Sitting of 4 March 1867

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Arthur Hugh Smith Barry, esquire, for Cork County.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries [61].
Committee—British North America [52].
Report—British North America [52].
Considered as amended—Duty on Dogs [36].

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE—BOROUGH FRANCHISE.—QUESTION.
MR. WARNERsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will be willing to re-consider the expediency of adopting in the Reform Bill the principle of his abandoned Resolution No. 5, and to discuss, as a possible basis of Borough Representation, the following or some similar proposition:—Occupiers who for two years have been rated to the poor, and not excused on the ground of poverty, to have one vote for each Member to be elected; Residents in the Borough who for two years have been assessed to House Tax or to Property or Income Tax upon the full scale to have one vote for each Member to be elected; Persons entitled under both qualifications to vote under both?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, allow me to answer that Question at another time.

CASE OF THE "TORNADO."—QUESTION.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has any objection to lay upon the table of the House the following documents, which appear to have been omitted from the printed Correspondence presented to the House respecting the seizure of the Tornado:—First, the enclosures in the owners' letter to the Foreign Secretary, dated the 26th of November last—namely, the copy of the Ship's Register and Bill of Sale; the copy of the Shipping Articles, or agreement with the crew; and the copy of the Customs clearance from the port of Leith. Second, a letter from Mr. Saul Isaac, to the Foreign Secretary, dated Cadiz, November, 1866. Third, a letter addressed to the Foreign Secretary by the owners of the Tornado on the 15th ultimo?
LORD STANLEY: The first set of papers, Sir, to which the Question of the hon. Gentleman refers were omitted from the blue book merely because they were very voluminous, and the whole purport of them was to be found in other parts of the Correspondence. As, however, the hon. Gentleman has called for them, and as there is no reason against their production, they can be printed in the appendix. With regard to the letter from Mr. Saul Isaac, under date of November, 1866, I cannot find any such letter. There is one, however, written in October, 1866, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will communicate with the writer and let me know whether that is the letter to which he refers. With regard to the letter of the 15th ultimo, that will also be produced. It was received since the publication of the blue book.

SANITARY CONDITION OF LIVERPOOL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SAMUELSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the table the recent Report of Mr. Taylor on the sanitary state of certain parts of Liverpool, and on the condition of the dwellings of the poor in that town; and whether he has received from the local authorities of that place any satisfactory assurance that the recommendations of Mr. Taylor will be promptly carried into effect?
  MR. WALPOLE: Sir, the Report of Mr. Taylor is a very long and a very valuable one. It has been only recently delivered at the Home Office, and I have not yet had time to go through it, but when I have done so I will inform the hon. Gentleman whether it can be laid on the table.

SPIRITS, BEER, AND WINE LICENCES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the evils arising from the fact that a separate jurisdiction exists for granting Licences for the retail sale of Spirits, Beer, and Wine; and, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to bring in a Bill to place the granting of these Licences under one jurisdiction?
  MR. WALPOLE: The matter, Sir, referred to by the hon. Gentleman has been
  1308
  brought under the notice of Her Majesty's Government in a vast variety of forms, in the several different applications made to the Home Office on the subject. Some particular applications are at this moment under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but until they have all been thoroughly examined, I am not prepared to state to the House what course the Government will take.

ARMY ESTIMATES.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, Whether he proposes to make his statement on the Army Estimates to-night, the Supplementary Estimates having been laid upon the table only that evening?
GENERAL PEEL: I do not propose to take any Vote with regard to the Supplementary Estimates. If the House will permit me I propose to go on with the ordinary Estimates.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he wished to know, whether the number of men to be voted for the year's service was not settled by the first Vote? But as certain rumours were afloat, it was open for the House to surmise that the successor of the right hon. Gentleman might not agree with him as to the proper number to be voted for the year's service. ["Order!"]
GENERAL PEEL: The first Vote will be that for the number of men. It would be of the greatest possible convenience to the House that I should explain the grounds I upon which these Estimates have been framed. I propose to bring them forward to-night, and there would be no use in my doing so unless we were to take the Vote for the number of men, of which, I trust, I shall be able to give a very good explanation. I am sure the House will acquit me of any wish to deceive them. I wish to give the House the opportunity of separating the two Estimates, in order that it may have the opportunity of agreeing or disagreeing with the proposals I shall make with regard to the Supplementary Estimates. The Supplementary Estimates have nothing to do with the ordinary Estimates; but if there is the slightest wish I will postpone my statement.
MR. GLADSTONE: There is no Gentleman in this House who would think of imputing to my right hon. and gallant Friend a wish to deceive anybody in the House or out of it; but I am bound to say

1309
that the question as to the number of men is one directly and essentially connected with the strength of the reserve which you propose to establish. If the public service requires that there should be a Vote of money taken in Supply, of course there is an easy expedient—to take a Vote on Account. The statement can be made without taking the Vote, and I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will give us an assurance, which I am convinced is required by the facts of the case, that he will not propose to take the Vote for the number of men to-night.
GENERAL PEEL: I will postpone my statement until Thursday, and the House will have then an opportunity of seeing what I propose to do. I have no desire to bind the House to anything until I have made my explanation.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE.

  MINISTERIAL EXPLANATIONS.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I understood to intimate just now that he would answer tonight the Question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Warner), Whether it is his intention to give that answer, perhaps in combination with some other matters with which of course I have nothing to do, upon the Motion for the House going into a Committee of Supply?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER.It is.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE.

  MINISTERIAL EXPLANATIONS.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, since I last had the honour of addressing the House, the majority of the Cabinet having resolved to recur to their original policy with respect to the borough franchise and to establish it, in their belief, upon a sure, extensive, and permanent basis, I deeply regret to say that three of our Colleagues have felt under the necessity of tendering their resignations, which have been accepted, and they hold their seats only until their successors are appointed. I still more regret to say that
  1310
  among them is one whose name I am sure will ever be mentioned in this House with honour and regard—my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War (General Peel). I need not refer to his readiness and personal wish to have the opportunity of explaining to the House those Estimates and that policy which he has recommended to his Colleagues, and which they have adopted and sanctioned. I am sure that neither myself nor any of his late Colleagues for a moment wish to stand in the way or to take objections to his doing so, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, as still Secretary for War, may have the opportunity which he desires. But I have to tell the House that arrangements have been suggested which, when they have been submitted for Her Majesty's pleasure and have been sanctioned by her approbation, will allow me to state that the Government of Lord Derby is complete, and I believe it will be in my power to make that announcement on Friday. Perhaps the House will also allow me to indicate the course which Her Majesty's Government propose to pursue with respect to the Reform Bill. They propose to introduce it on the 18th of this month. They propose likewise to ask the House to take the second reading, if convenient, on the Monday following. There will then remain ample time for complete discussion of the measure. If the measure be accepted, as soon as consistent with the public business we can go into Committee, and I shallmake a proposition on the part of the Government that the House shall sit in Committee on the Bill de die in diem.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL.

  (Lords.) [BILL 52.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee rend.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. OSBORNE: I cannot help thinking, Sir, that the time has arrived when, after having been kept for three weeks in the dark as to the policy or intentions of the Government, some further explanation is due to the House. ["Order!"] I am speaking, Sir, on the Motion that you leave the Chair.
  MR. SPEAKER: The House is now

  1311
  proceeding on the Motion for going into Committee on the British North America Bill.
  MR. OSBORNE: I was about to move, Sir, on the Motion that you leave the Chair, that the House do now adjourn. I cannot think that I am taking any liberty with the House in moving the adjournment. This is no common period in the history of Parliament. Sir, what has happened? For three weeks this House has been kept in the dark as to the proceedings of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down, not on the first night of the Session, but on the Monday following, and, like Cagliostro expounding the secret of the philosopher's stone, he left us as much in the dark as we were before. And what has now happened? We are told that the Government is about to recur to its original policy. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, or, at any rate, some of his Colleagues that are left, or possibly those that have gone, what the original policy of the Government was? This House has a right to demand what it was. Whether it was to land us in an £8 rating or in household suffrage no man in this House or the country knows. It is but decent to this House—it is, at any rate, what the country demands, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—whether he is the late or the present Secretary for War I am not able to say—whom we all admire and respect for his consistency and also for his noble abnegation of self, that he, or at least the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranbourne), should tell us what that original policy was, or why they have left Her Majesty's Government? I will not press the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for War on this occasion, because he is still sitting on the Treasury Bench, and possibly some other policy may be initiated which may keep him there; but I ask the noble Lord, who I am sure will not scruple to tell us, the reason why he has left the Cabinet. I ask the question out of no vulgar curiosity, but because it is an explanation to which not only this House, but the constituencies which sent us here are entitled. I am surprised that such a duty should have devolved on so humble a Member as myself; but I am sure that I only reflect the common sense of the country in asking why the noble Lord has left the Government, and what is the original policy to which the Government have recurred after three weeks' con-
  1312
  sideration. I beg, Sir, to move the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Osborne.)
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that some nights ago, in Committee of the House, a sum of £6,000 was voted for excess of expenditure, and he wanted to ask the Secretary of the Treasury what this was for? ["Order!"]
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: I regret to say, Sir, that my reply to the hon. Gentleman must necessarily be brief, He must be aware that it is not in the power of those who have had the honour of forming part of Her Majesty's Government to speak as to what has taken place without the permission of Her Majesty. That permission I have not received, and I therefore regret to say that I cannot satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. OSBORNE: I give notice that I shall renew the Question at the first opportunity.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think, Sir, the answer which has just been given by the noble Lord is one which is perfectly sufficient and conclusive. At the same time, I am bound to say that I do not think any blame attaches to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) for referring to the terms in which another disclosure or revelation has to-night been made to the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not confine himself in the brief statement that he made within necessary bounds. He did not merely state that alterations had occurred which would call for time in order that Her Majesty's Government might well consider their course; but, as has been observed by my hon. Friend, he also told the House that the Government had "recurred" to their original policy. Now, Sir, that is an explanation which imports more difficulty than it removes, and I own I am sorry that such a declaration was made; because the mind of every man who heard the right hon. Gentleman must have immediately conceived—indeed, it was involved in the very words—that the original policy which has now been revived was, at the time when it formerly existed, the policy of the entire Cabinet, including, therefore, of necessity, the three distinguished persons of whose services the Government have now been deprived. At this critical moment, therefore, when I am sure the House would

