Sitting of 8 May 1868

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee — Resolutions [May 7] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Exchequer Bonds (£600,000).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Weights and Measures (Scotland)*; Jurors' Affirmations (Scotland).*
First Reading—Customs and Income Tax* [108]; Weights and Measures (Scotland)* [109]; Jurors' Affirmations (Scotland)* [110].
Referred to Select Committee—Judgments Extension* [34].
Third Reading—Documentary Evidence* [97]; Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings [88], and passed.

POST OFFICE RETURNS—QUESTION.
MR. MOFFATTsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the Annual Report of the Postmaster General for 1866, presented to the House on the 12th August 1867, has not yet been delivered; and, when the Annual Report for 1867 may be expected?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, in reply, that he was unable to give an explanation of the reason why the printing of the documents had been so long delayed. As, however, the delay had taken place, it was thought that it would be more convenient to print and present the Returns for the last two years together. They would, probably, be laid on the table of the House in a fortnight or three weeks.

SCOTLAND—EDUCATION.—QUESTION.
ADMIRAL ERSKINEsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to
2002
bring in a Bill on the subject of Education in Scotland during the present Session?
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, in reply, that in consequence of the important and pressing matters which had occupied the attention of the House, and must continue so to do for some time to come, it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with the measure referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.

ARMY—BALL CARTRIDGE.—QUESTION.
MR. HAYTERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, having regard to the increased danger to life from the use of Breech-loaders in the hands of Soldiers either insane or of intemperate habits, as evidenced by the recent occurrences at Horfield Barracks, near Bristol, he will undertake to advise with his Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief, as to the propriety of withdrawing the twenty rounds of Ball Cartridge now in the possession of all Non-commissioned Officers and Men of the British Army, and of serving out the same to the Troops on parade when about to proceed on military duty?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, that he had not had the opportunity of seeing the Commander-in-Chief upon the subject to which the hon. Member's Question related. Stating merely his individual opinion, he thought the occurrence of a single crime, however atrocious and much to be deplored, would not be cause sufficient for taking a step which would be felt as a slur by the whole Army, the ammunition having from time to time been confided to the care of soldiers.

UNITED STATES—THE "SPRINGBOK."

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Papers relating to the condemnation of the cargo of the British barque Springbok, by the Supreme Court of the United States, will be laid upon the Table? Portions of those Papers had been asked for four years ago.
  LORD STANLEY, in reply, said, these Papers were now before the Law Officers of the Crown, but he believed a portion of them might shortly be produced. If his hon. Friend would explain privately which of them he wanted, no doubt he would be able to procure them.

