Lords Sitting of 21 February 1890

ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, in view of the notice of Motion of the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India, I desire to ask him whether he will lay upon the Table of this House any of the communications which have been received from the present or late Viceroy in relation to proposals for altering the constitution of the Councils in India?
  THE SECRETARY of STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, in reference to the Bill which I hope to introduce to your Lordships to-night, which is practically upon a very unimportant matter, I do not know that there is any communication that can be laid before Parliament, which can assist your Lordships in any way. With regard to any other matters, in regard to the communications which have passed, they seem to me to be of a confidential character and that they ought not to be laid at the present time before Parliament.

IRISH LAND TITLES.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE: In rising to call attention to the subject of record of title of land in Ireland; and to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether—(1.) It is intended to re-introduce the Bills for the local registration of title and the registration of assurances in Ireland, which were laid before Parliament by the Government last Session. (2.) Whether, if the Bills are re-introduced, the Government will consent so far to extend the former measure as to include within its provisions titles to the estates of vendors which have been made in the Courts of the Land Commission since 1881. (3.) Whether Her Majesty's Government will give facilities for
  850
  passing a measure for the better making of title to land in Ireland. (4.) Whether the Government is prepared to press on the completion of the 25-inch ordinance survey of Ireland, said: My Lords, before I draw your attention to the subject of record of title in Ireland, I wish, in the first place, to say a very few words as to the reason why, I, a person who has not had the advantage of a legal training, have undertaken to deal with a rather complicated and difficult legal subject. Possibly some of your Lordships may be aware that about three years ago an association of persons connected with the ownership of land, and which is called the Landlords' Convention, was formed in Ireland to watch and to deal with the numerous questions which affect Irish land. That Convention consists of representatives from all the different counties of Ireland, and it has an executive committee, which is partly elective and partly co-optive. Upon our Executive Committee we have not the good fortune to have any noble Lord who is learned in the law, or who, as far as I know, has had any legal training; and, therefore, the committee have been, perforce, obliged to entrust to a person who is not learned in the law the task of bringing before your Lordships this important subject at this early period of the Session. My Lords, there are two systems established by law in Ireland dealing with record of title or registration of title. The first is the old system, which is known as the system of registry of deeds. That system was instituted as far back as the reign of Queen Anne, in the year 1708, and by it every deed connected with land (with the exception of some deeds of a minor character, such as leases for terms of years and other things which I do not think arise now) take priority not according to the date of execution, but according to the date of registration, and consequently a system of registration is, in point of fact, although not in point of law, compulsory as regards all deeds of that sort; and even a, will dealing with land may, if the owner of the land likes, be registered. This system necessitates, when you want to make title to land, a series of very troublesome and expensive searches in the Registry Office. For instance, by way of illustration: Supposing an estate passes to me under a marriage settlement, and I want to sell that estate, first of all a