  1313
  gladly have consented, with that delicacy and justness of feeling for which it is so remarkable, to abstain from all inquisition, the expressions of the right hon. Gentleman most unfortunately have had the effect of casting upon his Colleagues who have retired the responsibility of some change of policy, which has been ostensibly the cause of the present embarrassment. I am sure the noble Lord and my right hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me if I point out that which appears to me to lie upon the very surface of the case, and that they will not for a moment presume that I am giving an opinion on the matter. I think, however, that there are a few words which it is necessary at this juncture to say on the part of the House. Four weeks have now elapsed since the House met, and those four weeks have not been, as they were last year, weeks of silence on the part of the Government, justified, or, at any rate, believed by us to be justified, for stated and substantive causes; but they have been weeks in which we have seen more than once an attempt to make a fitful and uncertain advance, to be followed by a speedy and unequivocal retreat. When Parliament met, a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne announced the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring before us the question of the representation of the people, and great satisfaction was felt by us all when the right hon. Gentleman made the engagement, which he afterwards fulfilled, that on a very early day he would open to the House the views of Her Majesty's Government. When, however, those views were opened—I will not say anything either in praise or in blame of them—it certainly appeared to the House, and L think to the country, that instead of advancing with the question, we stood at a point somewhat behind that which we had occupied on the first night of the Session. There were, consequently, general demands for a further elucidation of the matter, and on Monday last the right hon. Gentleman brought down a plan and laid it before the House. We then for a second time—the first being the opening night of the Session—thought that progress was to be made. No debate took place upon that plan. A few remarks were made by myself—I am not sure whether any were made by any other Member—and those remarks certainly did not convey any intention to oppose that plan upon the second reading of the Bill that was to be introduced. No sooner, however, had that
  1314
  plan appeared than it also seemed to be smitten with paralysis, and there went forth rumours in London and throughout the country that that plan was itself to be withdrawn. Without Parliamentary opposition, almost without Parliamentary comment, that scheme has ceased to exist. At this moment we find ourselves at the point at which we originally stood. I have seen in a distant country an ancient Greek dance, in which the women, from moment to moment, commence by advancing three steps, and immediately afterwards continue the dance by retreating two steps. But our case is not quite so favourable, for, in the political dance of the present Session, if the advance has been three steps, the retreat has been of three stops also. Now, I advert to this matter not as a question between party and party, but because there are others besides ourselves who are interested in it; and it is essential, in my opinion, to the well working of the Constitution that the country should not lose, and that we should do nothing to diminish, the confidence which the country places in the House of Commons as a body capable and competent to deal with public emergencies when they arise, Therefore, I hope that at the point at which we have arrived we shall henceforward have one definite, consistent movement in the same direction. I am bound to say—and I do not fix the charge on the Government alone, I speak of the House of Commons without distinction of party—that unless we can convey to the mind of the country more distinct and definite convictions of our capacity to treat this great occasion with the force and decision it demands, not the Government alone, not those who sit behind them, but all classes of this great assembly of the Parliament of England will stand materially discredited in public opinion. I have said so much on the subject of procedure. With regard to the substance of the Bill, I do not intend to go into any further critisism, which I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite circumstances alone have extorted from me, and my deep conviction as to the somewhat critical position of the House itself before the country. I do not intend by that criticism to qualify anything that I may have previously presumed to say, on behalf of myself and others, with respect to the reception which we shall give to a definite proposal from the Government. I may venture to express, however, a hope that that proposal when it

  1315
  appears will be of a simple, straightforward, and intelligible character. I will not ask that it shall not contain what is now. It must contain what is new. But I will ask and I will express a hope that it will not contain what is new-fangled. The people of this country are eminently attached to simplicity of procedure, and I think there never was a moment when they were in mood less favourable for dealing with plans and schemes which might seem to them to deviate from the character of simplicity. I trust, above all, that the Bill of the Government may not be a measure containing two sets of provisions, one of them framed to have the semblance of giving, and the other constructed to have the reality and effect of taking away. I may perhaps be uncharitable in allowing my mind to be influenced, even in the slightest degree, by those rumours with which the air is thick and full; but it is not possible wholly to resist their effect. And I say, in conclusion, that if the Government, avoiding those dangers—serious, I think, for all public men, and more serious when the question has reached that state of complication and entanglement at which this question has unhappily arrived—if the Government, escaping those dangers, shall submit a plan, good, simple, ample, straightforward, constitutional, and intelligible in its character, I venture to promise that it will be received on this side of the House in no grudging spirit—with no recollections of the past, with no revival of those mutual suspicions and complaints which I grant may be bandied from either side of the House to the other, but with an earnest desire to bring the endeavours of the Administration to a speedy and prosperous issue. I wish to make an appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Aytoun), with respect to the Bill for the Confederation of the North American Provinces, which is now proposed to be committed. My hon. Friend had given notice of his intention to raise a debate upon the 145th section, which relates to the construction of a railway which will unite the Provinces of British North America. I cannot help thinking, and I am sure I express the feelings of the Under Secretary for the Colonies, that it will be much better to wait for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the guarantee, than to raise the discussion of a question so important upon this clause in the Bill. Having read the clause with cave, and having consulted upon it with
  1316
  others, I venture to give the most confident opinion that it has no bearing upon the obligations of Parliament, and that the discretion of Parliament must remain entire, subject only to the announcement of the Government with respect to the proposed guarantee. Upon an early day there will be ample opportunity given for full discussion on the question; and therefore it will be better to allow the Bill to go through Committee, it being a matter which appertains—I will not say to the security, but to the dignity of the Empire, and which should proceed from stage to stage without unnecessary delay.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 41 (Continuance of existing Election Laws.)
  MR. E. W. T. HAMILTONsaid, he wished to ask whether it was intended to give the franchise to females, or to confine it to males? The clause as it stood said that "every British subject" of the prescribed age should have a vote.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he presumed it was not intended that females should vote.
  The word "male" inserted before "British subject."
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 42 to 52, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 53 (Increase of number of House of Commons.)
  MR. E. W. T. HAMILTONsaid, that in the clause a power was reserved of increasing the number of Members, and he thought it might be desirable to give the power of also diminishing it. The total number of Members who would be required for the general and provincial Legislatures would be 550, which might be found too many to be conveniently furnished from a population of 4,000,000. 550 Members would be equivalent to a population of 15,000,000. He was aware that the number had been settled by the delegates of the Canadian Provinces; but he wished them to have the power of diminishing the number if it should be found too large.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the population of the Provinces was rapidly increasing. The Bill had been drawn for a representation based on the existing elec-

  1317
  toral districts in the several Provinces, and such an alteration as the hon. Member suggested would involve a subversion of the entire arrangements of the measure.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the greatest possible importance was attached in Canada to the maintenance of the electoral districts as they stood, inasmuch as any re-arrangement of them by a dominant majority might tend to interfere materially with the interests of the minority.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that the proposed Amendment would destroy the symmetry of the measure.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.
  Clause 56 (Disallowance by Order in Council of Act assented to by Governor General.)
  MR. E. W. T. HAMILTONsaid, he thought some greater limit should be put to the time during which Her Majesty had power to disallow any Acts that might be passed. Two years was too long a period for Her Majesty or Her Majesty's Government to consider whether they would allow or disallow a Bill. He also suggested that a provision should be inserted by which a Bill reserved for Her Majesty's approval should become law unless Her Majesty disallowed it within a certain specified time.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, the clause before the Committee only provided for the disallowance of a Bill within two years. He would not discuss whether the time were too long or not; but he did not think that was the best opportunity to alter a rule with regard to the disallowance of Bills, which applied to all the colonies. He was satisfied, too, the hon. Member could entertain but little apprehension that Her Majesty would exercise her power in that respect in a manner injurious to the Confederation.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 57 agreed to.
  Clause 58 (Lieutenant Governors of Provinces.)
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that in his opinion, the appointment should be made by the Crown and not by the Governor General. The Lieutenant Governor should come from England, and should be independent of and not hold office merely during the pleasure of the Governor General. With regard to the two Lieutenant Governors, who would be superseded by
  1318
  this Bill at Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, he wished to ask if any compensation would have to be made to them?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that upon the score of pensions there was no difficulty in the case. The late Lieutenant Governors of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had been provided for, the one having been made Governor of Hong Kong, and the other of Trinidad, The present Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia had been informed that he received his appointment only until the Bill before the House was passed, and he had accepted the office on that understanding. In New Brunswick the duties of Lieutenant Governor were being discharged by the officer in command of the forces; so that no claim for compensation would in either instance arise. On the general question that the Lieutenant Governor ought to be nominated by the Crown, he must say that he thought to adopt that course would be to act contrary to the whole spirit of the Act, which was to render the North American Provinces as far as possible one community, the Governor General representing the Crown, and being in communication with, and responsible to, the Colonial Office.
  MR. GRENFELLsaid, great inconvenience might result in time of war if the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia were not placed in direct communication with the Colonial Office.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he could very easily communicate with that office through the Governor General. He also considered that it was better the appointments of Lieutenant Governors should be made by the Governor General, entirely on his own responsibility, than that they should be vested in the Crown. Supposing the Crown retained the appointment, reference would have to be made to the Governor General to ascertain the qualifications of persons suitable for office. It was one of the objects of the Bill to strengthen the hands of the Governor General as much as possible.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 59 to 68, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 69 (Legislature for Ontario.)
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that according to the Bill there was to be one Legislature for Upper Canada or Ontario, consisting of the Lieutenant Governor and one House, while the Legislature for Lower Canada or Quebec was to consist of the Lieutenant Governor and two Houses. He wished to know the reason of this difference.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the Representatives of Upper Canada preferred a single Chamber, and those who represented Quebec desired to retain their present two Chambers. The fact was that Lower Canada was a little more Conservative than Upper Canada, and preferred its existing local Legislature; which Upper Canada was ready at once to reduce to a municipality.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he rather agreed with Upper Canada in this matter, because he fancied he saw some element of difficulty, with respect to the nominated Upper Chamber, which certainly could not arise where a Province only had one Legislative assembly. There was no aristocracy in Lower Canada, out of which a suitable Upper Chamber could be formed. Many years ago, representing the interests of Lower Canada, he had endeavoured to do away with the nominative Legislative Council. They now avoided that evil in Upper Canada, but they were perpetuating the evil in Lower Canada.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 70 to 90, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 91 (Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada.)
  MR. E. W. T. HAMILTONsaid, he wished to know how a conflict of jurisdiction between the Parliament of Canada and the Provincial Legislatures was to be settled?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he did not think that any serious conflict of the kind anticipated by the hon. Member could take place so long as a supreme power was vested in the Governor General to veto Acts.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the framers of the American Constitution foresaw this difficulty, and provided a Supreme Court, whose province it was to decide whether even the laws passed by Congress were illegal. This Bill, however, seemed a lopsided one, and contained no provision to prevent the passing hereafter of laws which might be unconstitutional. In other words, the Canadian Parliament would be supreme. Supposing the Governor General and the Parliament of Canada were to pass a law that the Municipal Constitution of Nova Scotia was in contravention of this very Act, who was to decide whether they were right or wrong?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was afraid that the defect pointed out by the hon. and learned Member was not one which, in the
  1320
  present state of feeling in the North American Provinces, it was possible to remedy. As matters now stood if the Legislature of Canada acted ultra vires, the question would first be raised in the Colonial Law Courts, and would ultimately be settled by the Privy Council at home. No doubt it was a defect, but the point had undergone consideration by the delegates, who thought it would be better to leave things in this state.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 92 to 144, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 145 (Duty of Government of Canada to make Railway.)
  MR. AYTOUNsaid, that he had placed on the paper an Amendment to the effect that this clause should be omitted; but after the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, whom he understood to say that the clause could in no respect fetter their freedom of action when the Bill guaranteeing the loan came on for discussion, he would not press his Amendment. He wished, however, to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies to state, whether in the negotiations anything had occurred to render it possible for the colonies to consider that this clause, if passed, would bind the House in the discussion which would afterwards take place on the Bill for granting a guarantee.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that there was no doubt that the present Government had come to an understanding with the Canadian delegates that they would propose a guarantee to Parliament, but there was nothing whatever in the clause under consideration that would bind the House to that proposal when made. The history of the clause was simply this—the completion of the Intercolonial Railway was regarded by the various Provinces who were parties to the Bill as a sine quâ non, and they wished to have the clause inserted in this measure with the view to record the agreement among themselves, thus giving it a sanction. What would be proposed to Parliament was to guarantee the interest at 4 per cent upon a loan of £3,000,000. The Confederation would be completed by the Bill. There was nothing in the Bill that could pledge Parliament, which would be left entirely unfettered, to discuss the guarantee when proposed.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that in 1859 he went with the delegates, who were then here from America, to Lord Derby upon the

