Sitting of 8 July 1868

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Clitheroe, v. Richard Fort, esquire, deceased.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) [No. 409].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Land Drainage Provisional Order Confirmation *; Sanitary Act (1866) Amendment*; Tain Provisional Order Confirmation *
First Reading—Liquidation* [220]; Sanitary Act (1866) Amendment* [222]; Land Drainage Provisional Order Confirmation * [223]; Tain Provisional Order Confirmation* [224]; Army Chaplains * [225].
Committee—Mines Assessment (re-comm.) [127]; Portpatrick and Belfast and County Down Railway Companies* [201]; Promissory Oaths [113]; Government of India Act Amendment [91]—R. P.
Report—Mines Assessment (re-comm.) [127-221]; Portpatrick and Belfast and County Down Railway Companies* [201]; Promissory Oaths [113].
Considered as amended—Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Accounts Audit* [184].
Third Reading—Ecclesiastical Buildings and Glebes (Scotland) * [150]; Court of Justiciary (Scotland) * [174], and passed.
Withdrawn—Water Supply * [131]; Adulteration of Food or Drink Act Amendment* [161]; Ejectments Suspension (Ireland) * [100].

IRELAND—RAILWAYS.—QUESTION.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What, up to the present time, has been the cost of the Irish Railway Commission; when the Return, ordered on the 24th of June last, of the details of the expenditure of that Commission will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, whether the labours of that Commission are now closed, or whether there is any foundation for the statement that has been made in the Public Press, that the Commissioners have been asked by the Government for a Supplemental Report with reference to the purchase of Irish Railways?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that, up to the present time, the cost of the Irish Railway Commission had been a little over £22,000. It could hardly be said that the labours of the Commissioners had been finally closed, because the Commissioners in their Report stated that if there was any other question on which they could afford assistance to the Government they would be happy to do so. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Baronet's Question, it was sub-
848
stantially true that the Commissioners were making a Supplemental Report, because questions had been put to them on certain matters which would call for such a Report. The Commissioners had not been asked to present a Report as to the desirability of the purchase of Irish Railways by the Government, but they had been asked to make certain estimates with reference to such a purchase which might, no doubt, materially influence the mind of the Government on that subject. The Return alluded to by the hon. Baronet was in the hands of the printer, and he hoped it would be placed on the table this week.

MINES ASSESSMENT (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Percy Wyndham, Mr. Cavendish Bentinck, Mr. Henderson.)
MINES ASSESSMENT (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 127.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (All Mines to be rated).
  MR. WENTWORTH BEAUMONT, who had given Notice of his intention to move a series of new clauses, proposed the omission of all the words after "sixty-eight" down to the end of that clause, in order to insert the words "the occupier of every mine in England and Wales producing coal, clay, stone, salt, or ore, shall be rated in respect thereof for the relief of the poor.''
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsuggested, that as the proposals of the hon. Member were more in the nature of an alternative Bill than of Amendments, it would be most convenient to take the discussion upon them at once as a whole; and then, if the hon. Gentleman succeeded in carrying the first of them on a division, that decision might be accepted as a decision upon them all.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he wished seriously to call the attention of the Government to the great importance of that measure. Its object, which was generally approved, was the rating of certain property which had hitherto been exempt from rating. But now it also proposed to make serious alterations in the manner of rating coal mines, which were already subject to rates; and he thought a question of that great importance ought not to be embodied in the Bill without due notice to the whole country. It affected not simply the coal owners, who might as a body be