  851
  search must be made by the purchaser in reference to the original deed of settlement at all events, and possibly he may have to go further back. Then, he must search for all dealings with the land by way of mortgages, charges or anything of that sort down to the present time. So that to make a title upon sale even of an acre of land in Ireland you may at the present time have to search for perhaps 15 or 20 deeds, or even more. I need not go more particularly into the registration of deeds at the present moment, but I will pass to what I may call the more modern system which was established in connection with the, Landed Estates Court about 25 years ago. In 1865 an Act was passed called the Record of Title Act, and under that Act it was open to any person who obtained a conveyance from the Landed Estates Court, and which, of course, gave him an indefeasible title to the land, to record that title in an office which was opened in connection with the Court. This record was entered in a book they called a "Folio," and a space was left for entering below or alongside of it all subsequent dealings with the recorded land. A "Declaration of title" might be obtained by any person who chose to bring in his title and get it approved by the Court, and then that Declaration of title might be entered in the Record of Title Office, and would of course be treated in the same way as Landed Estate Court titles. This proceeding was quite optional on the part of owners of land, whether they were purchasers or otherwise. A provision was made for recording titles in that way according to law. But, unfortunately, this system of registration of title has been very little made use of, and I will tell your Lordships the reason why. The first thing we are always told is that solicitors did not like it, and I suppose they did not; but the solicitors no doubt had their reasons, and one of the reasons, I am told, was the absence of an Insurance fund against fraud, such as is provided for by the Lord Chancellor in the Land Transfer Bill, and they thought their clients would not be safe in using this record in the Landed Estates Court. Another reason was that persons who were not purchasers would be very slow in going to the trouble and heavy expense involved in getting a title put upon this record; and a third reason
  852
  may have been the very heavy scale of fees charged for recording titles under the Act. Under that scale of fees, which were ad valorem, in the case of a person whose estate would be worth, say, £200,000, which would represent an income of, perhaps, £9,000 or £10,000 a year, a Stamp Duty of £300, if not more, would have to be paid. Whatever the reason is, this Court has been made very little use of. At the end of last Session the Government laid before the other House of Parliament two Bills. One of them I need not touch upon at all, as I have nothing to do with it at this moment; but the other I will refer to in connection with this matter. It was entitled the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Bill. This Bill was, I suppose, merely laid upon the Table in the other House for the purpose of showing what they propose to do this year, and, as your Lordships are aware, one of the questions which I desire to ask of my noble Friend is whether the Government intend to re-introduce that Bill this Session. Reverting for a moment to the Record of Title Act, 1865, besides those provisions which I have already mentioned, there was to be an index; there were to be provisions for giving land certificates and certificates of charge, also provisions for the transfer and transmission of recorded estates under settlement, for recording judgments on estates and other necessary provisions for dealing with recorded land. Lastly, there was a schedule in which were given forms of transfer, forms of charge, forms of transfer of charge, and forms of powers of attorney in reference to transfers of charge. That Act which has unfortunately not been very much made use of for the reasons I have given, was a very good Act indeed, and if it could be amended, or if this Bill, which is probably to be undertaken, can improve the state of things which that Bill established, I think it would be of very great benefit to the owners of land in Ireland. Now, my Lords, the Bill that I am asking about was intended, according to the Memorandum affixed to it, to simplify the means of registration. I have not got the Bill here, so that I cannot refer to it more particularly; but it was called the Local Registration of Tithes Bill, and it was intended to provide a simple, inexpensive, and easily accessible means of registration for all occupiers of land who

  853
  under the Ashbourne Acts, were to be brought under its provisions with regard to the registration of deeds. One of the main objects was to deal with those tenant-purchasers who are now purchasing their farms or who have agreed to do so, I believe, in about 12,000 instances. The Memorondum pointed out that unless something of this sort were done, great confusion must inevitably arise. The old expensive sort of conveyance which they now get would oblige them to register, and the old system of registration of deeds which I have described would be quite unsuitable and a great deal too expensive for the purpose. It was, therefore, necessary that a simpler and better form should be adopted. Then, my Lords, the second object of this Bill is stated to be to substitute for the Record of Title Act, 1865, an improved system of registration for those who may prefer registration of title to the registration of assurances, which means, in point of fact, the old form of registration of deeds. As far as I can understand this Bill, it is intended to merge the Record of Title Office in the Registry of Deeds. I am now upon rather difficult ground, because I confess, when I come to look at the Bill, I find a good deal of difficulty in understanding it. I think it is rather an obscure Bill, and I do not think it is very well arranged. At the same time, it may have been intended to merely transfer the record of title with all its advantages into the new system of registration of deeds, to allow of declarations of title being given by the Landed Estates Court, or by some other Court which possibly might be substituted for it, and to permit of the Record of Title being carried out under a new name. However, my Lords, I think that is not very clear from the Bill itself. As one reads the clauses of the Bill they seem to me to deal almost exclusively with the tenant-purchasers under the Ashbourne Act. However, I may be wrong in what I have said with regard to it. It is for the purpose of obtaining information with regard to it that I have put my question, and I hope I shall get a satisfactory answer from my noble Friend. This Bill for registration of title is intended to apply, not only in Dublin, but it is also intended to have a local application. It is already provided by
  854
  the Land Purchase Act that when a tenant purchases his farm, the Land Purchase Commissioners are to draw up a certificate of title and to transmit it to the Clerk of the Peace for the county in which the farm is situated. But there is no machinery for carrying the matter further. This Bill provides for a head office in Dublin, and that a branch office shall be opened in every county town, and the Clerk of the Peace is to act in the capacity of Sub-Registrar in connection with the head office in Dublin. What I am anxious for is that, as far as may be possible, those persons who have sold land to the tenants through the Land Commission Court, should be in a position to also go on with their estates with a clear root of title and be brought under the same provisions. I would even go so far as to say it would be no hardship upon them, because they would have already gone to the expense of making a title; and if the Government would only consent to moderate the scale of fees, which I think from what I see of the Bill they really intend to do, I do not think that any hardship could ensue to any one, and I think great advantage would accrue to owners of landed property in Ireland. With regard to the Guarantee Fund, a new Court is proposed to be established, as proposed by the Lord Chancellor in his Land Transfer Bill, which is a very great improvement. It is also provided that the ad valorem fees shall not be higher than is necessary for the purpose of providing for the expenses of the Court. That, I think, is fair enough, but I wish the Government could see their way to abolishing the ad valorem fees and fixing the scale at a more reasonable rate. I quite agree that an estate of £1,000 a year should pay less than one of £2,000, but I think that in the case of really large estates the ad valorem fees are quite out of proportion to the necessities of the case, and that a sum, of say £50, or £100, might be fixed as a maximum. That, I believe, would encourage and assist the new work very much. My Lords, I have now dealt with the first two questions which I have to put to my noble Friend. The first is whether the Bills are to be re-introduced, and the second is whether, if the Bills are to be re-introduced, Government will consent to so extend the provisions of the measure as to include the estates of vendors who

