:—
  "I suggest, therefore, to the Commissioners of Audit, that the rule observed in England in 1831 should, ex necessitate, be observed here. The greatest inconvenience to the public service, and oven a fatal disturbance to the public credit, might be the consequence of any other course."
  The Commissioners did not appear to have been quite satisfied with this opinion, or the one given in the same year by Mr. Fellowes, and the Solicitor General before quoted. They submitted a further case, based upon a memorandum by one of their number (Mr. Agg), who had observed that in England it was the custom to pass during the Session Consolidated Fund Bills and Exchequer Bond Bills, which contained a clause authorizing the issue and application of moneys. Mr. Agg could only find one case, and that so far back as 1784, in which
  1870
  money was issued without such an Act. The Commissioners, therefore, seemed to have come to the conclusion that in England the public money was issued only by express legislative sanction. The Attorney General, in his final opinion, took a different view of the nature and extent of the English Bills alluded to, and adhered to his former opinion. In March, 1859, Mr. Chapman gave an opinion in view of the possibility of Parliament separating without first passing an Appropriation Act, in which the following sentence occurs:—
  "In like manner, I think any sums voted in Committee of Supply and duly reported, may be paid according to the practice of Parliament, but they must be re-voted."
  This opinion was based on an English precedent, which occurred after the sudden Dissolution of Parliament in April, 1831. These opinions were apparently taken as unquestionable law in Victoria, until the year 1862. In the latter year, the Under Treasurer informed the Audit Commissioners, that in future it was intended to abandon this practice, and to pass, from time to time, Bills to legalize urgent expenditure in anticipation of the Appropriation Act; that an Act then before Parliament could not be passed in time to legalize some then pressing payments for which a warrant was inclosed, and that the warrant would be the last under the old practice. No further reason was given for this, than that the matter had been discussed in the House. The Auditors, in a reply of some length on the 29th January, 1862, stated that—
  "Hitherto guided by the decisions of the Law Officers of the Crown, we have considered money to be legally available when voted in a Committee of Supply, and duly reported to the Legislative Assembly; and, so far as our information extends, nothing has yet occurred to alter either the legal aspect of the question or our views in regard to it, and, consequently, it is not, as we conceive, competent for us to stop the practice hitherto in force. You will probably recollect that, in bringing this question under the notice of Parliament in our last annual Report, we stated our opinion that nothing less than the direct action of one or both Houses could alter the then existing practice; and we have reason to believe that that opinion was very generally concurred in by both the Legislature and the Government."
  After some further remarks, the Audit Commissioners said—
  "It is necessary, however, that we should state, in reference to the introduction of a Bill

  1871
  upon the present subject, as mentioned by the Under Treasurer, that the passing of the first Act, other than the usual Appropriation Act for giving validity to the Supply Votes of the Assembly, will, so far as we are concerned, settle the practice for the future; for such an Act will be a distinct declaration by Parliament that the money is not legally available for issue without the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament."
  The Commissioners, however, suggested that it would be well to ascertain if the public service could not be carried on without using the warrant in question; or whether the Legislative Council (the Upper House) could not be called together for the purpose of passing the Bill before the payments had to be made? In the following year a difficulty arose. Parliament had separated before the Governor had given the Royal Assent to a Bill legalizing certain expenditure. It appeared that in Victoria, unlike New South Wales, it was the custom for the Governor never to assent to a Bill except in the Parliament Buildings. Under these circumstances, the Audit Commissioners were requested to countersign a warrant drawn under authority of the Bill which had passed both Houses, but in anticipation of the Governor's assent. In a long paper, dated 6th July, 1863, they raised difficulties as to giving a certificate that the moneys were "legally available" for, or "applicable" to, the services in question. They thought they were not. As, however, they saw that the Treasurer, who was equally with themselves bound by the Audit Act, had signed the warrant, they asked, before coming to a final determination, to be further informed upon what grounds the money was considered issuable? They thought that —
  "Reliance should not be placed upon the English practice, as the form of the Appropriation Act shows that the Commons grant, and the Lords assent, to that measure; the concurrence of the Sovereign being also expressed in a form of words different from that in use on other occasions. But, under the written constitution of this Colony (Victoria), all three branches of the Legislature must unite in passing an Appropriation or other Money Bill, in the same manner as in the making of laws in general."