  1321
  subject of this Intercolonial Railway. He stated to Lord Derby at the time that it was an Imperial, and not merely a colonial question, because it might happen that we might have a quarrel with the United States in the month of December; and, if so, Canada would be a sealed land to us because the St. Lawrence would be frozen. It would, therefore, be of great importance to us to have means of transporting troops to Canada. The very case which he contemplated occurred in the affair of the Trent. The noble Earl saw the force of that statement, and the deputation left him with the impression that the railway would be made. Soon afterwards there was a change of Government, and the light hon. Gentlemen who entered office—thinking it their duty to undo everything that Lord Derby had done, good, bad, or indifferent—stopped the guarantee. As; time went on, however, they—much to their credit, and very unlike the rest of mankind—learned by experience; they took the matter up, and the right hon. Gentleman who was then Secretary for the Colonies consented to do the very thing that his leaders had, some two or three years before, prevented.
  MR. LOWEsaid, there was some difficulty about this matter. The clause was peculiarly worded. We proposed to enact that these States should make arrangements for the construction of the railway in question within six months after the union. But we had no power to do anything of the sort. We could not issue a mandamus to compel them, and yet we pledged ourselves as strongly as words could do to make this railway. We commanded that which we had no right to command, His right hon. Friend had declared that this railway was considered by the colonists a sine quâ non. And; then the House was asked to go another step. They were informed that a Bill was to be laid before them for the purpose of giving a guarantee, and that this clause would not in any way hamper their discussion when the Bill on the guarantee came before them. If the Government gave such an assurance, he supposed they must take it. But for that assurance he should have thought the clause would commit Parliament to the loan. But if it should be the pleasure of the House to refuse this guarantee, as he hoped it would, he trusted they would not have the gentlemen who represented the North American Colonies turning round by-and-by and saying that
  1322
  they had enacted this clause about a guarantee and then refused to carry it out.
  MR. E. W. T. HAMILTONsaid if they were to pass this clause in its present shape they would have no option but to assent to the guarantee when the Bill on the subject was presented to them. He understood that if the Committee passed this clause and made the House a party to the agreement, which was a sine quâ non with the Maritime Provinces, they would be obliged to give a guarantee for the loan which was now stated to be £3,000,000, but which he had always heard would amount to £4,000,000. If the question rested on the grounds stated by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, he would not give his assent. It was not because it was a matter of Imperial concern, and that otherwise we might not be able to get our troops into Canada, that he was willing to entertain the question of a guarantee. He would do so simply on the ground that it might be for the interest and well-being of the Provinces.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished hon. Members to read the clause and see what it really meant. It said that inasmuch as the Provinces had determined that such a railway was essential to the connection between them, be it enacted that it shall be the duty of the Government and Parliament of Canada to make it. That was all that was in the clause, and when hon. Gentlemen talked of its being a guarantee they should try and see what the words meant. If the clause provided anything else let somebody get up and say what.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 146, 147 (Admission of other Colonies) agreed to.
  New Clauses added.
  Clause A. Salaries of Lieutenant Governors shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada.
  Clause B. Salaries, &c, of Judges, &c, to be fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada.
  Also a new Section VIII. Revenues; Debts; Assets; Taxation.
  Clauses C. to A. A. added.
  Also a Third Schedule List of Provincial Public Works—Property to be the Property of Canada.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

CRIMINAL LUNATICS BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
MINISTERIAL EXPLANATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OSBORNE: In order, Sir, to put myself in order, I am about to move the adjournment of the House, and I take this unusual course in consequence of a transaction which had occurred in "another place." I did not think that I was putting myself unnecessarily before the notice of the House at the beginning of the evening when I demanded some explanation from the Treasury Bench as to the unusual position in which this House has been placed. Tire right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), however, maintaining that system of silence which has characterized the Government from the commencement of the Session, refused to give any answer, and the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranbourne) intimated that he had not received Her Most Gracious Majesty's permission to make any statement to the House. The House assented, and was left in that ignorance in which, if it depends on the right hon. Gentleman, it will be kept until the 18th of March. But what has happened in "another place?" The secret with regard to the Bill which, we being the most interested party, ought to have communicated to us in the first place, that secret has been let out in "another place." Not only has the noble Lord the Leader of the Government (the Earl of Derby) communicated in "another place" the original policy of the Government, but a noble Lord (the Earl of Carnarvon), who has resigned office, has, it appears, received the permission of Her Majesty to state, and has actually stated, the reasons why he has left the Cabinet. I leave the matter to the consideration of the House. If the House is content to be treated as a mere Court of Registry, to assent in silence, and to abdicate its functions, I shall say no more; but there are people out of doors who will see, with astonishment, that while a communication has been made in "another place," the Leader of this House maintains a silence which is as extraordinary as it is obstinate. I beg, Sir, to move the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Osborne.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think, Sir, I can give a satisfactory reason for the silence which I have observed. I had communicated with my noble Friend (Viscount Cranbourne), and was aware that it was not in his power to make any statement to the House, and I certainly think it would have been most unbecoming in me to enter into details which I myself had not received sufficient authority to disclose, and under particular circumstances, in which others were obliged to be silent. I have no doubt, however, that an opportunity will be properly taken for that frank communication to the House which always occurs when political changes of this kind happen. What has occurred in "another place" is unknown to me, and unless I receive some authentic account of it, I am not disposed to put upon it the interpretation which the hon. Gentleman has done. All I can say is, that in the course which I pursued I was influenced, not only by a sense of public duty, but by those private feelings of honour which, I hope, will always animate Members of this House.
  MR. ROEBUCK: No interpretation is required in the matter. The fact is palpable that in this House information has been refused, which in "another place" has been granted. If the right hon. Gentleman has had no communication with his Leader it only shows that there are more divisions in the Cabinet than the House were aware of an hour ago.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.

DUTY ON DOGS BILL— [BILL 36.]
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer)
DUTY ON DOGS BILL— [BILL 36.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration as amended read.
  MR. HUNT MR. HUNT moved the omission of that part of Clause 3 referring to packs of hounds. He said, that the intention was to give an advantage to masters of packs; but owing to a supposed ambiguity in the wording they entertained an impression that the clause would operate to their prejudice, and that they would not be able to take out licences at per head.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Further Consideration deferred till Wednesday.

SUGAR DUTIES BILL— [BILL 37.]
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
SUGAR DUTIES BILL— [BILL 37.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration as amended read.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he had slate at the earliest opportunity the decision of Her Majesty's Government as to the day on which the change of duties should take place. They had received communications from the Governments at the Hague and at Paris. The conditions which the Dutch Government attached in case the new duties came into operation earlier than the 1st of May were such, that Her Majesty's Government found it would be inconvenient to accede to them. They were confirmed in that opinion by finding that the French Government took the same view. Her Majesty's Government therefore proposed that the 1st of May should be the day on which the new duties should take effect, and they were glad to learn that those interested in the trade entirely agreed with this decision. He should therefore propose to substitute the word "May" for "March" throughout the Bill, and to defer the third reading for some little time.
  Bill re-committed for Wednesday.

OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERIES BILL.
(Mr. Stephen Cave, Sir Stafford Northcote.)
OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERIES BILL.

  [BILL 61.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE MR. STEPHEN CAVE moved the second reading of this Bill. He said, its object was to assimilate the law relating to private oyster-beds to the law as it was laid down by the Act of last Session in regard to beds formed under that Act. By 3&4 Vict. c. 75, oyster taking from private beds was made theft, and by the 24&25 Vict. c. 96, it was made felony. It was, however, held that the thief must be taken in the very act, and that oysters were not property in the sense that they could be followed. In this way the thief almost invariably escaped punishment, and the ends into of justice were defeated. To meet this such Committee on that day six months, defect in the law provisions were inserted in the Act of last Session, making oysters the absolute property of the owners of beds, and thus converting the stealing from a statutory offence to an offence at common law, and capable, therefore, of more easy detection and punishment. These pro-
  1326
  visions existed in the case of companies having private Acts, such as the Herne Bay, Roach River, &c., Companies. By some oversight this part of the Act of last Session was confined to beds formed under the Act, which was a manifest injustice to owners of private beds lawfully formed previous to the Act. The owners of these beds had consequently been nearly ruined by thefts which it was impossible to prevent, and which were stimulated by the high price of oysters. The Bill simply extended the remedies under the Act of last Session to private oyster-beds. There were certain shadowy claims by individuals and corporations in the nature of manorial rights over certain oyster-beds, which were difficult to define or enforce, and were frequently disputed. It was not intended to cure defects in such titles, and therefore the operation of the Bill was limited to beds which had been exclusively worked by or under the owner for five years past. This was to be considered sufficient evidence of a perfect title. He had now explained the whole scope of the Bill, which simply carried out the principle already affirmed by Parliament in the Act of last Session and other Acts.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday.

