Sitting of 18 June 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS,—2! Procedure before Justices (Scotland).
3! Survey of Great Britain, &c.

NAWAB OF SURAT TREATY BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the Further Proceeding on Consideration of this Bill,
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLE SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLE moved that the Order of the Day be postponed.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, as he had not received the slightest intimation from the right hon. Baronet as to his intention of moving the postponement of the Order, and as he had not condescended to give any reasons for his Motion, he (Sir F. Kelly) would take leave to proceed at once with the arguments in this case, with the conduct of which he was charged. [The hon. and learned Gentleman then entered at considerable length into a history of the matter, and reiterated many of the arguments which he had used on last Wednesday when the Bill was under discussion.]
1650
The object of the measure was simply to compel the East India Company to pay to the Nawab of Surat or his heirs an annuity of £15,000, which he contended they had solemnly contracted to do by a treaty which they entered into with the Nawab when taking possession of the Prince's territories and revenues. He trusted that upon a calm consideration of the case, during the week's interval that had taken place since the question was before the House, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control was now prepared to come forward and admit that the honour of the country was concerned in this matter, and that the Government felt that justice demanded that this engagement entered into by the East India Company should be faithfully kept. He should, therefore, move that the Bill be read a third time.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that a great portion of the evidence had not yet been printed, and, therefore, the whole case was not before the House. It was most absurd to attempt to discuss the question when the evidence only on one side was before them. He trusted that the debate would be adjourned for a week.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he had on Wednesday last asked the House to adjourn the consideration of the Bill for a week to allow of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee being laid upon the table. By some mistake, to his astonishment, the case for the promoters was fully given, while that of the Directors was only specified in an index. The Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell), who was not responsible for the defect, undertook to get it remedied, but the last paper was only placed in his hands when on his way to the House. Having, however, pledged himself to state his opinion, he should do so and leave it to the House to determine whether they would proceed further with their deliberation on the question to-day or not. He was bound to state, on behalf of the Court of Directors, that they had displayed the utmost anxiety to do what was right among these parties, and had not the least intention to inflict injustice from motives of self-interest. The position of the Bill was singular. By the authority of Mr. Speaker, it was decided to be in the nature of a Private Bill. He did not therefore oppose the second reading. It was referred to a Private Bill Committee,

1651
and the only doubt he had was whether it would not have been more advisable to refer it to what was called a Mixed Committee. The Committee to which it was referred was composed of five Gentlemen of high standing and great legal ability, and consequently the Bill received, in his view, too much of the construction of a legal document. He thought the Committee had limited their functions more than was intended. Having stated their decision upon the question of the private estate and passed the Bill as it stood, the Committee remitted to the House the consideration of the public question without giving any clue by which it should be guided. A Private Bill Committee was of all tribunals the most objectionable, for, although in theory such a Committee might discuss questions with deliberation and judgment, in practice it was found that the more common course was to make private business a matter of canvass. Under the sanction of the office which he had the honour to hold, the Court of Directors were entrusted with the government of India, and if persons, offended by any treaty or act of the Indian Government, were to come over to this country, and prosecute their claims by canvass and introducing Private Bills into Parliament, it would be one of the most objectionable systems they could by any possibility countenance. Speaking generally, it was perfectly notorious that the princes of India entertained very strong notions that everything was to be done by "kutput," and the House of Commons ought, by every means in their power, to discourage the practice of private solicitation in such matters. The question had been stated to be a merely legal question, but upon that depended the whole issue. Now, he decidedly held a contrary opinion. The public question resolved itself into two points—the title to the Nawabship and the annual stipend. The right to the Nawabship was, as he understood, completely given up by the present claimant, but there was an incidental question of inheritance. There could be no doubt that the Nawabship of Surat was in the hands of the East India Company to bestow upon whom they pleased. That certainly was the opinion of Lord Wellesley, of Governor Sir George Arthur, and of Lord Ellenborough. The argument that settled that question was, that the East India Company might have appointed the Bukshee as Nawab, and, if they had appointed him and given him the
1652