  849
  in favour of the change, as it would give them a considerable relief; but it likewise affected the interest of all other classes of ratepayers. Therefore, although he certainly did not wish to oppose the further progress of a Bill to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Percy Wyndham) had devoted so much time and pains, he thought it would be more acceptable, both to the hon. Member himself and also to the House generally, that they should receive from Her Majesty's Government an assurance that they would take up the whole question as regarded coal mines and other mines in a future Session.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he for one had come to the conclusion that the only way of dealing fairly with the question of rating was to do away with all exemptions. His hon. Friend would, he might add, in his opinion, do well not to press his Bill this Session. The subject was one on which he could not take it upon himself to legislate now; indeed, it belonged to another Department of the Government; but he confessed he should like to see the whole question of exemptions dealt with in one Bill.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he believed that the House was pretty well agreed that mines should be rated; and the only remaining question was, on what principle the rating should be assessed. His own opinion was that all mines should be rated upon the same principle as coal mines; and he thought a simple enactment might be passed declaring that the words "coal mines" in the statute of Elizabeth should be held to include all mines. As to the course which the Government were prepared to take in the matter he could give no definite promise. All he could say was that his Department would give it due consideration during the Recess; and he should be very glad if he were enabled to introduce a measure dealing with it next Session.
  MR. HENDERSONsaid, that there were no two parishes in England in which mines were rated on the same principle.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he could not help thinking that the House had all the information on the subject that was necessary to enable it to legislate upon it with advantage. The Bill did not interfere in the least with the principle on which coal mines were rated. It simply proposed to obviate the complaints that mines were rated in the most contradictory manner. The real question before
  850
  the Committee, he believed, was whether the word "occupier" should be inserted in the clause; and he was opposed to that being done, because it was necessary to retain the provision that the owner might by agreement pay the rate. In Derbyshire alone there were between fifty and sixty mines, the royalty on which did not exceed 5s.; and if it were made compulsory that the occupier should be rated great inconvenience in that county would be the result.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid he thought the proceedings of the Committee would be facilitated if it were decided that the Bill should hare nothing to do with coal mines.
  MR. CORRANCEcontended that the proposition for a deduction of 33 per cent was one which ought to be thoroughly considered by the House before it was adopted. He did not think it had been so considered, and his hon. Friend would in his opinion act wisely in withdrawing, at all events, that part of the clause.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would suggest that, as there seemed to be so much difficulty with respect to the assessing of coal mines, it would be well that the portion of the Bill relating to it should be withdrawn, to be re-introduced next Session in a better form by the Government. In Lancashire three or four different plans of assessment prevailed, and it would be desirable that one uniform system should be established.
  MR. KENDALLsaid, he wished to point out that mining in Cornwall was at present in a depressed condition, and that if this principle of rating were applied there it would greatly aggravate the distress. The copper mines among others should be very tenderly dealt with.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he objected to the application of a particular mode of rating to particular descriptions of property. He thought that all property liable to pay poor rates should be rated according to the general system, and that it would be inexpedient to lay down a special principle with regard to the assessment of mines. All that was necessary was a short clause to abolish the exemption from rating which had hitherto existed in favour of certain underground property, by declaring that every description of mines, not liable to be rated to local rates, should in future be liable to such rates. The general law would then take effect. Another question for consideration was whether, if the law under which persons held leases of property