COUNSEL TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA BILL— [BILL 51.]
(Mr. Selwyn, Mr. Buxton, Mr. Coleridge.)
COUNSEL TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA BILL— [BILL 51.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Selwyn.)
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he intended to move an Amendment in this, a fuller House than he had addressed on a former occasion. The object of the Bill was to enable the Counsel to the Secretary for India to sit in the House of Commons, and he moved an Amendment to the effect that the House should resolve itself The present Counsel was Mr. Forsyth, who was returned for Cambridge, but unseated by a Committee of the House on the ground that his sitting in the House was contrary to the statute of Anne, which disqualified any one for a seat in the House who received emoluments from the Crown,

  1327
  imposing also a penalty of £500 for a breach of its provisions. He objected to the Bill because it was exceptional, and because, as Counsel to other Departments of the State might be equally required in the House, the Act of Anne should be dealt with as a whole. When he had questioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday night whether he intended to repeal the statute of Anne in favour of the gentleman whom it was proposed to appoint as Equity Counsel to the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman declined to give an answer. If he were to take for truth the old adage that silence implied consent, then it was clear that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the hon. and learned Gentleman sitting in the House. There was no more reason for this official to sit in the House than for many other learned gentlemen who occupied analogous positions. The House should either admit all or admit none. He should not object to a Bill throwing over the statute of Anne altogether, and allowing the Counsel for all the Departments to sit in Parliament. There were altogether seven Standing Counsel for different offices, and he saw no reason why legislation should take place for a particular case.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Serjeant Gaselee,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he approved the Bill, on the ground that constituencies ought to have the fullest freedom of choice in the selection of representatives, and that restriction by disqualification was opposed to the policy which ought to govern our legislation. The statute of Anne was obsolete, because it was passed under the influence of jealousy lest the Crown should obtain undue influence in that House. But the House now, indirectly, appointed the advisers of the Crown, without whose advice the Crown could do nothing. One objection to the restriction was that it was technical. An officer appointed by the Crown could not sit in the House, but one appointed by the Ministry could. The Secretaries to the Treasury and the Admiralty did not, on
  1328
  appointment, vacate their seats, because they were appointed by the Lords of the Treasury and the Admiralty. It would be easy, therefore, to secure an officer a seat in that House by providing that he should be appointed, not by the Crown, but by the Ministry. The restriction was therefore a delusion, because it was grounded on technicalities; and if Mr. Forsyth had been appointed, not by the Crown, but by the noble Lord at the head of the India Office, he might have sat in the House. The thing was absurd, and could not be justified. He was sorry the Bill did not extend to other cases; but that was no reason why they should not deal with this case. He accepted the Bill as an instalment towards a desirable consummation when every constituency should possess the fullest liberty in the choice of its representatives.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the Bill was directed against an absurdity. The statute of Anne was passed when there was a contest between the aristocracy and the Crown, and that contest had entirely passed away. The aristocracy fancied that the Crown might acquire power in the House of Commons; but we were now living under new circumstances, and the real qualification for a seat in that House was the vote of a constituency. Lord Macaulay made a remarkable speech in that House upon the question of the Master of the Rolls being entitled to sit there, while other Judges were excluded. Doubtless that was one of the anomalies that ran through our laws on the subject. A Lord of the Admiralty vacated his seat when he was appointed, but a Secretary of the Admiralty did not, because the former was appointed by the Crown and the latter by the Lords of the Admiralty. The slightest alteration of arrangements would enable the Ministry to bring in whom they pleased, provided the persons had constituencies; and if the counsel to the India Board were appointed by the Board instead of by the Crown, he could sit in the House. Why that course was not adopted he did not know. No man in his senses could imagine that the Crown could acquire undue influence in the House through inducing a constituency to send into the House a person appointed to an office by the Crown. The Bill would effect good to the extent of doing away with one anomaly, and it was an odd reason for opposing it that it did not abolish other anomalies. Our whole legislation had been piecemeal, and expe-

  1329
  rience showed that it was advantageous in the long run to abolish grievances piecemeal, and not by wholesale.
  MR. COLERIDGEsaid, he must explain why he stood in the somewhat anomalous position of supporting the Amendment while his name was on the back of the Bill. It was his own fault entirely, and not that of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn), that he wrongly understood the object of the Bill. He had supposed it was designed to appoint a sort of Attorney General for India, to advise the Government, and to go in and out like other officers of the Government. To such an officer he could not see any objection, as Indian law was a special subject with which the generality of English lawyers were not familiar, and if the statute of Anne stood in the way of the appointment of such an officer it would prevent the appointment of a useful one. But if the proposal was that the counsel was to be a permanent officer he saw considerable objection to it. It was undesirable to let the Government appoint an officer who was practically irremovable, and who, being fully acquainted with all the details of the policy of a Government, might not agree with it, and might from his place in the House oppose it. It appeared to him that there would be considerable practical inconvenience in the appointment of an officer who, he understood, would not go in and out with the Government, but would be irremovable. He should, therefore, vote in favour of the Amendment.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, he regretted that any misapprehension on the subject should have existed in the mind of his hon. and learned Friend; and if the forms of the House would allow it he should be ready to move that the name of his hon. and learned Friend should be at once struck off the back of the Bill, especially as the speech just delivered had convinced him that even now the hon. and learned Member had not read the Bill, and did not understand its provisions. His anxiety had been to divest this Bill of anything like a party character, and he was therefore desirous to have two Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House to support the Bill. One of those Gentlemen, who, he understood, was favourable to the principle of the Bill, was the hon. Member for East Surrey, and the other his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken, and whose only doubt, he then believed, was as to the
  1330
  two sections of the statute of Anne. He (Mr. Selwyn) had never thought of creating any new office, but the object of the Bill was merely to remove an exclusion which was not merely an accident, but also an anachronism. The hon. and learned Serjeant (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee), who had moved the rejection of the Bill, seemed to think that he (Mr. Selwyn) had advocated the Bill upon personal considerations, but that he altogether denied, and he would not, therefore, speak of the Gentleman who held the office at the present time. It was plain that this exclusion was merely the result of accident. If there had been any doubt on the subject before, it must have been removed by the statement of one of the Members of the Committee—Sir James Fergusson—who said they did not at all dispute the proposition laid down that if the office were an old one, the transfer of patronage to the Crown did not make it a new office; but that their decision was founded upon the circumstance that the Act required a scheme, and that this office was included in the scheme. When the Act of 1858 was passed the office in question was held by Mr. Loftus Wigram, who at that very time sat in that House as one of the representatives of Cambridge University. That being the case, it was impossible to doubt that the question as to the exclusion from Parliament of the holder of that office must have been present to the minds of the framers of that Act, and of the Legislature which passed it. The members of the Counsel were expressly excluded, but the Standing Counsel was not, and if it had been intended to exclude him the Act would doubtless have declared it. The hon. and learned Serjeant must be singularly ignorant of the position occupied by Mr. Wigram if he supposed that, for the sake of retaining this office, he would ever have resigned his seat for the University of Cambridge. But this exclusion, besides being an accident, was also an anachronism, and a proof of that was to be found in the speech of the hon. and learned Serjeant, who had said that the power of the Crown was increasing, had increased, and ought to be diminished. That statement might be left to answer itself. Lord Macaulay, in a memorable speech on the proposed exclusion from Parliament of the Master of the Rolls, said that nothing could be more unreasonable, or more inconvenient, than the rule which laid down that the holder of an

  1331
  office created since the 25th of October, 1705, should not be a Member. He added—
  "A great jurist seated among us might, without taking any prominent part in the strife between the Ministry and the Opposition, render to his country most valuable service, and earn for himself an imperishable name. Nor was there ever a time when the assistance of such a jurist was more needed, or more likely to be justly appreciated, than at present."
  But it bad been objected that it would be exceedingly inconvenient to take the opinion on matters of Indian policy of a person who might have been appointed by a Whig Government and who would consequently be in opposition to the Conservative Secretary of State. This objection, however, bad been conclusively answered by Lord Macaulay in the speech which had been already referred to. The truth was that the House would not require from a legal officer an opinion on matters of policy, but simply information as to matters of fact. As an instance of this he might refer to the debate of Wednesday last on the sale of banking shares, when the Solicitor General was asked by an hon. Member opposite as to what were the limits of the liability of partner's who had retired from associations of that kind. So as to the right of adoption question, the Standing Counsel to the Indian Secretary would be asked, not what was his opinion on the policy of adoption, but what was the fact respecting the terms in which treaties were usually drawn up in India. He could not help thinking it would be a very great convenience if there were an officer in the House who could answer questions of that nature, and that consequently the exclusion of the holder of the office was a great disadvantage to the House of Commons. There never was a time when such assistance was more requisite as would be evident if they regarded the increase of trade between this country and India, and the importance of our relations with the Native Princes of that country. On ordinary questions of law, if information were wanted by any Member of the House, an appeal might be made to the Law Advisers of; the Crown; but the questions with which the Counsel for India would have to deal would be of a very difficult and of a special character. Then, as to the inconvenience of such an officer being permanent, and to his being called upon to serve alike under a Whig and a Tory Government, he would point, by way of analogy, to the Counsel to the Admiralty, in which
  1332
  case no such inconvenience had been felt, though the successive holders of that office bad sat in the House for many years. It was true as the hon. and learned Serjeant had said, that there are many barristers who would be glad to accept this office, but the Secretary of State was bound to choose, not amongst the hundreds of briefless barristers, but amongst those who had deserved and obtained professional success; he was bound to look out for a man who could worthily fill the office; and men of that class usually aspired to a seat in the House of Commons, and would therefore decline an office which was subject to such a condition. The choice of the Secretary of State would thus be materially limited, and by insisting on this exclusion a great injury would be inflicted on the public service.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he felt it is duty not to allow this Bill to go to a division without expressing his opinion of it, though, for personal reasons with reference to the Gentleman who now held the office, he should do so with regret. He thought that considerable advantage to the public might arise from a careful revision and consideration of the disqualifications introduced by the statute of Queen Anne. There would also be some advantage in the revision of those provisions of the statute of Anne, which made every acceptance of office, even though it involved only a change from one office to another, necessarily lead to a new election. If any hon. Member proposed that the whole of that subject should be referred to a Committee, or if the Government thought fit to refer it to a Commission, considerable public benefit might arise from that course. He certainly should not commit himself to the opinion that the present case, among others, might not be properly dealt with by a change of the law consequent on such an inquiry. But he had a strong impression that it was unfit and inconvenient that a change in the law on that subject should be introduced in the manner now proposed for one particular case. If there was one principle clearer than another it was that a Bill for one particular case should be founded on reasons especially applicable to that particular case, and not on reasons of a general character, tending to the subversion of a law which had been, and still was, acted upon in a great number of other cases. The hon. and learned Members for Dundalk and Sheffield (Sir George Bowyer and Mr. Roebuck) had