stipend of £15,000 per annum, could it have been said that the daughter or granddaughter of the Nawab was also entitled to that stipend? The question was, whether the stipend was to be given to the heirs of the body or to successors? The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) had omitted the word "successors" in the treaty, and yet that word governed the whole. The treaty was one between the Nawab of Surat, his heirs and successors, and the heirs must be successors as well as heirs. It was fair to say, therefore, that the heirs succeeding to the stipend should be successors to the Nawabship. Now, he must warn the House that there were other parties in the shade who did not appear before that House, but whose interests Parliament was bound to protect as well as the interests of those who came to this country and made themselves popular among Members of Parliament. [Sir F. KELLY: They may appear before the Privy Council.] He was aware of that, but their appearance in this country and before such a tribunal was much less easy than that of the wealthier heirs. With regard to the stipend, although the East India Government had a right to dispose of it as they thought fit, he would admit that it had never been the custom of the East India Company to deal otherwise than most liberally with the families of the native princes. The Bombay Government proposed to make these parties an allowance of 12,000 rupees a year at first. He thought this had been since increased and a case had been made out for dealing with them even more liberally, but the proposal he had to make was to be understood as consequent upon the withdrawal of the Bill. He considered a Private Bill the worst mode of dealing with the question, and the House would be doing the greatest possible mischief to the public service, if such claims upon the public revenues of India were to be made in Private Bills. It should be recollected that such claims really concerned the revenues of the Crown, of which the Directors of the East India Company were trustees for the benefit of the people of India, and he might have to discuss hereafter whether the Standing Orders ought not to be altered, so as to give the Indian revenues the same protection which the revenues of the Crown enjoyed in similar cases. As a Private Bill he should oppose the present measure; but if the Bill were withdrawn, he would undertake that the whole of the

1653
pension should be given to the descendants of the Nawab for the lives of the persons interested, to be distributed in the manner settled by the Government of Bombay. He did not propose that this allowance should be made perpetual to the families of the parties, because no benefit could possibly arise from maintaining a set of gentlemen for ever in pomp and luxury. Instead of becoming good citizens, they would probably become bad mock kings, the focuses of internal agitation, dissolute and unhappy in themselves, and cherishing hopes which could never be realised. He saw no reason, therefore, why those allowances should be granted in perpetuity. The offer of an allowance for the lives of the parties was, he thought, one of great liberality on the part of the East India Government, and perhaps the wisest course would be to adjourn the consideration of the question, so that the individual concerned might have an opportunity of reflecting whether he would accept the offer now made to him. If he should determine to persevere with this Private Bill, then, considering it to be unconstitutional, unwise, and improper, he (Mr. V. Smith) would take a division against it. The House must, however, remember that this was not a payment from a private fund, but from the revenues derived from the ryots of India. When the House was told, therefore, to compassionate the distress of this gentleman, he might appeal, if he chose, to the condition of those who would have to pay a person infinitely wealthier than themselves. He would now leave the question in the hands of the House, but he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) would fix such a day for the further consideration of this question, as would enable his clients to consider this proposal, which he hoped, as well upon their own account as for the constitutional question involved, they would be prepared to accept.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he must beg to correct an error into which the right hon. Gentleman had fallen in calling the applicant his (Sir F. Kelly's) "client." He begged to inform the right hon. Gentleman that he had undertaken to forward this claim as an independent Member of Parliament, from a conviction that it was a just and well-founded one. He and the applicant could not stand in the relation of counsel and client. He could not accede to the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Indian Government.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control had objected to the form and constitution of the Committee, of which he, Mr. Cardwell, was chairman, and also to the limited functions which they had prescribed for themselves. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the treaty part of this question ought not to have been left to the Committee on a Private Bill chosen by the Committee of Selection. That certainly was not the proper tribunal before which the matter should have gone. However, the officers of the House had no choice, and could do no otherwise than they had done, but there was an individual who had the power of remitting the question to another tribunal, and that was the President of the Board of Control. He might have taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and he might then have stated his impressions to the House, or he might have availed himself of a clause in the Privy Council Act, and referred the matter to the consideration of a Committee of the Privy Council. The public part of the question ought to have been referred to an ordinary Select Committee, and the private question of property might have been referred to a Private Bill Committee. But when the subject was referred to the Private Bill Committee, after the Bill had been read a second time, their course was to deal with it as they thought best, and they did so by dealing in the usual way with the private question, and they reported specially on the public part of the question; and he would appeal to the House whether that, the unanimous decision of the Committee, was not the best course they could have taken? It was argued on the one side that the Nawabship of Surat became hereditary in 1800, by an agreement then made for the first time; and on the other side it was stated that the Nawabship was hereditary up to 1800, and that by the deed of alienation, called the treaty of 1800, it ceased to be hereditary, and had, in fact, never been hereditary since that time. It was, he thought, clear that before the year 1800 the East India Company did consider that they had vested in them the rights of the Court of Delhi, and that they had the power of disposing of the Nawabship as they pleased. But it was also clear that from the year 1759 down to 1800 there had never been an instance in which the line of hereditary succession had not been scrupulously observed; and