  851
  at a fixed rent was suddenly changed, it would be right that they should bear the whole burden of a new rate. He suggested that, in rating for the first time property which was never before rated, it would be only a just provision to divide the payment of the new rate between the landlord and lessee. He conceived that the enactment of two such provisions as he had just mentioned was all that was necessary.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he was glad that many difficulties had been cleared away—difficulties which arose chiefly from the variety of absurd conditions under which mining operations were carried on. But that House would make a great mistake if they laid down fixed modes of assessing mines. As a representative of a large coal district, he had always felt that there was very great injustice in the exemption of other forms of mining from the payment of rates, and he was prepared to accept the principle that all mines should be liable to be rated. He believed that the effect of rating mines would in many cases be to shut them; but the question was whether it would not be charitable to do so, because at present they were being worked at a loss. The coal trade of the North had agreed that if the deduction of 33⅓ per cent in their favour suggested by the Valuation Committee of last year were allowed they would consent to be placed in the same category as all other mines.
  MR. READsaid, he regretted that the question of rating woods and plantations had not been dealt with in the Bill.
  MR. BRUCEprotested against this wholesale system of rating mines, the country having received no sufficient notice that such a measure was to be brought forward. The subject was much too important to be handled by a private Member. In his opinion the Government ought to take the matter into their own hands. He would recommend that the assessment of coal mines should be dealt with by a special Bill, to be introduced by the Government next Session.
  COLONEL GRAY COLONEL GRAY moved that the Chairman report Progress, as the discussion appeared unlikely to lead to any result.
  LORD HENRY CAVENDISHsaid, he would vote for no measure that would transfer the rate from the owner to the occupier.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, that everyone who had spoken appeared to be in favour of the principle of the Bill, but as he did not wish that at that period of the Session some measure on the subject
  852
  should be delayed in passing through the House, he suggested that hon. Members having Amendments to propose should not press them, but allow the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) to move his Amendment, in favour of which he should give his vote, or he might run the chance of losing the Bill altogether.
  MR. WENTWORTH BEAUMONTdeclined to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that if the Committee agreed to that Amendment he would immediately after propose the one he had already described to the House.
  Motion to report Progress withdrawn.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved the addition of words to make all mines not now rated liable to be rated. They would be rated by the application of the ordinary law of rating.
  Page 1, line 11, Amendment proposed,
  After the word "sixty-eight," to add the words "any description of Mines in England and Wales not now liable to be rated to the rates for the relief of the poor and other local rates shall be liable to be rated to such rates."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  MR. ST. AUBYNopposed the Amendment. He was very much afraid that profits would be rated.
  MR. KENDALLalso opposed the Amendment. Although he was quite willing that mines should be rated, those in Cornwall were in an exceptional condition.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he could not understand the peculiar exceptional character of the Cornish mines. If they were exhausted or nearly so, the Assessment Committee would prove the fact, or it would be their duty to ascertain it.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, all the mines that would be rated under this clause would be rated upon the principle at present adopted, all the circumstances being considered. The measure of the rate would be the value of the mine—that was to say, what could be got as a reasonable rent for a certain number of years. It would have no reference to profits.
  MR. KENDALLsaid, he thought the Amendment was fraught with danger.
  MR. WENTWORTH BEAUMONTsaid, he thought that the occupier should be rated.
  SIR. MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the question as to the mode of rating arose more properly upon the succeeding clauses of the Bill.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that nothing could be more absurd than the notion about mines being rated on profits. In his part of the country the only consideration with the Assessment Committee was the rent that a tenant would give from year to year.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 119, Noes 6: Majority 113.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that in consequence of the acceptance of his Amendment the other clauses of the Bill were rendered unnecessary or inapplicable. The only question that remained was as to the proportion of the rate to be paid by the landlord. This was a matter of considerable importance, and it would be better to report Progress and bring up a well-considered clause on the Report.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMstaled that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), in conjunction with himself, would propose a clause on the bringing up of the Report to settle the proportion of the rates to be paid by the landlord and the tenant.
  Remaining Clauses struck out.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 221.]