  855
  have been through the Courts of the Land Commission since 1881. And now I come to the third question, which is whether Her Majesty's Government will give facilities for passing a measure for the better making of title to land in Ireland. The last Return I can find which shows the number of estates in Ireland under the old system, and the number of occupiers, is 20 or 21 years old; but I think it may be taken that, except for the sales under the Land Act of 1881, and under the Ashbourne Act, that number has not been much altered. The number of landlords was returned at that time as under 20,000, the number of occupiers was returned at 660,000 in round numbers. We know now that the number of owners under the recent legislation has increased by about 12,000, and it is increasing every day. It seems to me there is no good reason why, if you are to have 12,000 persons put upon the record, the old owners should not come under the same system, too. I need hardly say that the making of title is a very troublesome, slow, and expensive business. It has been estimated that since the establishment of the Landed Estates Court in 1849, and the Courts of the Land Commission, those Courts have never been able to deal with more than £2,500,000 worth of property in one year, owing mainly to the great delay in making searches in the office. Those estates are not recorded as estates, but the various deeds affecting them are entered chronologically through a vast number of books; and if two or three persons are having searches made against their estates which happen to be entered in the same book, of course only one person can see the book at a time, and the others must wait. Supposing we had in Ireland a form of compulsory purchase of land such as has been advocated in some quarters, whereby, under a single clause in the Act of Parliament, by a stroke of the pen simply, the legal estate in the land would be transferred from the present owners, and the purchase money paid into Court until the persons concerned could make title to it, let me show your Lordships what in that case would occur. It is supposed that the present rental of Ireland is about £9,000,000 a year. Even at 20 years' purchase that would exceed £150,000,000 capital value.
  856
  At the rate of £2,500,000 worth of property passing through the Courts in making title, it would take at least 60 years before £150,000,000 could be dealt with. The only way of dealing with this matter would be to establish some system which, of course, must be paid for in some manner, whereby a staff of examiners could be appointed, and some arbitrary limit should be placed to the extent to which searches should go back. I do not expect that the Government, either in the present Session or in the Bill to which I have referred, will go to such a large expense as that. We do not expect that so large a subject will be dealt with all at once, I can only say that we shall be thankful for small mercies, and be satisfied to go by steps. But while asking the Government to modify the Bill of last year so as to deal effectually with this great question, I would also ask them to say whether, if we should be able ourselves to introduce a Bill later on in the Session, they will give it favourable consideration, of course judging it by its merits. My Lords, there is only one other question on my Paper about which I need say a word, and that is, whether the Government will take steps to press on the completion of the 25-inch Ordnance Survey of Ireland. That survey has made very little way yet. When we make inquiries at the Ordnance Office we are told, with a smile, that in the course of 25 years or so it may be completed. If we were told that in five or six years it might be done, that might be not unreasonable; but to put it off for another generation is, I think, very unreasonable indeed. I should be glad, therefore, if the Government would take that matter into consideration, and if they would start an independent survey in each of the four provinces of Ireland with the view of pushing it through in a few years. I think we are entitled to ask for the consideration of Parliament, both as regards survey and registration of title, because they are really at the very root of everything that may be done with regard to improving matters as connected with land in Ireland. I am not now talking of political matters, but of some system which will enable incumbrances to be more easily discharged, and matters of that sort. Last year I brought in a Bill, which I do intend to re-introduce, with regard to the