1655
it was also proved that when the Bombay Government proposed in the year 1792 to dispose of the succession as they pleased, and the question was referred to Lord cornwallis, he said that the eldest son of the deceased Nawab had a claim by hereditary title, and he consequently acknowledged that claim. On the next vacancy in the Nawabship, the hereditary heir attempted to ascend the throne, but Lord Wellesley determined to take the Government of Surat into his own hands, and he sent Governor Duncan to Surat with an armed force, and with instructions that if Nasr-ud-Deen would not ratify the articles of agreement sent with Governor Duncan, the Nawabship was to be given to some one else. The real meaning of those instructions was—"Take possession of the power of Surat by treaty if you can; by force, if by treaty you cannot." The Nawab executed the articles of agreement submitted to him by Governor Duncan, on representations which the Governor had prudently left upon record, and which had on a previous occasion been detailed to the House. The Governor pointed out to the Nawab's agent the expediency of the Nawab's cheerful acquiescence in the treaty, as it would give him and his family from generation to generation a greater security than they had yet had of an honourable provision. He added that the Company, which had never failed in a strict adherence to its engagements, would now become bound in perpetuity to support the Nawab and his family. On another occasion, when the Nawab's chief objection to the treaty seemed to be the omission of the words "for ever" after "heirs" in the 4th Article, the Governor assured the agent that a stipulation for a stipend for a man and his heirs meant that it was to continue for ever, or until the heirs became extinct. It was under those circumstances that the treaty was signed. With regard to the interpretation of the treaty, there could be no doubt that, if it were regarded as an agreement between private parties, there being no words of limitation to control the word "heirs," that word must be construed generally, and the agreement must not be regarded as limited to a particular class of heirs. He would next show in what manner the agreement had been acted upon. Nasr-ud-Deen died in the year 1821, and was succeeded by his son, who clearly could not have inherited the Nawabship without the concurrence of the Company. The
1656
widow of Nasr-ud-Deen then applied for a portion of the annuity on the ground that it was separate from the Nawabship, but the Bombay Government declined to put that construction upon the treaty, and the matter ended by the son giving the mother an allowance equivalent to the portion she had claimed. The son of Nasr-ud-Deen dying in 1842, the male heirs became extinct, and the promoter of the present Bill, who had married a daughter, claimed by right of inheritance the dignity of Nawab, together with the annuity. Now, what view did the officers of the Indian Government take with regard to that claim? Mr. Elliot, the resident at Surat, dealt with the annuity as a continuing annuity, and apportioned it among the persons who, he thought, were entitled to it. The opinions both of Mr. Elliot and of Mr. Blane were laid before Sir George Arthur, who, after a full review of the case, came to the conclusion that "the Government was bound in honour, equity, and good faith to continue the stipend." Sir George Anderson, also, who had formerly held the situation of Judge at Surat, although he doubted whether at the time the treaty was signed the contingency of the lapse of the Nawabship was contemplated, thought that, according to the words of the treaty, the heirs, while any remained, were entitled to receive the annual stipend. The Government of India, however, took a different view of the case, but he cast no imputation either on the Government or on the East India Company for the conclusion at which they had arrived; they were supported by strong authority, and they had no interest on either side. The power of the Company to determine the Nawabship, on the death of Nasr-ud-deen, had been used as an argument in favour of their construction, but it appeared to him to bear the other way, because it could not have been intended to make a grant in perpetuity contingent upon an office about which there was no element of perpetuity. He had now stated the grounds upon which the Committee had decided, regarding the treaty as an agreement between private parties; but he doubted whether he could have consented to treat this as a Private Bill if there had been no opportunity of obtaining the decision of the House upon the great constitutional questions which it involved. He would now state in what manner he thought the matter ought to be settled. Agreeing with Sir George Anderson that the failure of male heirs was not

1657
contemplated at the time of the agreement, he thought the agreement ought to be interpreted by the words which had been used, and the stipend dealt with as an hereditary pension. It was, however, a question whether that part of it which was evidently intended to meet an expenditure which now no longer existed—the office of Nawab having been abolished—ought not to be retrenched. But, as it was by no means clear who were the heirs of the Nawab—as it was uncertain whether the promoter of this Bill would have any interest in the pension, supposing it to be hereditary, the money ought to be placed in the hands of trustees, there to remain until that question had been decided. He would now leave the House to deal with the matter in the manner they thought most consistent with the justice of the case, the rights of individuals, the dignity of the British Crown, and the honour of the British name.