PROMISSORY OATHS BILL—(BILL 113.) [Lords]—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, before the House went into Committee upon this Bill he wished to draw attention to the difference between the form of Oath proposed in the present Bill to be taken by high officers of State and the Oath of Allegiance which Parliament, after twelve years' discussion, decided should be taken by Members of that House. By this Bill a very important departure was made from the terms of the Act of 1866. By that Act the Oath was as follows:—
"I, A. B., do swear that I will be faithful and boar true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria; and I do faithfully promise to maintain and support the Succession to the Crown as the same stands limited and settled by virtue of the Act passed in the reign of King William III., intituled 'An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and
854
Liberties of the Subject, and of the subsequent Acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland.'"
By the 2nd clause of this Bill the Oath of Allegiance runs as follows:—
"I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her Heirs and Successors, according to Law; So help me GOD."
In 1866 the present Prime Minister proposed that the Oath should run in these terms—
"I, A. B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and will defend Her to the utmost of my Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts that shall be made against Her Power, Crown, or Dignity."
The House would perceive that that Oath was a great deal fuller than the Oath which which was contained in the Bill before the House. But so little satisfactory did that seem that the following words were inserted:—
"And I do faithfully promise to maintain and support the Succession to the Throne as the sama stands limited and settled by an Act passed in the reign of King William III., intituled 'An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and the better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject.'"
The words with regard to the Union with Scotland and Ireland were added in the House of Lords. There was nothing in the circumstances of this Session which ought to induce the House to be less cautious in the matter of the Oaths of Allegiance than it was two years ago. It might be said that the Oaths proposed in this Bill did not contain a recognition of the fact that the Crown of these realms' was held by law, and that, therefore, the tenure and power of the Crown formed part of the Constitution, together with the provisions of Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights, which were embodied in the Act of Settlement. He would point, however, to the fact that the words "by law," as they stood in this Bill, might refer to any law at present existing or hereafter to be framed, whereas Parliament distinctly, two years ago, refused to be satisfied with anything less than a direct recital of the Oath of Allegiance, pointing to the Act of Settlement as forming the basis of the Sovereignty of the country. He therefore desired to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he saw any objection to substituting for the Oath proposed in the Bill the Oath of Allegiance which they, as Members of Parliament, were bound to take, whatever might be their position or creed?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the form of Oath proposed by the Bill had been settled by the Commission which had sat for a considerable period to inquire into this subject and by a Committee of the House of Lords which went fully into the question. For himself, he had no objection to take the Oath of Allegiance at the table, but he did not think there was any material alteration from it in the present Bill. Both the Commissioners and the Committee of the House of Lords came to the conclusion that it was necessary to make the form of Oath as concise and clear as possible, pledging those taking it to bear true allegiance to Her Majesty and her successors, but avoiding entering into any historical matters. One objection to the present Oath taken by Members of that House, was that it declared the succession of the Crown to be based upon the Act of William III., which claimed for the Sovereign of this country a right to the Crown of France. The Oath proposed in the Bill was in fact a resignation of that claim. He could not assent to the suggestion of the hon. Member, as he thought that the form of Oath proposed in the Bill was calculated to fulfil the purpose they had in view.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Form of Oath of Allegiance).
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the recommendations of the Commissioners for which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed such a preference were against the adoption of the words "the succession according to law." In reference to what had also fallen from the right hon. Gentleman he had always believed that any pretension to the Crown of France had long been abandoned. If there was any doubt about the point the Government ought to bring in a Bill formally abandoning any such idea, though if that were done the lingering attachment which still existed in the minds of certain Sovereigns on the Continent, and especially at the Court of Rome, to the House of Stuart should, in an international sense, be equally repudiated. He thought that the Act of Settlement ought to be recited in the Oath taken by Members of that House, and he therefore moved an Amendment to the clause, the effect of which would be to include the recital of the words of that Act.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he would remind the hon. Member that the
856
subject had been fully considered, not only by a Commission but by a Committee of the House of Lords. The present clause was quite as binding for the purposes contemplated by the hon. Member as it would be if the Amendment which he now proposed were made.
MR. SYNANcontended that in promising to maintain the succession as by law established hon. Members bind themselves to the Act of Settlement, which really was the law upon this subject.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he wished to direct attention to the fact that the Act of Settlement stood on exactly the same footing as any other Act of Parliament, and was binding upon all her Majesty's subjects until it was repealed. Its validity required no more the recognition of an Oath than did the Statute of Frauds or the Statute of Uses. The old Oath of Allegiance was praised by Lord Hale for not being entangled with intricate clauses, and yet comprehending the whole duty of subject to Sovereign. The proposed Oath was in some measure a return to that Oath.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he objected altogether to Oaths, which he regarded purely as relics of a bygone barbarism. The less a man swears the better. What was the use of this Oath? There was no doubt that Parliament could alter the succession, and was this Oath intended to burden them if they wished to do so? Besides, if a man did not do his duty, no Oath would bind him. He did not see why there should be so many different Oaths. They were so numerous that one could hardly get them by heart. He thought they should amalgamate some of the Oaths in this Bill, though for his own part, thinking Oaths entirely unnecessary, he should be glad to see the Bill got rid of altogether.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he thought that the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) ought to strongly support this Bill if he had such an aversion to Oaths, because it proposed to repeal a large number of those at present imposed.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would not have raised this question if he had not been supported by the unanimous opinion of Parliament two years ago. He believed there was an ambiguity in the phrase "according to law," while there was none about the Act of Settlement. Some years ago Mr. Dillon, a Roman Catholic Member of the House, said of that Oath, what they