  1333
  avowedly based their support of that Bill on a general disapproval, as unsuited to the present time, of the statute of Anne, and all the disqualifications it contained. In their view the right principle was to give an unlimited choice to every constituency, and abolish altogether all such official disqualifications. But there was a multitude of those disqualifications; and the House would hardly allow itself to be drawn into the hasty affirmance of so broad a principle, by so narrow an application of it, as a Bill to except one particular office from the general rule. On that ground, he thought it would be unwise to pass that Bill. But his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn) did not rest his advocacy of it on any such general ground; but said that, without interfering with any general principle at all, it might be supported on its own merits. Before the decision of the Committee, he had himself doubted whether the particular appointment in question was an office within the statute at all; but a Committee of most competent persons having come to the conclusion that it was, it must be assumed in the present discussion that their conclusion was right. What, then, were the special reasons urged by his hon. and learned Friend for taking that disqualification out of the general category? His hon. and learned Friend said it was an accident and an anachronism, and that if the attention of Parliament had been called to the case, provision would have been made enabling the Standing Counsel to the Secretary of State for India to sit in that House. But how his hon. and learned Friend was able to divine what would have been the legislation of the House, if a question had been brought before it which never was brought before it, it was difficult to understand. His hon. and learned Friend said that in the very Act of 1858, a clause was introduced to prevent the Members of the Indian Council from sitting in that House; but if they were to adopt his line of reasoning it would lead them to the conclusion not only that the legal advisor of the Secretary of State for India should be eligible for seats in that House, but that the Members of the Indian Council should also be so; for who were more competent to enlighten the House on Indian questions than the members of the Indian Council? But the policy of the statute of Queen Anne was, as to those gentlemen, solemnly re-affirmed at the passing of the Act of 1858. Again, he
  1334
  did not think there would be that kind of advantage which his hon. and learned Friend expected from having the legal adviser of the Minister for India in the House, to be interrogated as to the law of India by all Members who might desire enlightenment on the subject. If the legal adviser of that Minister were to sit there, the one thing he ought not to do was to answer questions of that kind, affecting Indian affairs; for his special duty would be to advise the Government on such subjects; and as the legal adviser of the Government he was a confidential officer. Nothing could be more inconvenient than that he should be interrogated generally by hon. Members. As to the reference which had been made to a recent discussion connected with the succession to the Rajah of Mysore, those who had attended to that class of questions must be aware that there was a great difference of opinion among lawyers as well as statesmen as to the effect of Indian legal documents, especially as to those which might or might not contain words of inheritance; and much inconvenience might easily arise if the legal adviser of the Secretary of State were allowed to be interrogated upon such nice points in that House. The conclusion he came to, therefore, was, that although the presence of that Gentleman in the House, upon other general grounds, might possibly be of advantage, if they allowed the Counsel for the Home Office, and for all the other Departments to sit there also, yet there would be no special advantage in the legal adviser of the Secretary of State for India sitting there to enlighten the House on points of law, in respect to which he had confidentially to advise the Government. Therefore, all the special reasons urged in favour of the Bill failed. He expressed no opinion on the policy of sweeping away all these disqualifications, further than to say that the subject was one which well invited, and might well reward, general revision. But he protested against legislation which prejudiced the principle of a large and important public statute resting on public policy, by taking a particular case out of it without any sound reasons, applicable to that, more than to other cases.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that as a Member of the Committee which sat last year and unseated Mr. Forsyth, he might state that the only ground on which that gentleman was unseated was the accidental circumstance that in the Act of 1858 there was a clause requiring the Secretary of State

  1335
  for India to submit a scheme constituting the establishment connected with his office, which fact alone tended to make Mr. Forsyth's office a new one under the Act of Anne. Moreover, the Committee were not unanimous in their decision. This might, therefore, fairly be viewed as a doubtful case which the Bill was introduced to meet. The case of the Members of the Indian Council was not parallel, for they were incapacitated to sit in Parliament by an express clause in the Act; whereas the learned counsel was accidentally disqualified merely because he formed part of the establishment of the Secretary of State. A salary of £500 a year was the sum paid to that gentleman, and if he was to be incapacitated on that account from sitting in the House, the only result would probably be that the Secretary of State would not have a Standing Counsel, but would refer to a person learned in the law for advice as occasion arose. It was absurd to suppose that an eminent counsel would be influenced in political matters in that House by a salary of £500, At the same time, that particular case could not perhaps be wholly dissevered from many others of a similar kind; and he would suggest that the Motion and the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Selwyn) should consent to refer the subject to a Select Committee to be dealt with on broader and more general grounds.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, if such was the feeling of the House, he was very willing to accede to it.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the policy of the law was entirely against the admission to that House of any persons who were appointed by the chiefs of the public Departments.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Trades Unions * (31).
Third Reading—Masters and Workmen * (3), and passed.

MINISTERIAL EXPLANATION.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, before your Lordships proceed to the business of the evening, I think it is clue to your Lordships, in the present state of affairs, that I should state to you, without the slightest reserve, the position of the Government, and the circumstances by which that position has been brought about. I trust you will forgive me if, in laying before you, quite openly and without any reserve, both the course which has been pursued and the present state of affairs, I refer back to a single fact connected with the period at which my Colleagues and I took office. At that time Her Majesty's Government, having failed in carrying the Reform Bill which they had introduced in the House of Commons, felt it to be their duty—and I question not whether they did so rightly or wrongly—to resign office, and the Queen

1285
was therefore left without a Government. Under those circumstances, I felt myself unable to resist the appeal made to me by Her Majesty that I would accept the responsibility of forming a Ministry; but in doing so I undertook the responsibilities of office perfectly unpledged with regard to the subject of Reform. At the same time, I must say, my Lords, that almost immediately after the formation of the Government my Colleagues and I came to an unanimous agreement that it was absolutely impossible that we could altogether ignore that great and pressing question. The question which then naturally pressed on us was—considering the failure of our predecessors although they had the support of a majority of the House of Commons—in what manner we might bring to a successful issue a question which for more than eleven years had baffled the efforts of every preceding Government. My Lords, I felt, as I have had the honour of saying to you already in the course of the present Session, that it was a question which could not be settled by the mere authority or influence of any Government whatever; and that if the Government of last year was unable to settle the question, still less was the present Government likely to be able to command such a majority as would carry its measure against all opposition. We felt, therefore, that the only mode open to us—that the only prospect which was held out to us of a successful issue to our undertaking—was to proceed by what I may call a sort of tentative process, and to invite Members of different political opinions in the House of Commons to consider whether by an arrangement which might be more or less acceptable to various parties in the House a conclusion upon this great question might be arrived at. My Lords, it was with this view that we determined in the first instance not to proceed by a Bill, but by introducing a series of Resolutions, through which we had hoped to elicit from the House of Commons the views they took upon the main questions which would be necessarily involved in any Reform Bill. I admit that the Resolutions were somewhat vaguely and indistinctly drawn;—our desire was not to pledge the Government to a specific point upon any one of those Resolutions, but to endeavour to obtain the general opinion of the House of Commons as to what measures would be likely to meet with a general assent. My Lords, the House Commons has not thought
1286
fit to entertain the mode of proceeding we proposed, and consequently we were deprived of the great advantage of being able to collect what was the general feeling and desire of the House of Commons on the main points which we desire to ascertain. I do not, of course, say that we were prepared to adopt any mode of proceeding which the House of Commons might think fit; but what we desired to know was what arrangements might be made, what compromise was likely to be accepted, and in what manner we might, without any sacrifice of our own convictions, bring this measure to a satisfactory conclusion. The House of Commons, however, having evidently shown their disinclination to proceed by way of Resolutions, and having expressed a wish that a Bill should be introduced with the least possible delay, Her Majesty's Government did not hesitate, notwithstanding the great disadvantage under which they now laboured, to undertake to bring forward a measure; and it then became the duty of the Cabinet to consider immediately, without a minute's delay, the provisions of such a Bill as they thought they could lay upon the table of the House. Of course, the main provisions of a Bill had been the subject of anxious inquiry in the Cabinet for some time past; but we had not, up to that period, actually framed a Bill, and it therefore became necessary to consider what the provisions of the Bill should be. Two schemes were under the consideration of the Cabinet, varying from each other in that very essential particular—the amount of the extension of the franchise. One of these schemes was more extensive than the other. The more extensive one, I may say, was that to which our Resolutions originally pointed, and more especially the fifth Resolution, which, though, it has not been formally communicated to your Lordships' House, was, I may mention, to the effect that the introduction of a system of plurality of votes might allow us to reduce the franchise lower than could be done under other circumstances, and to establish it on a firm and durable basis. The other was a scheme of less extent. Both of these schemes were anxiously considered by my Colleagues and myself; and, though one very distinguished Member of the Cabinet entertained strong objections to the course we were endeavouring to pursue, yet he felt that, in order to secure the great object of perfect unanimity in the Cabinet, it was his duty to waive any