  They went on to give other reasons, and they even suggested the advisability of calling Parliament together in order that the Governor's assent might be given in what was held to be due form. It appeared, from a letter dated 6th August,
  1872
  1863 (on page 12 of the Correspondence), and also from an extract from Report of Commissioners of Audit for that year, that the latter did not, in the event, countersign the warrant until after the Bill had duly received the Governor's assent. In the year 1865, Governor Sir Charles Darling asked the Law Officers the following questions:—
  "Is not the 45th section of the Constitution Act in effect an appropriation of the amount of all coats, charges, and expenses incident to the collection, management, and receipt of the Revenue, such expenditure to be reviewed and audited as directed by the Legislature?"
  And, further on—
  "Is there any practical or legal difference between the words 'The Consolidated Revenue of Victoria shall be permanently charged,' and the words 'There shall be payable every year out of the Consolidated Revenue of Victoria?'"
  Sir Charles Darling, also, appeared to think that the 6th clause of the Civil Service Act had the effect of appropriating salaries. The Law Officers, Messrs. Higinbotham and Michie, in a long opinion, seem to have given an affirmative answer to the Governor; but they concluded it as follows:—
  "The above opinion is independent of, and does not dispose of the question, as to whether moneys to the credit of the public account are legally available to satisfy Votes of the Assembly prior to the passing of the Appropriation Act. We are of opinion that such moneys are 'legally available,' and they were always so treated till the Audit Commissioners, some time back, expressed an opinion that such Votes should receive, before being acted upon, the sanction of the entire Legislature; since which opinion of the Commissioners, the practice has been—but unnecessarily, as we think—to refrain from acting on these Votes until an Appropriation Act confirming them was passed."
  The present Attorney General of Victoria (Mr. Le Poer Trench), in an opinion, dated 24th January, 1878 (on page 5), states that he "concurs in the views of his predecessors as to when public money is legally available." He now must draw their Lordships' attention to what had taken place with reference to this matter in New South Wales, where he might say that this question was settled by the noble Earl opposite the late Foreign Secretary (Earl Granville) in a contrary sense to that contended for in Victoria; which ruling had, so far as he knew, been held to be decisive to this day. It appeared, that in the year 1860, the Legislative Council of New South Wales

  1873
  took objection to payments being made in anticipation of the Appropriation Act, and submitted to the Governor (Sir William Denison) the following Resolutions:—
  "(1.) That this Council proceeds to the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Appropriation Bill, upon the full understanding that this measure will not of itself involve a sanction or indemnity with regard to any portion of the illegal expenditure of public moneys which has avowedly been made by the Government since the passing of the last Appropriation Act.
  "(2.) That the mere coincidence of any items in the Appropriation Act with an antecedent unauthorized expenditure, is not alone in the opinion of this Council any ground of immunity to the persons concerned in thus violating the Law and the Constitution; and that even in cases where great public emergency can be pleaded in excuse, the illegality can only be properly condoned by a distinct Act of Indemnity, passed in due form by all branches of the Legislature.
  "(3.) That this Council, in further assertions of its undoubted rights as a branch of the Legislature, resolves, that for any person or persons whatsoever employed in the payment of public money, to pay or cause to be paid any sum or sums of money for or towards the support of Services, whether voted in any Session of Parliament or not, before the same be included in an Act of the Legislature, duly passed according to law, is derogatory to the Privileges of Parliament, and subversive of the Constitution."