  857
  redemption of charges, but the matter may, probably, in some other form, come before Parliament. We ground our claim upon a very simple thing. We say that by the legislation of the last nine years, beginning in 1881, you have entirely revolutionised the conditions of property in Ireland. Of course the object of the legislation has been to benefit tenants; but I think I may admit that Government, and particularly the Government of that day, wished to do so without doing injury to the landowners. I remember a speech made by the noble and learned Lord who was then on the Woolsack) the Earl of Selborne), which clearly showed that the wish of the Government was to benefit the tenant without injuring the landowners. I have since looked at the remarkable words he used, and if your Lordships will allow me I will read them—
  "The more prosperous a tenant is the better will be his relations with his landlord, and the better is the landlord's interest secured; and unless you show that you directly take from the landlord something which is his, and give it to the tenant, then I say the more advantages you can confer upon the tenant the more benefits you also confer upon the landlord."
  Has this idea been realised? We know quits well that it has been entirely the reverse; we know that it is almost impossible to sell land except to tenants, or except in rare instances to borrow money upon it, and we say this state of things has been brought about by legislation the result of which, was not foreseen, and on this ground we have a claim in justice to ask that Parliament shall take such steps as they can—I will not say to put things entirely right; I admit that cannot be done; but to make things easier, and to try and restore the market value of land. I will not occupy your Lordships' time any further, and I must ask you to forgive me for the imperfect manner in which I have endeavoured to bring before you this difficult and complicated subject.
  LORD MONTEAGLE: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I may perhaps be allowed to make a few remarks in support of the appeal which has been made to the House by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I suppose we may fairly expect that the answer of this Government will not be unfavourable to the questions which have been put. I need not occupy your
  858
  Lordships' time in presenting any lengthy arguments to the House, but I may perhaps be permitted, as there are not many present representing the opinions I hold on this side of the Honse, to offer one or two remarks. My Lords, this happily is not a Party question, and I am sure that if the noble occupant of the Front Opposition Bench addresses himself to it he will not treat it in that light. It is certainly not exclusively a landlords' question, either, though, of course, the landlords are largely interested in it, and I am glad that the noble Earl has treated it as a higher question than as one affecting merely class interests. But I would venture to remark that even from the narrow point of view of the landlords' interests I believe that the promotion of this good object, the registration of title in Ireland would be one of the most effective means, in the long run, of promoting the transfer of land from landlord to tenant, and certainly one of the least objectionable. The leader of the Opposition on the opening night of this Session remarked in regard to the passing of the Bill dealing with the subject of purchase of land in Ireland, that he hoped the Government would give it due consideration, and that it would be carried out, though with due caution. I think the noble Earl will agree that any means by which you can improve the status of the tenant must fulfil the latter condition, and that it will be in the interests of all classes in Ireland, and will promote the public good. My Lords, I believe the experience of what has occurred in reference to this subject in Australia, as the noble Lord who has put this question is no doubt well aware, has shown that by compelling parsons who are coming forward as purchasers, or who are seeking to occupy the position of landowners, to register at the very threshold, you will establish the advantage of that system so clearly that voluntary registration will be thereby very much promoted, and whether Her Majesty's Government assent to the second question of the noble Earl—whether they will consent to compel the registration of their titles by vendors who have sold portions of their estates, or not, I believe those vendors will soon see the advantages of registration, and that whether they are compelled to register or not, they will