MR. NAPIERsaid, that as a Member of the Committee, he had carefully examined the whole case, and was perfectly satisfied that there had never been a juster claim set up than that of the promoter of this Bill. In his opinion the original treaty was accurately worded, and there could not be the slightest doubt as to its construction, or that it conferred an annuity in fee on the Nawab without any limitation or relation to the continuance of the Nawabship. That was the construction which had been put upon the treaty by Sir George Arthur and Sir George Anderson, and he was quite sure it was the right one. The present claimant had now been fourteen years—half his lifetime—prosecuting his claim, and it was time that the question should be finally settled. The East India Company had been for that period trustees of this pension, and they ought to be compelled to give an account of its appropriation. By the Act of Parliament the right of appeal to the Privy Council in this particular case had been taken away, and one object of the Bill now before the House was to bring the decision of the Government at Bombay with respect to the heirship to the Nawabship before the Judicial Committee, and to have it determined whether that decision; was in conformity with law or not.
MR.MANGLESsaid, that, after careful deliberation, he had come to a conclusion on this question totally opposite to that formed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed the House.
1658
The Court of Directors of the East India Company had not the smallest personal interest in this matter, and their opinion on the subject was as honestly and conscientiously entertained, and was entitled to the same degree of respect, as the opinion of those who supported the present Bill. The East India Company were trustees for the public of the revenues of India, and were bound to do everything in their power against attempts to appropriate it. The only question to be determined was, whether the stipend was given to the heirs of Nasr-ud-Deen being Nawabs, or to his heirs generally. The merits of the whole matter were to be found in Lord Wellesley's instructions for the conduct of the treaty, that treaty itself, and Governor Duncan's diary of what took place. If all those papers were read in connection with each other, he believed that they would be found to support the view taken by the East India Company. They must be regarded as State papers, and not as mere negotiations between private individuals, and the fair conclusion to be drawn from them was that which had been adopted by successive Governors General of India, by successive Courts of Directors, and by no less than three successive Presidents of the Board of Control. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) admitted that Lord Wellesley fixed the quantum of the pension in reference to the continuance of the Nawabship, and for his part he believed that the whole thing was fixed in relation to such continuance. It was manifest that when in the course of the negotiation with Nasr-ud-Deen, Governor Duncan spoke of the perpetuity of the pension, he referred to the future perpetuity of the Nawabship (which had not previously been hereditary) in the family of Nasr-ud-Deen. The sole object of the Company was to protect the revenues of India; but they were willing to place a liberal and kindly interpretation upon the treaty, and to assent to the proposition of the Board of Control.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he was opposed to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly). If the treaty were looked to it was impossible not to see that it was at least doubtful if the East India Company were not right in the course it had taken. He (Mr.Wigram) objected to the Bill, because there being this reasonable doubt, that the case in question was not foreseen, the pension ought to have terminated with the extinction

1659
of the legitimate heirs to the Nawabship. The Bill, moreover, proposed to put an absolute interpretation on the treaty, and to completely shut up the question for ever, by making the pension payable even though the Nawabship was extinguished. He desired to point out that the justice of the case would be met by giving parties claiming a right to a suit in equity on the subject; and he was satisfied a court of justice would put the proper construction on the treaty. If the question was to be treated as a judicial question that was the proper course to take. He was opposed to the Bill on various grounds; amongst others, that it was not a matter to be dealt with by a Bill, but by an Address to the Crown, and he therefore deprecated any Parliamentary enactment on the subject, for the purpose of saddling the revenues of India with an additional burden.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, he wished to explain that, as a Member of the Committee, the Bill had been framed and settled so as to leave it open to either party to proceed before a judicial tribunal. He would also state that, as the revenues of Surat were now paid to the East India Company, they would pay the amount claimed out of those revenues.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control, not thinking it his duty to divide the Bill into two parts, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested that he ought to have done, had left it for the Committee to do, or, at least, to recommend such a course. The right hon. Gentleman had also stated that the Government ought to have referred the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The President of the Board of Control had been anxious to take that course, but he had been informed by the highest judicial authority in the country that it was inadmissible, as the Privy Council had no power to consider the question. The merits of the case having been so fully gone into, it was unnecessary for him to touch upon them, and he would content himself, therefore, with expressing the highest esteem and respect which he entertained for Meer Jaffier personally. He was of an ancient and respectable family, he had no personal interest in this matter, but was merely seeking to do what he conceived to be his duty to his children.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he must state,
1660
in explanation, that it was not competent for the Committee to divide the Bill into two parts, unless the House had specially instructed them so to do.