  The 4th and 5th Resolutions were for an Address to the Governor, and for transmission of the Resolutions to the Secretary of State. Sir William Denison, in forwarding these Resolutions, pointed out that the principle affirmed in them was at variance with the practice which had prevailed in the Colonies. The Duke of Newcastle did not appear himself to have given any specific instructions; but he forwarded a copy of a correspondence with the Governor of New Zealand for the information of the Officer administering the Government—Sir William Denison having been on the point of leaving when he wrote his despatch. The only portion of this correspondence to which he had access did not bear upon the subject. The Duke of Newcastle trusted that the moderation and prudence of both branches of the Legislature would prevent a recurrence of the difficulty. When he (the Earl of Belmore) arrived in New South Wales, in 1868, he found that, although it was not then the custom to pay money upon the authority of Votes in Supply, but to pass temporary Appropriation Acts, as was done in Victoria
  1874
  from 1862, yet that the Votes of the Assembly itself were constantly being anticipated by Orders in Council. This seemed to him to be a very irregular practice; and the whole system which regulated public issues in New South Wales cast so much responsibility upon the Governor, without, at the same time, giving him an effective control, that he thought it advisable to ask the Duke of Buckingham to give him specific instructions in the matter. The Colonial Treasurer, although he claimed a constitutional right for the existing system, admitted that it was one that could not be maintained in a Court of Law. The Duke of Buckingham, in a despatch which was subsequently permitted to be published, instructed him, in effect, that such expenditure as he had called his attention to was illegal. But he thought that it might be justifiable on these grounds—namely, firstly, necessity; and, secondly, on the ground that it was sure to be subsequently sanctioned, joined to strong grounds of expediency, even though short of actual necessity. Not long after he received these instructions, a case occurred in which, owing to a pure accident, the Legislative Council adjourned to the 3rd of the following month, before a temporary Appropriation Bill for the payments due on the 1st of the month had reached it. He considered this just such a case as the instructions applied to, and he himself called the attention of the Executive Council to the matter; and, by their advice, issued his warrant as usual. He knew that the inconvenience to the Civil servants in not receiving their salaries would be great. Unfortunately, the Legislative Council took a different view of the matter from what he did, and they—in an Amendment to a Motion submitted to them—expressed their regret that such an irregularity had been permitted, and reaffirmed, and sent him their Resolutions of 1860. This, he believed, was the first he had heard of the Resolutions of 1860. He drew the noble Earl's (Earl Granville's) attention to the matter, which he explained to him. He told him that, as he read the Constitution Act, an Appropriation Act was not
  "required to authorize the Governor to sign any Warrant, but to authorize the Treasurer to act upon it;"
  and he asked for his correction, if this

  1875
  view was wrong. He explained the peculiar financial system which then prevailed in the Colony, and he concluded by justifying his action by a reference from the Duke of Buckingham's instructions. The noble Earl, in his reply, did not concur in his reading of the Constitution Act. In this, he (the Earl of Belmore) now entirely concurred. Having reference to the Duke of Buckingham's despatch, Lord Granville "was not prepared to disapprove the course" he (the Earl of Belmore) had adopted. At the same time, he thought he had somewhat misunderstood the spirit of the instructions—that a temporary inconvenience to a number of public officers could not be viewed as an unforeseen emergency, as it must always result from a delay in passing an Appropriation Act; nor was it such a case of expediency as would justify a violation of the law. The noble Earl concluded as follows:—
  "But, independently of these considerations, the question is settled prospectively by the action of the Legislative Council; as I consider it clear that, except in case of absolute and immediate necessity—such as, e.g., the preservation of life—no expenditure of public money should be incurred without sanction of law, unless it may be presumed not only that both branches of the Legislature will hold the expenditure itself unobjectionable, but also that they will approve of that expenditure being made in anticipation of their consent. Your Lordship will not, therefore, be at liberty on any future occasion to repeat the step you have adopted in this case."
  He referred these instructions to his Ministers, and, at their request, transmitted a protest from them, drawn up by the Treasurer, against the instructions. At present, he need only refer to one point in this document, where the 14th section of the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 39 was referred to. In this country, of late years, the practice which prevailed here was expressly authorized by that Act, and there was no need to wait for the passing of the Appropriation Act. The noble Earl, on receipt of this protest, sent him, in reply, a despatch dated 7th January, 1870, which their Lordships would find referred to by the Prime Minister of Victoria, on page 39 in a Memorandum addressed to Sir George Bowen on the 31st of December last. This despatch had, since it was passed, to the best of his knowledge, ruled the practice in New South Wales; and he must presently
  1876
  return for a few moments to Mr. Berry's reference to it; because, if that gentleman's view of it were accepted, all the good done by it in curing a faulty system in New South Wales was placed, in his view, in danger of being undone. The noble Earl, in his despatch, after referring to one of the preceding parts of the New South Wales Minister's Memorandum, continues thus—
  "The Paper concludes as follows:—'Under these circumstances, I advise my Colleagues to join with me in an expression of opinion against the instructions lately issued by the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies to his Excellency the Governor, as amounting to an interference in matters of local government, with our responsibility as Ministers of the Crown and Representatives of the Parliament and people of this Colony, upon a matter entirely unconnected with Imperial interests.'"