  859
  follow suit. I do not dwell upon the advantage to the State as creditor under the Ashbourne Act. It is obvious to everybody that the ready realisation of land must be of advantage to the creditor, and it will also be found, I think, to be an advantage to the present owner himself, as well as an advantage to society generally. In conclusion, there are only one or two points which I would venture to press upon Her Majesty's Government in dealing with this matter. I am glad to see that they desire to deal with it in its local aspect. Though it is, of course, a matter of great concern to the landlords, it is chiefly as a matter affecting the peasant ownerships that have been created so rapidly under Lord Ashbourne's Act in Ireland that it is of importance, and for that purpose, however well registration on a large scale in a central position might answer for the larger estates, for the purpose of promoting registration in the case of smaller estates it is obviously important that the registration should be local. I venture also to express a hope that the compulsion which is put upon the purchasing tenants will be made as effective as possible. This is a vital matter to the whole Bill; the entire success of your system will depend upon whether you succeed in compelling the tenant in the first instance to register, and if any option is left to the tenant as to whether he may consider it advisable in his own interest to do this, I should fear the whole thing might break down. It should be made absolutely compulsory upon the tenant in the first instance, and having once done that, I believe that voluntary registration would follow in other cases. Then I hope the Government will secure that the conveyance of laud will under the new system take place by registration and not by deed. If you once allow deeds to be employed there will be great danger of the system breaking down; because you must remember that in future yon will not be dealing with solicitors in large practice in Dublin, but that you will be dealing with a large class of local solicitors all over the country, who would not perhaps possess the same high education or high standard in all matters, who might not have the same regard for the public interest, and who might seek to defeat the object of your Bill by keeping deeds in existence. There is only one
  860
  other matter to which I wish to allude, and that is with regard to the fourth question of the noble Earl as to the completion of the Ordnance Survey. I hope that in every possible way the Government will make use of maps for the purpose of registration instead of recitals defining boundaries in words. It is in itself obviously a great simplification to have a map which any one can see at a glance instead of having to read through a long description, and then to refer to some map, or even to go upon the ground. I believe that the completion of the 25-inch Ordnance Survey, which is essential for utilization of maps, is, from this point of view, extremely important. My Lords, I hope I have not delayed the House too long upon this matter. I beg earnestly to support the appeal of the noble Earl.
  EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I have listened with attention and interest to the remarks which have been made by my noble Friends, who are so well qualified by their knowledge of all matters referring to Ireland to speak on this question, but I hope I may be forgiven if I venture to enter a respectful yet very earnest protest against the course which the noble Earl has taken on this occasion. He asks me whether it is the intention of the Government to re-introduce certain Bills upon a certain subject during the present Session, and then he proceeds to ask whether, if those Bills were introduced, we should make in them special provisions of the character which he intimated in his speech. I must venture to submit that if, particularly upon a question of this sort, we are to discuss Bills which have not yet been brought into Parliament, we shall be, if not wasting time, at all events not promoting the best interests of legislation. In answer to my noble Friend's question, I may say it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to re-introduce the two measures, one for the local registration of title and the other for the registration of assurances in Ireland. They will be drawn mainly upon the lines of the Bills to which my noble Friend has alluded, but I am not competent at the present moment to give the exact details of those Bills. With regard also to the special points of which my noble Friend has spoken, I do not myself feel able to pledge the

  861
  Government at this period of the Session. Upon the third question, whether Her Majesty's Government will give facilities for passing a measure for the better making of title to land in Ireland, I may say it was the desire of the Irish Government that the two measures to which allusion has been made should have the effect to a great extent of facilitating the making of title to which my noble Friend refers; but as regards giving facilities for any such Bill, it is impossible that I can say what the Government may do until they have had the opportunity of seeing the Bills to which my noble Friend alludes. I do not know whether he meant to indicate an intention of bringing in a Bill himself, but I am quite sure if he does so, when Her Majesty's Government have an opportunity of considering it they will, unless there are strong reasons against it, give him every facility for its introduction and discussion. Then, with regard to the last question, whether the Government are prepared to press on the completion of the 25-inch Ordnance Survey of Ireland, I may say that the Government have already caused special provisions to be made in the Estimates of 1890 and 1891 to expedite its completion. I can only hope that that being the case the delay will not be so long as that anticipated fey my noble Friend in his speech. I am sorry that I cannot give more detailed answers to my noble Friend's questions, but I hope he will accept the assurance of the Government that they fully realise the importance of the questions to which he has alluded, and that they do intend to legislate upon them during this Session.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE: My Lords, on the whole I am very well satisfied with the answer which has been accorded to me by my noble Friend, and particularly as regards the last question. Of course I do not expect him to tell me that Government assents to a Bill which they have not seen, and I am not able to say whether I shall be able to bring in such a Bill this year or not. I can only say that at any rate it does not exist at present. With regard to the second question, I thought I had guarded myself against discussing the provisions of any particular Bill. We want to know whether the provisions of the Bill of last year are to be extended, but it appears that the Government has not yet made
  862
  up its mind about the matter. At any rate I am much obliged to my noble Friend for the answer he has given me.

  HARES PRESERVATION BILL.—(No. 6.).
  Amendment reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.—(No. 28.)