1287
objections he might personally entertain, as he shared in our earnest desire that this question might be settled. I had then hoped that with that exception the larger and more extensive scheme would have received the unanimous consent of my Colleagues, and we were prepared to submit that scheme to the other House of Parliament, when to my regret—and I may add somewhat to my surprise—I ascertained that two of my most valuable and most distinguished Colleagues, occupying most important posts in the Government, had, upon a re-consideration of the figures which had been presented to them, come to the conclusion that our proposed arrangements, especially in regard to the small boroughs, would produce such an extensive and injurious effect, that they were compelled to withdraw the adhesion which they had given to the proposal. I need hardly say that withdrawal relieved the other Colleague of whom I have spoken, from any obligation under which he might have felt himself placed. I and my other Colleagues were now placed in the painful position of having to consider whether we should present to Parliament that which we believe to be the more desirable and the more extensive measure of Reform, when such a proceeding would lead to outranks being diminished by the loss of no fewer than three Secretaries of State, all of them men of mark and character in the Cabinet, and all of them men who, in their several positions, have displayed more than ordinary ability. We may or we may not have come to the right conclusion; but I confess that I could not make up my own mind to so painful a sacrifice as long as there was a prospect, even by the introduction of a Bill less satisfactory to myself, of a compromise being effected. Under these feelings I and the majority of the Cabinet consented to submit to the House of Commons a measure which, I admit, we felt was not perfectly satisfactory, but which we hoped might, at all events, for a time settle this important question. My Lords, it became very shortly obvious that on either side of the House did that proposition meet with a satisfactory reception. It was not accepted by the Members of the late Government, and it was felt by the supporters of the present Government to be such a measure as could not be regarded as a final and satisfactory settlement of this vexed question. We had therefore, during the course of the past week, to consider—and to consider most
1288
anxiously—whether we should adhere to our second proposition, or recur to that which commanded the support of the great majority of the Cabinet, and at the cost of a sacrifice of three most esteemed and valuable Colleagues, to present to Parliament that measure which, in the first instance, the majority of the Cabinet considered the most desirable one. I need not say with what pain we came to the conclusion that it was our duty, placed in the position in which we are, charged with the awful responsibility of endeavouring to settle this great question, seeing no alternative, seeing it was proved last Session that our predecessors could not frame a successful measure on this subject, and seeing also the infinite importance of not allowing this question to stand Session after Session in the way of public business, to keep alive perpetual agitation and excitement in the country—to struggle with the difficulty. I felt it my duty to struggle with the difficulty, and my Colleagues supported me in that determination. I, for my part, whatever regret I might experience in separating from those of my esteemed Colleagues, who could not bring their convictions into unison with those of the remainder of the Cabinet, felt it my duty neither to throw up the post which I hold nor to abandon the hope of carrying a Reform Bill. I have determined to bring forward and to submit to Parliament, with such assistance as I can obtain, the measure which it was at first intended to introduce, but which the circumstances that I have explained to your Lordships led us for the moment to abandon. That measure will be in a very short time laid before the other House of Parliament. I trust that by the expiration of the present week we shall be able to replace—I will not say whether we shall be able to replace adequately or not—the Colleagues whom we have had the misfortune to lose. I believe that at the expiration of this week we shall be able to present a complete and united Cabinet; and I trust that, at no distant period, we shall be prepared to lay before Parliament the measure which we originally determined to introduce; and we hope, and hope most earnestly, that we shall be able to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion during the present Session. I cannot express the regret I feel at parting with three of the most important and most valued of my Colleagues, to whom I am united by feelings of political and personal friendship; but I felt that if I had not

1289
endeavoured to go on I should have failed in my duty to the public and to my Sovereign. And, whatever pain may feel on account of this separation, I trust that the remainder of my Colleagues will be equal to every duty they may have to perform; and that, in the course of the present Session, we may bring to a successful conclusion this great and paramount question, which has so long baffled all Administrations.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, after what has fallen from my noble Friend at the head of the Government I feel it necessary to trouble the House with a few words. There are two reasons why I should abstain from entering at any length into this question at the present time. First of all, it is to me a matter of infinite pain even to seem to enter into any kind of controversy with my noble Friend; and secondly, the provisions of the measure which Her Majesty's Government are prepared shortly to lay before Parliament are not yet known to the public generally, and it is impossible for me to justify the course I have taken, without reference to the measure itself. But I am anxious to state one thing, which is this:—In separating myself from my Colleagues I have not been influenced by any indisposition to deal with this question. I have felt from the very commencement that there was no alternative but to undertake the task of dealing with it, after the pledges which had been given by individuals, by successive Governments, and by the words which Her Majesty herself had spoken. More than that—I felt it right that this question should be now finally settled. Ever since the Reform Act of 1832 the number of the working classes has, perhaps, had a tendency to diminish rather than to increase in the representation, and certainly it has decreased in comparison with the representation of other classes, I felt that this question ought to be dealt with, and that considerable classes of our fellow-subjects might safely and with advantage be enfranchised. I admit the necessity and the justice of such a measure. I thought, moreover, such a measure might well be a bold and a new one, not too closely linked in character to former measures relating to this subject. And, at the same time, I have all along felt—and my Colleagues will confirm me as to this point—that an ample measure should be brought forward in an ungrudging and
1290
free spirit, because I believed that unless that were done there would be no chance of settling this vexed question upon an enduring basis. But I also entertained a strong opinion that the measure ought not to be a one-sided one, and that, while we admitted a full proportion I of the working classes, we should not admit them in such proportions, and under such conditions, as would place them in I absolute pre-eminence and control over all other constituents. I shrink from a class government of whatever kind; I shrink from the dead uniformity of any one class or interest or opinion; I shrink from sweeping away all intervening barriers and reducing the complicated system of English constituencies to two clearly defined, and, perhaps, ultimately hostile classes—a rich upper class on the one hand, and a poor artizan class on the other. Those are the views which have constantly weighed on my mind; and if agreed in many of the principles of the measure to be introduced, I felt at the same time that principles by themselves, as mere principles, are almost worthless, and that the only test you can have in this case is the common test of arithmetic. Now, that was the test I ventured to apply to the measure of which my noble Friend has spoken; and I could not hide from myself that, no matter how satisfactory its general principles might appear, the change proposed would bring about results very different from those which were expected. I do not want to go into details; but I saw great reason to fear that the results of the measure would effect an enormous transfer of political power, and alter the character of five-sixths of the boroughs of this country—that the principles might be good in theory, but the compensation in practice was illusory. I felt that I could not be a party to a change of so very great and extensive a character; though, as I have already assured your Lordships, I quite recognised the importance of admitting so many of the unenfranchised classes. In proof of my readiness to accept a large measure of enfranchisement, I may mention that, personally, I should not be afraid to go down to that point which is sometimes said to be the only resting-place—namely, household suffrage—in all those boroughs which exceed a certain limit of population, and to establish a £6 rating franchise in other minor boroughs. I mention this to show that, individually,

1291
I had no objection to deal with the question, but, on the contrary, was prepared to accept a large measure, providing only that the conditions on which it was granted were, in my opinion, satisfactory and safe. I have one other thing to say regarding the statement of my noble Friend. My noble Friend alluded to the compromise of a £6 rating introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons. Now, with reference to that proposal, I have only to observe that, if it was a measure distasteful to my noble Friend and, as I think he said, to the majority of the House of Commons, it was equally distasteful to me. It was not what I desired, but I accepted it—as I believe my noble Friend accepted it—simply with a view to prevent the consequences which unfortunately have since occurred. In conclusion, my Lords, I can assure you that the pain with which I adopted the step I have felt it right to take is scarcely to be expressed by me. My noble Friend, I know, undertook the Government of the country from a feeling of loyalty to the Crown, and a sense of public duty to the country. He undertook it under great difficulties and great discouragements; and therefore it has been to me, I think, the most painful act of my life to sever my official connection with him at, perhaps, the very moment of his greatest difficulty and embarrassment. But I have felt it my duty to do so. I have not been able to see how, consistently with my conscientious convictions on the subject, and with that self-respect which every man owes it to himself to maintain, I could adopt any other course. Under these circumstances, I have felt it my duty to place my resignation in the hands of my noble Friend. That resignation has been accepted, and I now hold office only awaiting the appointment of my successor.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I hope it will not be considered presumptuous on my part if, in the absence of my noble Friend Earl Russell, from indisposition, I say a few words with reference to the speeches which we have just heard. On the part, not only of my own friends in the House, but of the whole House, I venture to tender our acknowledgments and thanks to the noble Earl at the head of the Government, for the very much longer and fuller statement than what I am given to understand has been communicated to the other House of Parliament, regarding the proceedings of the Cabinet during the
1292
last week, and, indeed, of the whole period during which Her Majesty's Government have been in office. In the first instance, I hope your Lordships will at once give me credit for my desire, on grounds of taste as well as discretion, to refrain from saying one word—whatever the opinion I may have formed—on the differences between the Prime Minister and the noble Earl who has just sat down. It would, indeed, be almost impossible to do so, because there would be very great difficulty in following the statements of the two noble Earls, because we are still very much in the dark as to the circumstances which led to the painful alternative which the retiring Members of the Cabinet thought it their duty to adopt. But what I rise for is to say, that I can entirely confirm the statement of the noble Earl at the head of the Government as to the position he took when assuming office. My recollection is exactly the same as his—that he then stated, in this House, fairly and frankly, that, in respect of the question of Reform, he considered himself free to act according to the circumstances of the time, and to what appeared to him the public exigencies required when the time came. It is true that in a few days after a statement was made by the Leader of the House of Commons which gave rise to a very different impression in the country; but until to-day we were not aware of what the noble Earl has stated, and which is no doubt correct, that almost immediately after they came into office the present Cabinet did arrive at the conclusion (which, no doubt, was the right one) that it was desirable they should deal with the question of Reform. The noble Earl has told us what course they took in order to give effect to that conclusion. They thought it desirable, by very vague and very indefinite Resolutions, to try what the temper of the House of Commons was with regard to this great question. With regard to that I raise no question; but what I do complain of is that, from the statement of the noble Earl at the head of the Government and the noble Earl who has just spoken, it appears that during the eight or nine months which elapsed from the time when they made up their minds that it was right to deal with the question to the period when they placed those Resolutions before the House of Commons, the Ministers not only did not make up their minds on any practical measure, but did not even come to a decision among themselves as to the principles on which it