  The noble Earl continued—
  "So formal a protest from your Ministers against the unconstitutional character of the instructions sent out to you, renders it my duty to explain fully to them and to the people of New South Wales the position adopted in this matter by Her Majesty's Government, and the considerations by which they are led to it. I begin by admitting unreservedly that the matter now in hand is one of purely local interest, in respect to which Her Majesty's Government only desire that you should conform your conduct to the wishes of the Colony when constitutionally ascertained."
  The noble Earl then went into the question in an exhaustive manner, and, after telling him that in ordinary cases, if the law required him to do one thing, and the Executive Council advised another, it would be his duty to obey the law, he, after referring to the Constitution Act as bearing on the matter, said—
  "On the Governor, therefore, is imposed the duty of seeing that no breach of the law is committed."
  He remarked that the Legislature might have made a different arrangement as regarded finance, and he said—
  "Instead of doing this, they have made the Governor responsible for the execution, and, therefore, for every violation of the law. That responsibility is, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, a personal one."
  Further on, he said—
  "I am unable, therefore, to recall the instructions already communicated to you. You are to consider the Legislature as the most authoritative exponent of the will of the Colony. When the Legislature has enacted a law, you are not

  1877
  to transgress that law, unless upon a reasonable conviction that the Legislature would itself approve of your doing so. But you are justified in assuming such an approval under the pressure of one of those overwhelming emergencies—dangerous to anticipate or define—which dispense with all rule, or in cases of less moment when there are specific reasons for presuming that the Legislature will sanction a certain specific expenditure, and will desire its sanction to be anticipated."
  The noble Earl hoped that there would be little chance of these instructions bringing him into collision with his Ministers, as had been apprehended; if it did, it would be necessary to ascertain the wishes of the Colony, and defer to them. Should the Colony decide in favour of a change, the most satisfactory course would be to carry it out by Statute. With regard to this, he said—
  "If, however, the passing of such an Act is likely to raise any collateral issues, or otherwise to be attended with difficulty or delay, I think that in the present case, which is rather constitutional than legal, the desire of the community would be sufficiently expressed by an Address from both branches of the Legislature. If, therefore, the Council and Assembly should request you to be hereafter guided by the advice of your Ministers, in the execution of the duties imposed on you by the 55th section of the Constitution Act, Her Majesty authorizes you to accede to that request, and will then hold you relieved from the personal responsibility which now attaches to you."
  He concluded his despatch with these words—
  "But they—i.e., Her Majesty's subjects in New South Wales—must remember, that whatever trust they impose on him—i.e., the Governor—it is his duty to execute it punctually, and theirs to support him in doing so."
  He (the Earl of Belmore) knew that the existing system of finance in the Colony was quite incompatible with the due carrying out by him of these instructions. He felt sure, moreover, that the Legislative Council would not pass such an Address. He referred, therefore, the despatch to his Ministers, with a Minute entering fully into the matter, and urging an amendment of law and the providing an Emergency Fund; which, he was glad to say, was carried out during the then Session. The financial system had been, as far as he knew, strictly carried out as regarded issuing Warrants in accordance with the noble Earl's instructions, since the amendment of the
  1878
  Law in 1870. On one occasion, on an emergency caused by a Dissolution without Supply in 1872, an arrangement, confessedly ultra vires, was made soon after he had left the Colony, between the Executive and the Bank; but no Warrant was issued, he believed, to cover this arrangement till after Parliament had passed an Act authorizing the payments made. Mr. Berry appeared to put a totally different construction on these instructions. He told Sir George Bowen, referring to the noble Earl's despatch—
  "Earl Granville intimated on January 7th, 1870, that the Governor would be relieved from all personal responsibility, and that he might, in cases of emergency, sign Warrants for the issue of public money, though without the previous sanction of Statute Law, provided that there was sufficient evidence that the Legislature desired him to adopt that course at the instance of his Responsible Advisers. Ministers believe that a great emergency, far more critical than any foreseen by Earl Granville, has now arisen in Victoria. The Legislative Council has rejected on merely technical grounds of privilege, the General Appropriation Bill of the year;"
  and so on. He (the Earl of Belmore) apprehended that the noble Earl would hardly agree with that interpretation of his instructions. He must apologize for the length at which he had gone into the matter. In England, the law has guarded, by the 14th section of the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 39, and by providing an Emergency Fund, and by allowing the transference, temporarily, of money voted for one branch of Army Services or Navy Services, as the case may be, to another with the consent of the Treasury—against any probable inconvenience. What the practice was before the passing of that Act he did not know. It, at any rate, appeared to have been relied on in Victoria in former years, and it was taken for granted that it was authorized by custom and precedent. The English Act did not extend to the Australian Colonies, having been passed since their Constitutions were granted. He, therefore, asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he can state under what circumstances the 14th section of the Imperial Act 29th and 30th Vict., chap. 39, was passed; also, what was the practice and the authority for such practice prior to the passing of that Act as regarded the issuing of money out of the Consolidated Fund in this country?