The Bill was then ordered to be read a third time.

OUR RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES—QUESTION.
MAJOR REED: I wish, Sir, to ask the hon. Member for Inverness-shire whether, pending negotiations between this country and the United States, be still intends to bring forward the Motion which stands in his name for to-morrow?
MR. BAILLIE: Sir, I am anxious to state, for the convenience of the House, the course which I intend to pursue in reference to the Motion of which I have given notice for to-morrow. Having heard from various quarters that it might be inconvenient to the public service to enter at the present moment upon any discussion of American affairs, I intend to give up that Motion. At the same time, I wish distinctly to state, that I have in no way changed the opinions which I had originally formed upon the subject. They have, on the contrary, only been confirmed by the papers which have been laid on the table by Her Majesty's command, and, if I now withdraw my Motion, I only do so because I would not wish to pursue a course which might be thought to be prejudicial to the public interest.
MR. G. H. MOORE: Sir, I regret exceedingly to hear that the hon. Member for Inverness-shire has abandoned the task which he had undertaken, and which he was so very competent to discharge; and I regret still more to find that hon. Members around him appear to acquiesce in that decision. But though this side of the House may abdicate the functions of an Oppostion, that is no reason why this House should abdicate the functions of Parliament, and I, for one, will certainly not abdicate the privilege of an independent Member, of calling upon the House to give its opinion upon any question on which it may think it expedient for the public service that its opinion should be expressed. I think it is right, Sir, that the sense of the House should be taken on this very important question. I therefore give notice that I shall take the sense of the House upon it on the very first day on which I can obtain an opportunity, and in whatever form I may think most convenient.

DWELLINGS FOR LABOURING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause2. (Tenants' obligations as to defaults).
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment, the object of which was to dispense with notices to quit.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 10, to leave out from the word "landlord," to the word "whenever," in line 24.
Question put, "That the words 'and upon further proof' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 183; Noes 27: Majority 156.
Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 3.
Clause 4, (Outgoing Tenants entitled to Compensation for Crops).
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, that the Committee, on a former occasion, struck out the process for the recovery of the rent due from an outgoing tenant, which he wanted the Committee to reinsert as follows—
"The justices shall, by a distinct order, fix such sum (if any) as they shall think a fair compensation to him for the loss of such crop; and no warrant shall be issued to execute the order for possession until the landlord shall have paid or tendered to the tenant (or allowed him credit for) the sum so fixed by the order for compensation."
Clause agreed to, as were also the remaining clauses.
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he would now beg to move the insertion of a clause to the effect that every landlord of any tenement within the Act shall be bound to keep and maintain the said dwelling-house or place of abode in good and tenantable condition and repair; and in case it shall be proved that such dwelling-house or place of abode was, by the landlord's default, unfit for occupation by reason of the want of such repairs, it shall not be lawful for such landlord to recover any rent or compensation for the use and occupation of the said premises during the period of time they were in such state and condition.
Clause brought up, and read 1!.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, the clause could not be properly included in the Bill, as the Bill was of limited application, and there being no process in the Bill by which the proposition embodied in the clause could be enforced. If the hon. and gallant Member would bring in a Bill to make his clause of general application, he would support it.