1293
was advisable to deal with the subject. I do think the noble Earl who has just spoken has shown a very proper feeling in not dealing with that part of the Prime Minister's speech in which he intimated he was surprised at the course which three of his Colleagues deemed it their duty to take. It is quite clear that no real decision of the Cabinet had been come to as to what the meaning of the Resolutions solemnly laid before the House of Commons was in their minds and wishes destined to bear. There is only one other subject on which I will make a remark. The fact is, on an occasion like this I should have preferred to say nothing; but I think I ought to observe that the Resolutions were withdrawn in favour of a Bill which, according to the statements of the two noble Earls, was approved neither by the majority nor by the minority of the Cabinet. It appears to me, I must confess, a most extraordinary way of settling differences to have taken a third course, which was equally disagreeable to both the majority and the minority, And, with reference to one observation made by the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury, I must deny that any Parliamentary action was taken on the proposals of the Government. There may have been individual speeches made on the subject. In those cases the speakers stated that they spoke for themselves; but as for the acknowledged Leader of the Opposition, no one can say that he did not show a perfect readiness to adopt the mode which the Government thought the best for dealing with the question. On the contrary, speaking of the proposal to proceed by Resolutions, he said that, though he thought it a bad mode of dealing with the question, and though many of his friends were of the same opinion, yet as that mode had been adopted by the Government, he was ready to consider their Resolutions. I am entitled to say, therefore, that though doubts were expressed, and suggestions thrown out, by various speakers, there was no Parliamentary action with respect to the Resolutions produced by the Government, or the very full sketch of a Bill given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a subsequent occasion. We have heard from the noble Earl who has felt it necessary to retire from the Government (the Earl of Carnarvon), though he was prepared to go as low as household suffrage, something about the other Bill which is to be produced; but we do not know how much lower the ma-
1294
jority of the Cabinet are prepared to go. The noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury spoke of the difficulty of passing it Reform Bill. Every one is aware of that difficulty; but this I will say—that during the last fifteen years there has not been so favourable an opportunity as exists now of passing a measure of Reform which will be satisfactory to the country and settle the question. This opportunity can be frustrated only by the fault of one side or the other. It can be frustrated either by factious opposition on our part, which I hope and believe will not be offered; or, on the other hand, by the inadequacy of the measure to be brought in by the Government. I therefore hope the Government will take advantage of the time which will elapse between this and the bringing in of the Bill—a fortnight or three weeks, I believe [The EARL of DERBY: A fortnight]—I hope they will take advantage of this time in considering what sort of Bill the country really requires, and in endeavouring to frame it in a simple and direct manner, and with as little tendency as possible to puzzle and mystify Parliament and the country. I am not authorized to go further than to express my own conviction, but it is one founded on conversations which I have bad indiscriminately with many Members of both Houses—it is, that if the Government approach the question in that way, the party with which I have the honour to be connected will meet them in a cordial and hearty spirit.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I cannot adequately express the regret and concern with which I listened to the statement of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby). I heard that statement with great regret—in the first place, because of the occurrence itself which has taken place; I heard it also with regret because I felt that, after what has been stated to us, there is little chance of this great question of Parliamentary Reform receiving that amount of careful consideration which it ought to obtain in the present Session of Parliament. I regret it most of all because it seems to me that the speech of the noble Earl introduces a novelty into Parliamentary practice, and announces a new system of carrying on the Government of the country, which I believe to be as disastrous to the public welfare as it is certainly unprecedented. If I correctly understood the noble Earl, it seems to me that the view of Her Majesty's Government was

1295
that they should come down to the House of Commons without any regular plan of Reform prepared on their own responsibility, and should endeavour to ascertain what were the views of the House of Commons, and act accordingly. My Lords, I thought such a course had been disclaimed. I thought that we had been told upon very high authority that Her Majesty's Government did not come down to the House of Commons to fish for a policy. I do not understand how those two statements can be reconciled. I have always believed, and believe still, that previous inquiry into this great question would have been better before any attempt was made to legislate on the subject. But did that imply that Her Majesty's Government was not ultimately to be responsible for the measure introduced? Far from it. In my opinion there were two courses, and only two courses, open to Her Majesty's Government. They might have either determined to attempt legislation in the present Session, or they might have determined—and I do not conceal my own opinion that it might have been the wisest course—that before legislating certain preparations were necessary. Had they adopted the second of these views, there was then an obvious course for them to have taken. They might, when Parliament met, have proposed Resolutions laying down the main principles on which Reform ought to take place, and then proceeding to pray Her Majesty by Address to institute in some mode or other an inquiry as to the best mode of carrying those Resolutions into effect. I believe that such an inquiry would have been attended with very great advantage, would have thrown much light upon the subject, and would have satisfied the country as to the soundness of the proceeding about to be adopted, and thus have done very much to bring all parties to an agreement. Whenever that inquiry was completed a measure founded upon its results might have been framed by Her Majesty's Government on their own responsibility, and submitted to Parliament in the ordinary manner. There was another very great and difficult subject urgently requiring to be dealt with more than thirty years ago, regarding which at the time there was the greatest conflict of opinion, no two persons agreeing how it ought to be settled. I advert to the question of the reform of the Poor Law. On this most difficult subject the Government of the day
1296
appointed a Royal Commission, which was presided over by a very able Prelate, the late Bishop of London, and by the Report of that Commission the Government were enabled to frame and pass a Bill with general assent, which they would in vain have endeavoured to obtain without previous investigation. Something of the same sort might have been done here when once the main principles of Reform had been decided on by Parliament; and this would have tended to an earlier and more satisfactory solution of the question than is now likely to be attained. This, I say, is one course that they might have adopted. If, on the other hand, they determined to legislate without such a Royal Commission, then there was only one course they could have taken with propriety—they should have appointed last autumn the ablest men whom, under the circumstances, they could command, to collect all the information which was necessary to enable them to come to a sound judgment. And the information so collected ought to have been submitted to a Committee of the Government charged with the preparation of the Bill, following the precedent of 1830–1. Such a Committee might have prepared a scheme which, after being considered and adopted by the Government, might have been submitted to Pariament. With a view to the adoption of either of these courses, it would have been a very proper mode of proceeding to submit suitable Resolutions to Parliament. But if the Government intended to legislate this Session, it is quite obvious that Resolutions could lead to no useful result whatever, unless they were founded on a clear and definite view of the subject already adopted by the Government, and contained a distinct explanation of the main provisions of the Bill they intended to propose. The Resolutions actually submitted to the House of Commons were of a totally different character. They could not have been more vague if they had been intended as the preliminary to inquiry, and not to legislation; they decided nothing, and any man at all favourable to any kind of Reform might, with some slight reservations, have adopted them. To bring forward such Resolutions by way of founding a Bill upon them appears to me to have been I really a mockery of Parliament. Now, we stand in this position—we shall have had no less than six weeks of the Session wasted before any step whatever

1297
is taken. At the expiration of that time, we are then, as appears from the statement made by the noble Earl to-night, with the views of the Government most fluctuating and undecided, to hope that in the course of a few days a Bill worthy of the acceptance of Parliament may be prepared. I would ask any man of ordinary understanding, whether he believes that a subject of this extreme difficulty can be satisfactorily dealt with in this way? For, remember what we have to accomplish. We have not merely to decide to what extent the franchise shall be lowered; but we have to consider with the enlarging of the franchise what other changes may become necessary, in order that the House of Commons may be so constituted as properly to discharge its high functions. Think of what enormous importance it is that the House of Commons should be so constituted. Our desire is that the country should be well and wisely governed. We want to have the House of Commons, both by its legislation, and by its advice and control, directing the Executive Government in a wise course of administration. Now, for that purpose it is necessary that the House of Commons should not merely consult the passing wishes of the majority of the population, it is necessary that the House should be so constituted that the highest intelligence to be found in the nation should be there adequately represented, and should exercise its due influence. A mistake once made in altering the constitution of the most powerful body in the government of this country is irretrievable. It is one of those things in which, if error is committed, you cannot retrace your steps; a mistake once committed may prove fatal. It is therefore most necessary that whatever is done should be done with due consideration and with the greatest possible care. I, for one, can hardly anticipate that when the question now to be dealt with is submitted to our consideration, the Bill drawn up by Government can exhibit that statesmanlike foresight of future difficulties which I believe to be essential in dealing with the constitution of this country, and with our most artificial and complicated social relations. I cannot bring myself to believe that the matter is either so simple or so easy as some suppose. There are considerations of the deepest importance to be taken into account before you decide on the propositions which ought to be adopted. Not anticipating that a discus-
1298
sion of this magnitude could have occurred to-night, I have been compelled to express very inadequately my sentiments with regard to it; but, after hearing the statement I of the noble Earl, I felt bound, at however short notice, to express the strong feelings which I entertain. I could not allow this occasion to pass without protesting against the manner in which this question is proposed to be dealt with.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I have no desire to complain of the manner in which the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) has discussed the statement which it was my duty to bring before the House, or yet of the good-humoured criticism in which he has indulged upon the course taken by the Government. There was only one point on which, I think, the noble Earl was guilty of a slight amount of exaggeration. He stated that eight or nine mouths after the formation of the Government the Government themselves had not in the slightest degree arrived at an understanding concerning the foundations of the Bill they were about to introduce. The time may have seemed long to the noble Earl opposite; but I venture to inform him that, up to the present moment, Her Majesty's Government have not been eight months in office. If the noble Earl will calculate the lapse of time from July 11, when the new Ministry was formed, to March 4, he will find that Her Majesty's Government have not been, as I have said, eight months in office, so that the noble Earl can hardly say that eight or nine months were wasted over the preparation of a Reform Bill. The noble Earl has said, then, that it was not until after eight or nine months from the time the Government came into office that its Members agreed among themselves upon the principles of the Bill which they would introduce. My reply is that, with regard to the principles of the Bill and its main provisions, Her Majesty's Government were perfectly agreed in the month of November last; and the only question then remaining for discussion among them was as to the extent to which the franchise should be extended. That was a very important question, upon which, I admit, we desired to ascertain the opinion of Parliament and the country generally. With regard to the criticism of the noble Earl who has last spoken (Earl Grey), I understood him to say that the Government should have taken one of two courses—either to have introduced a measure on their own respon-

1299
sibility, and have declared they would stand or fall by it; or else to have referred the whole matter to a Commission for the purpose of settling what should be the principles of the Bill afterwards to be introduced. With reference to the first course, I have to say that we profited by the experience of our predecessors; if we had followed their example—that is, if the Government had determined to stand or fall by their Reform Bill—the probability is that one Government after another would have come forward, none of them would have stood, but each would have fallen, to the perpetual interruption of public business, to the contained absence of all agreement, and to the certain destruction of any measure of Reform, no matter by what party it was proposed. And what if we had taken the other course which he says we should have followed? Does the noble Earl for a moment think that the country, excited as it was, would have allowed us to delegate the whole of our authority to a Commission, sending it over the country to inquire upon what principles the Reform Bill should be framed? The late Government thought they had ample information to legislate upon, and we had all the information they had obtained, together with such further information as we had been able to collect ourselves. What would be the object of a Commission? To frame a Reform Bill? But what would have been the language of the House of Commons if we had pursued this second course which the noble Earl insists we should have followed? The House of Commons would have told us our proposal was a makeshift, and have said, "You are abdicating the functions of your office; you are loosening the reins of Government; you are proving yourselves utterly unworthy of confidence; and, shirking your duty, you endeavour by plausible pretexts to retain office for another year, and seek to stifle the question of Reform." Such, I think, would have been the result of adopting either of the two courses recommended by the noble Earl. I quite agree with the noble Earl's description of what it is desirable the House should be; but, I venture to think the noble Earl's views in this respect are Utopian; he looks for an amount of perfection in the House of Commons which no Reform Bill will ever produce; I go further, and say that, whatever change you make in the Constitution, I doubt whether you will obtain as the result a
1300
House of Commons more truly representing the feelings of the people of this country, or more judiciously, more wisely, and more impartially consulting the benefit of all classes of the community. But it is, nevertheless, true that under the present system a large number of persons are excluded from the suffrage, although they are fit to accept the responsibility attaching to electors, and I believe some of those excluded would exercise the privilege of voting intelligently, honestly, and wisely. These, then, if they had fair play, should be admitted. But the question is to what extent the class to which they belong should be admitted, and what arrangement could be made so as to prevent the electoral body being swamped by its largest and least able portion. This is not a question of principle—it is a matter of detail requiring very close and careful consideration, and I say it is not unworthy of a Government, before they commit themselves to any measure, to ascertain the general feeling of Parliament and the country—to take the House of Commons, as it were, into council—and to be guided by it—not as a matter of principle, as to which they are hound to exercise their own judgment—but as a matter of detail, so as to produce a measure that will be likely to meet the general wish and give general satisfaction. That, my Lords, is the vindication of the course Her Majesty's Government thought, and still think, it most consistent with their duty to take, and that duty to the best of their belief they have endeavoured to perform.
EARL GREY: I have no right to address your Lordships again, and will not, therefore, trespass upon your time further than to say that I trust your Lordships who have listened to me will recognise how entirely the noble Earl who has just sat down has misunderstood the whole scope of my argument.