857
were called upon to do was not merely to submit and to be loyal to the Protestant monarchy of this country, but to swear to maintain an Act of Parliament which was conceived in a spirit most injurious and offensive to the Roman Catholic religion, by the terms of which a Roman Catholic was bound, if at any time the Sovereign of the country were to become Roman Catholic, to take up arms and dethrone him. Now, there was a wide difference between binding them to loyalty to the Sovereign, whatever his creed might be, and binding them by positive Oath to take up arms and dethrone their Sovereign in case he adopted the Roman Catholic creed. Now, the expression "to take up arms" was merely imported into the discussion per invidiam, for the Act said nothing about taking up arms, but undoubtedly it did release from their allegiance all the subjects of this realm if the Sovereign should become a Roman Catholic. Either there was a difference between the two Oaths or there was not. If there was a difference, then he preferred the present. If there was no difference, why should they change a clear declaration for an ambiguous one.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 8 (Form of Oath of Allegiance in this Act substituted for Form in certain other Acts).
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, there was a growing disposition in certain clerical quarters to dispute the supremacy of lay authority, and therefore he looked with some jealousy on the proposal in this clause to free the clergy from making the declaration as to the Royal Supremacy which was imposed upon them by the Clerical Subscription Act three years ago. He was a member of the Commission on whose Report this Bill was framed, but he did not remember that this point had come under their consideration. He was also a member of the Commission on Clerical Subscriptions, and the point was brought before them and discussed, but the great majority of the Commissioners were against it. Under these circumstances he should move that the words exempting the clergy from the present declaration be omitted from the clause.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "substituted," in line 34, to the second word "and," in line 36.—(Mr. Bouverie.)
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he regretted that no Notice had been given of so important an Amendment. He believed that in the Clerical Subscription Act no new Oath was imposed—there was simply a reference to the old Oath, and it was that old Oath which this Bill proposed to abolish. The clergy, would, he believed, be subject to a sufficient number of declarations with regard to the Supremacy if the clause were carried in its present form.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee,divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 51: Majority 28.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported, with an Amendment, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 91.]
(Sir Stafford Northcote, Sir James Fergusson.)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 91.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Salaries of future Members of Council).
  LORD WILLIAM HAY LORD WILLIAM HAY moved to insert at the beginning the words "From the passing of this Act," to leave out "such," and insert "each." The effect of the Amendment would be that the old Councillors, as well as those newly appointed, should not serve for a longer period than ten years.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEobjected, on the ground that the old Councillors were appointed under the Act of 1858, for ten years, at a salary of £1,200 a year, with the prospect of holding their offices for life or receiving a pension on retiring at the end of the ten years. To propose now that they should cease to serve at the end of their ten years and receive no pension was unjust, especially as the new Councillors would be appointed at