MR. G. H. MOOREsaid, the objection of the right hon. Gentleman was only technical. Surely the premises ought to be kept in tenantable repair, when the landlord possessed such extraordinary and summary powers to enforce his rent.
Question put, "That the clause be read a second time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 154; Majority 115.
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he would now beg to move the insertion of another clause to the following effect—
"In case any person shall feel aggrieved by any order, decree, or adjudication, to be made by any justices under this Act, it shall be lawful for such person to appeal against the same, and such appeal shall be to the like Court, and subject to the same incidents, and be heard and dealt with in the same manner as an appeal under the twenty-fourth Section of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, save that in lieu of the seven days' notice of the appellant's intention to prosecute his appeal required by said Act, the appellant shall give notice in writing of his intention to prosecute his appeal to the opposite party five days at least before the commencement of the sessions to which the appeal shall be made, and save that the recognisance to be entered into shall be in the form (B) in the Schedule to this Act annexed, or to the like effect, and that such appeal shall not be dismissed on any point of form."
Clause brought up, and read 1!.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he must oppose the clause, which would go a great way to defeat the object of the Bill. The effect of the clause would be that the landlord would avail himself of the law as it at present stood, where there was no appeal.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he should support the clause. The Committee ought to consider the course of legislation the House was carrying by large majorities. The proposed Bill was, in point of fact, a short measure for the eviction of Irish tenantry. On the one side would be two justices (landlords), and on the other the unfortunate cottier tenant. Why should not the poor man have the right of appeal? A house and home was everything to the poor man. If the Committee did not allow this clause to pass, it showed the determination of the House of Commons to favour the eviction of the unfortunate Irish tenantry.
MR. KENNEDYsaid, he felt called upon to stand up for the poor man's right of appeal, equally with the right enjoyed by the rich man. He hoped the Committee would sustain the reasonable request of the hon. and gallant Member for Longford.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he should vote for the clause of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Greville), as he wished to avoid the slightest appearance of unfairness towards the poorer tenants. But he must protest against the tone assumed by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. M'Mahon) on all occasions, as if he were the advocate of the Irish tenants, whenever questions affecting land-land and tenant were mooted.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he should give his support to the clause. The dwelling-house of the poor man might be humble, but it was as much to him as the mansion to the nobleman. The Bill would supersede the necessity of the notice to quit, and the matter would go before Justices at petty sessions, who might mistake the law, and which mistake carried with it consequences the most disastrous to the unfortunate tenant. There could be no mischief resulting from the appeal. If the said appeal would neutralise the effects of the Bill, all he could say was, sooner than there should be unjust decisions he would not press the Bill. Every security in the clause was taken that there should not be frivolous appeals. The principle of appeal was guaranteed to the English law wherever the power of summary jurisdiction was conferred.
MR. BUNBURYsaid, that it was his intention to support the clause of the hon. and gallant Member for Longford. As a magistrate sitting in petty sessions and called upon to decide in a matter relating to the occupation of a tenement, possibly of a brother magistrate, it would afford him consolation to know that his decision could be appealed against. In all such cases the decisions of magistrates should be above suspicion. He should, therefore, vote for the clause.
MR. NAPIERsaid, if the clause was adopted, his right hon. Friend (Sir W. Somerville) might as well give up his Bill. The main object of the Bill was to give summary power, which could not be done if the right of appeal was conceded.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, one of the strongest feelings in the Irish mind was that they could not get justice done to them, and that was the reason why they so often attempted to do themselves justice, and why this country was occasionally shocked by deeds of violence, which were, however, confined to a comparatively small
1664
portion of the population. He was, for this reason, in favour of the clause.
CAPTAIN J.O'CONNELLsaid, he thought that it was essential to have an appeal. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Somerville) whether the decided opinion of the first Law Officer of the Crown in Ireland ought not to induce him to pause before opposing the insertion of the clause.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, if the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Fortescue) had contented himself with supporting the clause instead of also attacking him, he should not have risen, but the hon. Member had attacked him and charged him unfairly with holding himself out on all occasions as the advocate of the tenants of Ireland. He did no such thing, although he represented as large a body of tenants as any Member in that House, and was interested in seeing that no injustice was done to them.