BISHOPRIC IN CORNWALL.

  PETITION.
  THE EARL OF DEVON presented a Petion of Inhabitants of Cornwall, praying for the establishment of a Bishopric in that county. The noble Earl said, that the large population and great area of the county, and the distance of the petitioners from the residence of the Bishop, who at present presided over their clergy, justified their prayer, in his opinion, and he trusted

  1301
  the petition would meet with the favourable consideration of their Lordships.
  THE BISHOP OF ELYsaid, there were several arguments besides those employed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Devon) in favour of the division of the diocese. The difficulty of managing a diocese like that of Exeter did not arise solely from its size and population, but was also to be found in the number of its clergy and the extent of its area. The population was nearly 1,000,000, and was, in fact, by far the largest contained in any agricultural diocese. It was more than one-sixth of the whole population of Ireland, and yet Ireland had ten Bishops; it was more than one-third that of Scotland, and as large as that of the whole of Wales, which, with a nearly equal population, had four Bishops. The population of the diocese of Exeter is as nearly as possible equal to that of the four dioceses of Carlisle, Hereford, Bangor, and St. Asaph put together. Therefore, comparing the population of the diocese of Exeter with other populations, their Lordships must arrive at the conclusion that it was most inadequately represented by one Bishop. The diocese of Exeter, too, contained nearly 1,000 clergy, more than were to be found in any diocese except London and, possibly, Norwich. The acreage was far larger than that of any other See, Durham, the next largest, containing less by 500,000 acres. Its acreage was about equal to that of South Wales, which possessed two Bishops, and he felt certain that those Bishops had as much work as they could manage. Another consideration was to be found in the difficulty of access to many of the Cornish parishes, the nature of the two counties being exceedingly unfavourable to locomotion. Devon and Cornwall were particularly rugged, and, though not so mountainous as Wales, travelling was more difficult, because in a mountainous country the roads were generally formed in such a manner as to avoid or go round any difficulty that might be in the way—whereas in Devonshire and Cornwall the roads were cut straight through the country. But, in fact, railways afforded very little facility to Bishops in visiting the parishes in their dioceses, for Bishops on such occasions were obliged to go to villages long distances out of the way of railroads. The populations of the two counties were, too, entirely different in character and race. The population of Cornwall was Celtic, self-reliant, and much inclined to the Wesleyan form of worship; and, having himself
  1302
  been a Cornish clergyman, he could, from experience, bear testimony to the fact that clergymen in Cornwall felt that a Bishop residing at Exeter, 150 miles from many parishes in his diocese, could enter but little into the feelings and wants of the population of Cornwall. He might add, that the division of the diocese, as proposed by the petitioners, would amount merely to the restoration of the ancient order of things, for there used formerly to be a See at St. Germans. Objection had been made, and probably would still be made, to any increase of the Bishops, on the ground that they possessed no power. He was, unfortunately, compelled to acknowledge that their coercive power was very small—so small, indeed, that a Bishop was frequently not only unable to remove a clergyman guilty of gross immorality, but was compelled to suffer heavy pecuniary loss, simply because he endeavoured to perform his duty. Still, however, Bishops possessed very large powers. The correspondence of a Bishop formed a very large part of his duties—he received on an average, he believed he might say, little short of 5,000 letters a year from the clergymen and laity in his diocese, asking for advice and assistance; and when these letters were responded to, it was very rarely that the advice of the Bishop failed to meet with a hearty and cordial concurrence. Another objection sometimes urged is, that the creation of a bishopric for Cornwall would be like an aggression on the Wesleyans, who now preponderate so much in that county. Although the Cornish people were so far alienated from the Church as to be to a great extent Wesleyan Methodists, he denied that they had any strong hostile feeling against the Church. The Wesleyanism of Cornwall was not the same as the Wesleyanism of many other parts of the kingdom; and he could testify from his own personal experience that, on the contrary, they had a strong feeling of attachment and adhesion to the Church, and that they frequently expressed a desire to see a Bishop in Cornwall. Wesleyanism had at one time exercised, with most beneficial effect, a great deal of influence over the poorer classes in Cornwall and in the northwestern counties; and many of those who were alienated from the Church were saved from immorality and infidelity by the benign influence of the Wesleyan Methodists. He was sorry to say that, especially in the northern counties of England, that influence

  1303
  was gradually waning, and that in towns, like Leeds and Liverpool, it was giving place, not, he was sorry to say, to the influence of the Church, but to irreligion and open infidelity. He acknowledged with thankfulness that the Wesleyans had done a noble work; but as their influence was fading away, was there any reason why a Bishop should not be created, whose presence would add to the strength of the Church in Cornwall, and to the cause of morality and good order?
  LORD VIVIANanxiously hoped that their Lordships would not accede to the prayer of the petition. The petition purported to have been signed by 1,600 persons; but, in his opinion, a far greater number of signatures might easily have been obtained against its prayer. He could not see what advantage Cornwall was to obtain from the creation of this bishopric. Although the diocese, which included the county, was presided over by an aged and infirm Bishop, yet still, under ordinary circumstances, the railways and high roads afforded great facilities for the performance of the duties which that Prelate had to discharge. He trusted that if money was to be expended upon the spiritual welfare of the county it would be given to the poorer clergy of the diocese, many of whom wanted and deserved assistance, instead of it being expended upon the salary of a Bishop. He was not a Wesleyan, but a Churchman, and he thought that in Cornwall they were better without a Bishop than they would be with one.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, that last year he was in Cornwall and officiated at a confirmation in the remotest part of the county. On that occasion he had had an opportunity of conversing with very many of the clergy and of the laity of Cornwall on the subject now under discussion, and he must say simply and frankly that he found among them a warmth of feeling, a heartiness of expression, and a depth of desire that did them very great credit. He had, of course, alluded in those conversations to the present state of things, and had pointed out that the present venerable Bishop was in a great degree precluded from making those visitations which were necessary to the performance of the duties of the diocese; and he put the case whether, in the event of the Bishop being middle-aged, and in possession of his full powers, they would still desire a Bishop for Cornwall. The reply was, "We desire a Bishop for Corn-
  1304
  wall above all things; we feel that we are separated in a great degree from the neighbouring county of Devon, and we desire to have a Bishop to dwell among us, to sympathize with us, and to guide us; one who will gather up the strong Church feeling which exists in Cornwall, and who will at the same time conciliate those who do not conform." He had seen none of the feeling of antagonism to the Church to which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Vivian) had alluded; and from the experience he had obtained elsewhere he believed that the Wesleyans, who were earnest and true-hearted men, desired that the Church should be efficiently managed. He had never seen any hostility on the part of the Wesleyans to the Church, but rather the Christian desire that all things should be built up and well ordered. He must still maintain the opinion that were a discreet, kind, and considerate man to be appointed Bishop of Cornwall, not only would there be no opposition on the part of the Nonconformist, but he would be welcomed with all heartiness. Having travelled to the most distant parts of that county, he found communication to be exceedingly difficult. He trusted that their Lordships' favourable attention would be given to the prayer of the petition; and in asking that, he might say that he had no ulterior views, thoughts, or projects for turning their decision in the present instance into a precedent for the creation of more bishoprics in other parts of the kingdom; but only desired to speak honestly and heartily in favour of this part of our country having the presence and guidance of a Bishop among them.
  LORD WHARNCLIFFEsaid, that as he was a landed proprietor in Cornwall, and as he had never heard a word of such a petition as this being in contemplation, he inferred that no pressure had been used to obtain signatures to it. He thought that the Government were bound to take the matter in hand, and to determine whether or not there was such a necessity for the creation of the bishopric for Cornwall, severed from the bishopric of Exeter, as was set forth in the prayer of the petition. The presence of a Bishop, and his kindly intercourse, especially with the poor, in the county of Cornwall, would, he believed, produce a most decided re-action among the population favourable to the Church of England. He therefore did hope their Lordships would seriously entertain the prayer of the petition, and that the Government, if they saw their way to ap-

  1305
  point another Bishop, would not hesitate to do so.
  LORD HOUGHTONregretted that the right rev. Prelate who spoke first after the noble Earl who presented the petition (the Bishop of Ely) had thought it necessary to fortify his argument by reference to the alleged decline of Wesleyan Methodism. Living, as he did, in a large manufacturing district, and seeing the extensive prevalence of that body, he could not let pass the assertion of the right rev. Prelate that its influence had declined. He believed the Church had a great deal of real sympathy from the Wesleyan body. He remembered that it was the saying of Dr. Hook that Wesleyanism was the Establishmentism of the West Riding, and he believed he was very willing to accept their assistance in that character. With reference to this petition he would make one remark. He was very glad the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol) treated it as a special case. It was, indeed, a very special case; because from the unfortunate state of the present Diocesan's health the whole diocese of Exeter was actually without the administration of a Bishop. It was therefore a most unfortunate moment to bring forward the special case, when the venerable Prelate who presided over the diocese was weighed down with age and sickness; but who yet, even under these circumstances, showed great intelligence and activity of mind. He hoped the Government would pause before taking action on the petition. He saw great difficulty in increasing the number of the Episcopal Bench, and the Government would have to consider, not only the individual case, but also the great political question involved.
  LORD LYTTELTONwas disposed to give the proposal his most hearty concurrence, though he might prefer some more general measure; and he ventured to say unless such a measure as his noble Friend advocated, if brought into the House, met with more formidable opposition than had been indicated to-night, he should have very little apprehension of the result.
  Petition ordered to lie on the table.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.