  FIRST READING.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I rise to call attention to the provisions of the Act regulating the numbers and functions of the several Councils in India, and to present a Bill. My Lords, it is not my intention to detain your Lordships at any length with any statement as to the Bill which I must ask leave to introduce to-night, but I think it is only due to your Lordships to state very briefly the objects of, and the reasons for, the measure which I shall ask your Lordships to give to a first reading. Your Lordships are aware that under the provisions of the Indian Council Act of 1861, when the Council of India and the Governor General meet for the purpose of making laws and regulations, in addition to the ordinary number of members of the Council who are assembled or constituted as the Executive Council, other members are nominated by the Governor General in order to assist him and his Council when they meet for the purpose of making laws and regulations; but their powers are very limited, and no business, as the statute says, can be transacted at any such meeting other than the consideration and enactment of measures introduced into the Council for the purpose of enactment. It follows from this that when the Budget of the year is brought forward, and requires fresh legislation, it is then competent to the members of the Legislative Council to discuss the whole financial position of the Government and their entire proposals. But on the other hand if no financial legislation is required, no discussion can take place, and no member of the Legislative Council can say a word upon the subject. It follows also, secondly, that no member of the Legislative Council can ask questions of the government of India—there is no right of interpellating the Government of India as to any of their acts or as to anything that might be of

  863
  importance in the government of that country. I had considerable discussion with the present Viceroy before he left for India, upon this subject, and I have had an opportunity of ascertaining his views from statements he has made. On the 29th March, 1889, he made a speech to his Legislative Council in the following words—I am not going to read to your Lordships the whole of the speech, but he explains there so very clearly the mischief which I want to remedy that I trust your Lordships will allow mo to read a few short extracts from that speech. What he said was this:—
  "It has I believe been usually held that the terms of the Act by which our proceedings are governed, preclude an examination of the Budget, except when the financial arrangements for the year involves legislation in Council; the result has been that the Legislative Council has or has not been able to discuss the Budget according as it was or was not connected with some change in the laws of the country, and it has thus come to pass, that during the last 25 years the Budget has been discussed in Council for 12 years, while for the remaining years no such discussion has been allowed to take place. This seems to me, I must say, an altogether incongruous and inconvenient arrangement, and I am glad to express publicly my opinion, that the opportunities accorded the Legislative Council for passing under review the financial situation of the country, should occur with regularity, and should not depend, as at present, upon what is after all a mere accident—I mean the necessity of financial legislation in any particular year."
  I think, my Lords, that explains as clearly as anything possibly can be explained, what I mentioned in my few opening sentences, and if I may venture to say so, with those observations made by the Viceroy in March of last year, I most thoroughly and entirely agree. He then goes on to say:—
  "I may, perhaps, take this opportunity of of mentioning that this subject appears to be closely connected with another—I mean the propriety of giving to the members of the Legislative Council of the Government of India, under proper safeguards, the right of addressing questions to Government upon matters of public interest. I make this announcement, however, subject to two important qualifications. It will, in the first place, be necessary to ascertain clearly whether the law as it now stands permits the course which we should like to adopt, and if it does not, how it should be amended. In the next place it will be necessary effectually to limit the right of interpellation in such a manner as to preclude absolutely all questions which could not be put without injury to the public interest. This is a point of the utmost importance, and will require the most careful examination."
  864
  My Lords, in all those observations of the Viceroy I most heartily and entirely concur. As the Viceroy states there, I had first to enquire whether it was possible, under the existing law, to carry out such arrangements as would be necessary in order to give effect to what the Viceroy evidently wished to be carried out; but after very serious consideration and careful examination, I entirely satisfied myself that fresh legislation was required, and that it would be impossible, under the existing law to make the alterations which the Viceroy wanted in accordance with those proposals. No doubt some legislation might have taken place as far as one of them was concerned, and it had even been proposed in India that although no alteration was necessary for the Budget of the year, yet that the Minister should carry in a measure which was practically a sham in order to give an opportunity for discussion, but it was found that that would have been against the provisions of the Act. Accordingly a Bill was prepared under my instructions, and it was quite ready to be introduced and carried last year, and it was only owing to the extreme pressure of business in the House of Commons that the Bill was not introduced and passed into law. I have therefore taken the earliest opportunity during the present Session of asking your Lordships to give the Bill a First Reading, as I do to-night. But, my Lords, as the functions of the Legislative Council were to be somewhat enlarged, it has been thought necessary and wise (and the Viceroy was of the same opinion) to give powers to the Governor General to nominate larger numbers of additional Councillors to the Legislative Council than by the present law he is able to do, and to widen the circle of persons who would be ready to assist him when the Council met to debate upon the important matters which should be brought before them. My Lords, I have hitherto confined my observations to the Council of the Governor General, purely for the sake of simplicity, but the same objects to be gained, and the same reasons for attaining them, apply exactly in the same way in principle if not in degree to the Provincial Councils. Therefore in the Bill last year