  1879
  He begged further to move an Address for—
  "Copies or extracts of correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governor of New South Wales in the years 1868, 1869, or 1870, relative to the issue of public money under the Governor's warrant, including particularly the despatch No. 1 of 7th January 1870, from the Earl Granville to the Earl of Belmore."
  EARL CADOGANsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Belmore) had given a perfectly correct version of the question in dispute in the Colony of Victoria. Sir George Bowen, having been advised by his Ministers that it was within his power to sign Warrants for money not granted by an Act passed by both Houses, referred the matter first to the Law Officers in Victoria, and since then to the Home Government. The question had now been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and, it being still sub judice, it would not be convenient that he should offer any opinion on the subject. It was not necessary he should say more on the whole subject than that, generally speaking, the Colonial Office was still prepared to adhere to the views embodied in the despatch of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) of January, 1870. The Act of Parliament alluded to in the Question was merely a re-enactment of a previous Act—William IV. c. 15—which altered in detail but not in principle the practice it continued. This was that the House of Commons resolved itself into Committee of Supply on Estimates; and the Resolutions passed, limited to one year, being reported and confirmed, the House resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means. The Resolutions of the Committee of Ways and Means, being reported and confirmed, were embodied in a Bill which passed through both Houses; and no money could be paid to the credit of the Consolidated Fund until a Bill had been passed, when the Controller and Auditor General could obtain the money at the Bank and authorize the Treasury to draw from the Consolidated Fund such moneys as might be required. When a Bill had been passed, it was possible to obtain money for Services which were the subject of Resolutions subsequent to a Bill. This year, for instance, on the 14th and 15th of March, £12,000,000 were granted for the Army and Navy Services; and, on the 19th of March, the
  1880
  Resolutions were embodied in a Bill which received the Royal Assent on the 28th. The money was now being used for other purposes connected with the Civil Services under Resolutions which had been passed since. The noble Earl (the Earl of Belmore) had been placed in some difficulty in his reading of the Act; because there was an imperfect quotation of it in the Memorandum sent out to him from the Treasury. The 14th section authorized Her Majesty, under the Royal Sign Manual, to require the Treasury to make issues, "as hereinafter provided," in the 15th section, which began by saying—"When any Ways and Means shall have been granted by Parliament;" but this clause, and the reference to it in the 14th, were omitted in the Memorandum. If the noble Earl would read the two clauses, he would find that they did not bear out the construction he had put upon the Act. Those who drew up the case for an opinion, which had been quoted from the Victoria papers, were clearly in error as far as the practice in England was concerned. But, whatever interpretation was put upon Acts and practice as far as the United Kingdom was concerned, it did not follow that the same practice need prevail in the Colonies. No doubt, there was an analogy, and perhaps the noble Earl was justified in citing the practice of Parliament in England in explanation of the practice in New South Wales and Victoria; but it did not follow that the Colonies were bound by our practice. He could only give this information at present, and add that the Motion for Papers would be assented to.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE (speaking from what he then remembered), said, that in the Colony he had not the Statutes to refer to, and naturally assumed that the quotation made in the Memorandum was correct.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.