Question put, "That the clause be read a second time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 91: Majority 16.
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he would now beg to move the insertion of the following clause:—
"The landlord of any tenement, or his agent, if justices of the peace, shall not as such take any part in the hearing of any complaint, or in the making of any order, decree, or adjudication under this Act, in relation to such tenement."
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, that his only objection to the clause was, that it was unnecessary. The magistrate who could be guilty of anything so unfair and indecent as to sit in judgment on his own case was unworthy of holding Her Majesty's Commission.
MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, he approved the principle of the clause, but he must express a hope that English Members would not suppose that it was the practice of magistrates in Ireland to take part in the hearing of their own complaints. He had never heard of such a case.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed. Bill reported as amended.

POOR LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. NAPIER, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that its object was to remedy the defects of the system under which Poor Law elections were at present conducted in Ireland. That system was so faulty, that it afforded unlimited

1665
facilities for the commission of frauds and forgeries. At an election of Poor Law Guardians held in Dublin in 1855, no fewer than 800 votes were forged in one Union. Not only were the names of children five years old pressed into this service of imposture, but so, too, were those of persons long since dead, and of others who had never existed. Besides, what made the case worse was, that the law afforded no clue for the discovery of those who had been guilty of such fraudulent practices. It was the more to be regretted as accuracy in the Poor Law rating was a matter of great importance, that rating being the basis of other franchises in Ireland. It was, therefore, with the view of correcting this crying evil that the present measure was prepared. The Bill was founded upon the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, applicable to England, and substantially embodied the 14th and 15th clauses of that Act. It would enact that no person should be entitled to vote for a greater amount of rent or tithe than the rated value of the property; that none-occupying ratepayers should give a full description of the property in respect of which they claimed to vote, and of their interest therein; that proxies should be limited to five years, and a book of property voters be made out in each Union; that objections to the right to vote might be made in writing, together with other provisions, having for their object the maintenance of the rights of property and the interests of morality. A Session of Parliament ought not to be allowed to pass without measures being adopted to check the startling amount of forgeries and fabrications to which he had referred, and he therefore trusted that he should have the co-operation of the Government in endeavouring to effect so desirable an object.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that feeling that the sitting of the House was too near its termination for him to be able to explain his objections to the Bill in detail that day, he would beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— QUESTION.
On the Motion that the House do now adjourn,
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE 1666
said, he was very anxious before the House adjourned, to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government relative to the Vote to which the House came on the previous night. That Vote was, in his opinion, one of the most unfortunate decisions at which the House had ever arrived, and a day ought not to be suffered to elapse without some notice being taken of it. Its importance could not possibly be exaggerated; for they might depend upon it—in spite of all that had been said last night—that the Address to the Crown which had been adopted, not, he believed, by the deliberate judgment of the House, but, by an accidental majority, so far from involving, as had been represented, only a slight modification in the system of national education established in Ireland, amounted to the direct subversion and reversal of that system. Believing that the House of Commons did not mean to sanction so great a change, he thought it very desirable that they should have another opportunity of considering the question.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he rose to order. The hon. Gentleman had risen ostensibly to ask a question, but had put none. He had merely animadverted on a former debate, without keeping either to the question before the House or to the inquiry which he perhaps wished to make.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he only desired to say that it was his intention to submit a Resolution to the House, pledging them to support the national system of education in Ireland as it at present stood; and, being convinced that such a Motion ought, if made at all, to be made on an early day, he felt, as a private Member of that House, that any attempt on his part to obtain a speedy discussion would be futile, unless he had the assistance of the Government. He had, therefore, to ask, whether the noble Lord would give him an early day for the purpose he had indicated?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I quite concur with my hon. Friend as to the importance of the subject to which our decision of last night related, and also as to the evil effects flowing from that decision. I likewise agree with him, that great advantage might result from the reconsideration of the subject, accompanied by a further expression of the opinion of the House upon it. I believe the decision of last night does not by any means represent

1667
the real sentiments of the House of Commons, and that therefore, in a matter of such vital concernment to the people at large, no unnecessary delay should be allowed to take place in enabling this assembly to express its true convictions regarding it. Under these circumstances, I shall be ready to give my hon. Friend, Monday next for the introduction of his Motion.
The House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.