  865
  there were provisions inserted for adding to the number of Councillors and to give them the power of interpellation which I have already alluded to. The Bill was not confined to the Supreme Council of India but extended also to the Councils which exist in other parts of the country. My Lords, there are other provisions in the Bill which I am now about to present to you, but I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any explanation as regards them. They are simply intended for the purpose of clearing up doubts about certain sections of the existing Act, and I think they will be quite clear to your Lordships as to their scope and intention when you see them in print. I do not think I should be justified in taking up more of your Lordships' time in asking for leave to introduce this Bill. I thought it would be unwise to introduce it without some explanation, as otherwise it might have gone out to India and have been misunderstood.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I do not think the noble Viscount has been quite just to his measure when in reply to my noble Friend, Lord Herschell, he described it as a very unimportant matter.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I am not aware of having said so.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I heard the noble Viscount make that statement I am sure, and I shall be within the recollection of the House. I do not think the Bill is unimportant. On the contrary, I think it is of great importance and of wide scope. Any measure which touches the functions of the Governor General and his Council and the other Councils of India must, of necessity, be of importance, especially at a time when public attention, both in India and in this country, is particularly directed to this subject; and the noble Viscount will find, I think, that before this measure can be passed through Parliament it is calculated to raise a variety of other questions connected with the constitution of these Councils. My Lords, I do not propose now to enter upon a discussion of the details of a Bill which I have not seen; but I beg to express my entire concurrence with the proposal of the noble Viscount for permitting the Budget to be discussed, whether financial legislation is proposed or not. That is an
  866
  arrangement which there has been a very great desire in India to see carried out, a desire expressed by all classes; and I am extremely glad to find that the time has come when that desire is likely to be gratified. I will at present reserve my opinion with regard to the right of interpellation. A great deal, of course, will depend upon the mode in which it is regulated by the Bill. It is a very important question, and involves a change of considerable magnitude, and therefore it will require serious consideration on the part of Parliament. If I might venture to express my opinion at present, my own view is favourable to the change; but I should not like to give a definite opinion upon the matter until I see the mode in which the noble Lord proposes to carry it out. With regard to the increase of the number of nominated Members, I confess, subject of course to my not having seen the Bill, that I entertain very considerable doubts. However, I will not discuss that matter now, but will reserve, if your Lordships will allow me, any opinion I may have upon it until the Bill is in print, and we have had time to examine and study it. But, my Lords, I do think it is very important, indeed, that when changes of this kind are about to be made—for they are important changes—in the constitution of the Indian Councils, we should have the advantage of knowing the views of the Government of India upon them. The noble Viscount has given us extracts from a speech made by the Viceroy of India in his Council, and I hope the noble Viscount will be kind enough to lay a copy of that speech upon the Table of the House. There can be no objection to that; it is public property, and it will save your Lordships the trouble of searching it out in a book which is not, perhaps, easily accessible to most of your Lordships. But, my Lords, I do venture to repeat the appeal which was made by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell), and to ask that if there have been any official or public communication (of course I am not in the least referring to private communications, and I do not ask for them) between the Government of India and the Government at home in regard to the constitution of the Indian Councils, Parliament should have the advantage of having those Papers laid before it,