  859
  £1,500, and would accept the increase of salary in place of the prospect of a pension. He admitted the Act of 1858 would permit them to deprive the old Councillors of their pensions, but he contended that to do so would be straining it.
  LORD WILLIAM HAYsaid, he thought it so necessary that some limit should be put to the term for which the old Councillors should serve that he was quite willing to allow them the pension.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, the time had expired for dealing with this matter.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the time had not expired. The Act under which the present Councillors were appointed expressly stipulated that Parliament should have the power of re-considering the terms on which they accepted office. This being so, he thought it monstrous that anyone should say, "The ten years is nearly up; these men have served with the prospect of a pension during these ten years; and therefore it would be unjust to step in and say, Parliament, on re-consideration, could not grant the pensions." He hoped the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India would consider the question in a reasonable and intelligent manner. It would be better even to let them serve ten years more at £1,500 than that no limit should be agreed on. He might observe that they were for the most part in the receipt of pensions paid out of the revenues of India, and incidentally he must protest against the double system of pensions now growing up; pensions were obtained for special services in India from the Indian Government in India, and then they were obtained again, on the general ground of length of service, from the Indian Revenue, through the Office in England.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had forgotten one matter—namely, that the pensions from India were bought, being derived from stoppages from pay. He (Mr. Stuart Mill) quite agreed that an ample salary rendered a retiring pension unnecessary. But there would be a hardship if, when the expectation of pensions had been held out to the existing Councillors, they were deprived of pensions in the end. If an increase of salary were to be given instead, that increase should range over a fresh series of ten years. But the reason which induced the House to limit the service of future Councillors should prevent it from con-
  860
  tinuing the old for another ten years. He, therefore, recommended the Committee to agree to give the old members an opportunity of serving for another five years at the increased salary, or else to grant them a pension at the end of the ten years.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he thought faith ought to be kept with the old Councillors, and that common honesty required it should be optional with them whether they accepted any new terms in place of those under which they took office. He did not see why the salary should be raised to £1,500, because many of the Councillors would soon have a right to a Civil Service pension on account of thirty years' service.
  SIR HENRY RAWLINSONsaid, he thought it morally out of the power of Parliament to withhold the pension, because virtually the full term had expired, and it was in consequence of that expiration the Bill was brought in. If the old Councillors had served only five years, the propriety of granting the pensions might be questioned; but it only wanted some forty days of the ten years.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, the Act would never have passed if it had been supposed that the appointments would have the permanent character now claimed for them. He would, however, support the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), which seemed to be a fair compromise between the proposition of the noble Lord and that of the Government.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westminster could best be dealt with in a new clause. At present he was neither prepared to accept nor to reject the proposition, but desiring fully to consider it, he recommended the withdrawal of the Amendment and the introduction of a new clause, to which he promised to give careful consideration.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he would be happy to bring up a new clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he rose to move that the salary of the new Councillors should be £1,200, and not £1,500. Some officers of State received no more, and members of the Board of Admiralty received only £1,000. Feeling that there might be an injustice in turning members of the Council adrift without recognition of their services, he thought that a graduated scale of pensions might not be indefensible. But there was a great danger of

  861
  rushing into extremes in such a matter. He thought it very undesirable that, under pretence of introducing "fresh blood," officials should be elected to the Council immediately upon their return from India, as any misgovernment which might have attended their administration would thereby be condoned. We were bound to consider the revenues of India even more than our own, because the people of India were not represented in that House. He thought it little creditable to the Government that, in a Bill brought forward with such a flourish of trumpets, the principal clause should be to improve the position of the members of the Council, an institution which he regarded as of very questionable utility, as he considered that they had only proved themselves obstructives. No reason had been shown for fixing these salaries at £1,500 each, and he therefore moved that they be reduced to £1,200.
  Amendment proposed, in page I, line 18, to leave out the word "five," and insert the word "two."—(Mr. Otway.)
  COLONEL HOGGsaid, that if it were not proposed to give retiring pensions to men of the class whose service it was sought to enlist, they ought at least to pay them proper salaries. The hon. Gentleman, he thought, would have shown better taste and more discretion had he consulted those having official knowledge of the subject about the labours which members of the Council were actually called on to undertake before submitting his present Amendment. The Councillors were a very hard-working body of men, and were quite entitled to £1.500 a year each.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, that if it was not for the Council the Government of India would be left wholly to the Secretary of State—who before his appointment was generally ignorant of Indian affairs—and to such irresponsible persons as he might choose to consult, who if he had a pre-conceived opinion would be likely to share it. The Secretary of State would be left with no regular assistance but that of the subordinates in his office. Of the latter, having himself been included in the number, he entertained, generally speaking, a very high opinion; but he did not think Parliament and the country would approve of handing over the government of India entirely to them. It was absolutely necessary that there should be associated with them some men of standing, of professional knowledge,
  862
  and practical acquaintance with India, whose names and character were known to the public. It was also necessary that such salaries should be given them as would induce them to continue in their offices. Although yielding to no one in his desire for economy, he did not think that retrenchment was judicious when it took the form of stinting the remuneration for the best and most difficult work. It was possible they might get very much the same class of men for £1,200 as for £1,500; but, in the absence of a pension, he did not think the latter amount excessive.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that the salary of £1,200 hitherto had been accompanied with some expectation of a pension. In proposing, therefore, to fix it at £1,200, without any pension, the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) was practically lowering their position. He entirely agreed with the view taken by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) and thought the sum proposed by the Bill by no means too great.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that the proposal in the Bill was not to improve the position of existing members of the Council. The increase of salary applied only to future appointments. The House had decided that in justice Members of the Council should be appointed for a term of years only; and then came the question what was to happen on the expiration of that term. Clearly, it would not be right to lay on the revenues of India an indefinite number of pensions; but if not, they must be prepared to pay the fair market value of those services which they desired to obtain. The persons required were those whose names would carry' weight, not only here, but in India; for if we rested merely upon clerks brought up and trained in this country, however valuable their assistance might be, it would fail entirely to command that sort of respect which attached to the recommendation of persons whose names were familiarly known. On the other hand, by introducing into the Council men of different careers, who had served in different parts of India, and who looked upon questions in a totally different light from that in which purely official minds regarded them, very obvious advantages were gained. A discussion arose upon a recent occasion in the Council with regard to the mode in which a certain canal was to be made, and the territories through which it was to pass. As far as the correspondence went, or the

  863
  information otherwise in possession of the Department, no special question appeared to arise. But when the matter was mentioned at the Council there were circumstances known to one or two of the members which raised a very important political question, that otherwise never would have attracted attention, and threw a flood of light upon the whole matter. It must be remembered, also, that the Secretary of State for India was in a different position from that of any other Secretary of State coming fresh to the business of his Department. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, or the First Lord of the Admiralty, for instance, lived in an official atmosphere in which they must be certain to gain valuable information; they were constantly meeting people also who set them right if they were going wrong. But the Indian Minister had no such chances thrown in his way. The Indian newspapers formed but a very imperfect source of information, while the chance visits to England of distinguished personages could hardly be relied upon as means of obtaining accurate information, seeing that these were not in any way bound to give information, or responsible for such intelligence as they might think proper to give. Hence, there was a real and pressing necessity for the existence of a Council, composed of the best men that could be procured. And, bearing in mind that there was a great demand in mercantile life for the special kind of knowledge which they possessed, the salaries offered by the Government ought not to be of a niggardly character. The proposal embodied in the clause as it stood was a fair one, and he hoped it would be adopted by the Committee.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANthought it would be false economy to reduce the pension of members of Council, as proposed by the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway).
  Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 26: Majority 47.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to Bit again To-morrow.

  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  On Motion of Sir JAMES FERGUSSON, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Land
  864
  Drainage Act, 1861," ordered to be brought in by Sir JAMES FERGUSSON and Mr. Secretary GATIIORNE HARDY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 223.]

  SANITARY ACT (1866) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, Bill to amend "The Sanitary Act, 1866," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY and Sir JAMES FERGUSSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 222.]

  TAIN PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to con firm a Provisional Order under "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," relating to the Burgh of Tain, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 224.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.