  867
  when this Bill comes to be discussed. My Lords, with regard to the increase of the number of members of the Council, I understood the noble Viscount to say that the present Viceroy of India was in favour of that change, but it was merely a general statement of Lord Lansdowne's opinion. If Lord Lans-downe has given that opinion in any official form, either in a speech, in the way in which he has given his opinion on the other points, or in any other manner, then I say it is only just to the Viceroy and to the Government of India—and I speak feelingly on the subject, having been myself connected with that Government—and to Parliament, that the views entertained by either Lord Lansdowne or by Lord Dufferin should be placed before us, and that we should have the opportunity of knowing how far those views agree with the proposals of the noble Viscount, and how far they fall short of or go beyond them, before we are asked to legislate upon so important a question as this.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I wish to express my entire concurrence with what has been said by my noble Friend who has just sat down, both in the opinions he has expressed with regard to the two questions which my noble Friend opposite has informed your Lordships are to be dealt with in this Bill, and also with regard to the desirability of your Lordships' House being placed in possession of the opinions both of the Governor General in Council, and of my noble Friend Lord Dufferin, who formerly held that office, and his Council, if any, upon the subject. My Lords, I think it is most desirable that the Parliament of this country should be in possession of the full and complete views of the Government of India before legislating upon a question of such great importance as this question is, namely, the constitution of the Legislative Bodies in India. Now, with regard to precedent on this matter, I think that is very clear. I recollect in the year 1861, when the late Lord Halifax introduced the last measure respecting the constitution of the Legislative Councils in India, there were very complete communications between the Secretary of State for India in England and the Governor General and
  868
  Council in India, and that the Papers containing the opinion of Lord Canning were laid before Parliament before that Bill was passed, and indeed, the measure was proposed to Parliament mainly on the ground of the opinion of Lord Canning in the matter. I am not in any way assuming, or intending to assume, that my noble Friend opposite is not on this occasion carrying out the views of Lord Lansdowne, because I think he has satisfied your Lordships, with regard to those two provisions, that the views of Lord Lansdowne have been practically carried out; but I think it would have been better if Parliament had been in possession of full information and of the authoritative opinion of the Government of India on the subject. I entirely agree with the noble Lord in regard to the alteration of the law respecting discussion upon the Budgets in India. I believe the fact that when no legislation has to be introduced it is impossible, consistently with the Act of 1861, to have a discussion on the Budget in the Legislative Council of the Viceroy, is a mere accident, and could hardly have been intended by those who framed the Act of 1861. The main point of that Act, and the intention of the Legislature, as was apparent from a despatch sent to India at that time, was that the Legislative Council in India should not be in the nature of an Assembly to discuss any question which might be brought up by any Member of the Assembly; that it should not exercise the same functions as Parliament exercises in this country; but that the Legislative Body should be confined to considering the measures of legislation brought before it, and should not devote itself to other matters. That, my Lords, was the policy which commended itself to Parliament in consequence of a distinct evil which had existed at the time of the Mutiny by the Legislative Council under the then law having taken upon itself, somewhat, the function of a Representative Assembly, and discussed matters apart from questions of legislation. That was a distinct evil which had taken place, and it was remedied by the Act of 1861. I should like to add to what has fallen from my two noble Friends the expression of my opinion, as far as I am competent to give one, that the operation of the

  869
  Act of 1861 has been very successful. My Lords, I believe that the legislation of our great dependency of India would bear favourable comparison with the legislation of any other country in the world, both as regards the nature of the enactments and as regards the care with which those enactments were considered before they were introduced into the Legislative Council, and also as regards the great care which the successive Governments in India have paid to taking every means of obtaining the opinion of the natives of India with respect to legislation before legislative measures have been passed. Therefore, my Lords, as regards the actual result of the Act of 1861, which is now to be amended, I say it has been most successful. I do not for a moment say that it may not be necessary after the lapse of so many years to adapt that legislation more to existing circumstances, but so far, I say, it has been most successful. In conclusion, I will only say, my Lords, that the measure which has been introduced by my noble Friend will receive from me, I can assure him, the most favourable consideration, and I believe, as he has stated to your Lordships, that it will make a most useful alteration in the law.
  A Bill to amend the Indian Councils Act, 1861—Was presented by the Viscount Cross; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.

CROWN OFFICE BILL.—(No. 20.)

  SECOND READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the second reading of this Bill, in pursuance of the pledge which I gave the other night. It would not be necessary in truth to introduce this Bill merely for the purpose of abolishing the office of Secretary of Presentations, or for the transfer of the office of Secretary of Presentations to some one else. That, of course, could be done by a direction to one of my Secretaries; but the new arrangement which has been made renders this necessary in regard to providing for the duties of that office. There were a number of formal acts which were required to be done specially by the Secretary of Presentations—such as the making out of Patents, recording documents, and the like; and
  870
  it has been thought better to transfer them to the Clerk of the Crown. He will therefore now have those duties to discharge which have hitherto been performed by the Secretary of Presentations, whose office is to be abolished.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.