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

ADMINISTRATION OF THE ARMY.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAM, in rising to move that, in the opinion of this House, it would be advantageous and convenient to substitute a system of weekly in lieu of daily payments to those non-commissioned Officers and Soldiers of the Army whose previous conduct might warrant the extension of this indulgence, said, he was of opinion that this indulgence would be of great benefit to soldiers of good conduct. The driblets of pay they received daily were of very little use to them, being so small after the regulation deduction. Raising the soldiers' pay had led to no less than 26,000 enlistments, and he believed the proposal he had in view would be attended by the most advantageous results, and would greatly encourage and facilitate the habit of saving. That proposal was a very simple one, and it had the great merit that it would not add one farthing to the Estimates. What he proposed was, that non-commissioned officers and soldiers should be paid weekly instead of daily. It was quite clear that they would prefer it, as even now they often got the captain to keep the money for them until the end of the week. The large number of men offering themselves for re-enlistment had enabled commanding officers to refuse men who had been guilty of misconduct, so that the men in the ranks were now of a class clearly entitled to favourable consideration. There had been instances before Delhi, and in Canada, and elsewhere, in which the ordinary rule of daily payments had been departed from, and the change had given great satisfaction to the men. There was recently a case in which, when some troops were sent to Malta, the officers of some of the regiments directed the arrears of ninety days' due—owing to the advance in the amount of soldiers' pay made last Session, on the recommendation of the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel)—to be paid in one payment, which amounted to 15 s. or 20 s. each man; and not only was this regarded as a boon, but the conduct of the troops who received it
  2004
  was such as fully to justify the confidence reposed in them by the officers; while, on the other hand, in other regiments at the same station, those arrears were paid in driblets; not only did the money do the soldiers very little good, but their conduct was not so praiseworthy as that of the men who received it in a lump sum. He also instanced the case of the payment of the men who were sent to Canada after the affair of the Trent, and stated that they much approved of the system of weekly payments. On these grounds, he hoped that the Government would give the question careful consideration.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it would be advantageous and convenient to substitute a system of weekly in lieu of daily payments to those non-commissioned Officers and Soldiers of the Army whose previous conduct might warrant the extension of this indulgence,"—(Mr. Percy Wyndham,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, this was one of those matters affecting the internal economy of regiments in which he should not venture to interfere with the discretion of His Royal Highness the Commander-in Chief. There was, no doubt, a good deal to be said in favour of the view advocated by his hon. Friend, and the matter, he promised, should not be lost sight of. Indeed, he believed, the Commander-in-Chief was about to make the alteration.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Committee on the Scotch Reform Bill had been fixed for Monday; but he understood that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) had arranged that the Navy Estimates should be taken first on Monday; and the Scotch Reform Bill afterwards. Now, as he understood, the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall)—a Motion relating to the restrictions upon the importation of foreign cattle

2005
—which has been delayed many times, and in which great interest is felt—will be taken before Supply, and he did not think they could reckon on getting through that discussion in less than two hours. Then he felt that the Navy Estimates would carry the right hon. Gentleman far through the night. Now, he should be glad if, for the convenience of the House, they could understand what arrangement the right hon. Gentleman proposed?
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he was aware of the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman had called attention, and he had been consulting with one of his right hon. Friends on the subject at the moment when the right hon. Gentleman ruse. He did not think it would be satisfactory either that the House should be in any doubt about the time at which the Scotch Reform Bill would come on or that the Bill should be brought forward at a late hour. He thought, therefore, it was better to have it understood that the Bill would not be taken on Monday. The Boundary Bill was the first Order for Thursday night. He would put the Scotch Reform Bill down as the second; and if it could not be brought on that night it might be fixed for another day.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that his conviction was that the discussion on the Boundary Bill would occupy so much time as to throw the Scotch Reform Bill over. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would fix the Scotch Reform Bill as the first Order. So important a Bill should not be placed second.
MR. DISRAELIsuggested that they had better confine themselves at present to arranging that the Bill was not to come on next Monday. On Monday they could make further arrangements.

INFECTIOUS DISEASES.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  SIR J. CLARKE JERVOISEsaid, that in rising to move for an Address to the Queen praying for an inquiry into the spread of disease by infection, with a view to legislation on the subject, he made no pretence to science beyond that knowledge which was founded upon facts. His only logic in connection with this matter was the inexorable logic of facts. This question he (Sir J. Clarke Jervoise) considered to be one of unbounded magnitude, and of the greatest possible interest. When he brought forward the measure last year
  2006
  he was answered by the noble Lord the Vice President of the Committee of Council, who said that all infectious disorders were contagious, but all contagious disorders were not infectious, and stated also that a few Gentlemen connected with the Privy Council were acquainted with all disorders. It had been stated by the Medical Officers of the Privy Council that every disorder was descended in regular pedigree, and that, though we could no more tell the first parent of disease than we could tell the origin of species, the consequence might be predicted with the certainty of a chemical experiment. He confessed, however, his inability to perceive how, according to the rules of logic, it was possible to argue with the certainty of a chemical experiment upon premises which were altogether uncertain. The Pall Mall Gazette had spoken of his Notice as one that perplexed the student of the Notice Paper of the House of Commons. He did not, however, think that the services of any literary Brothers Davenport were required to unravel the meaning. But if he was altogether incomprehensible there would be nothing singular in that. Last year, on speaking to au eminent Member of that House who had taken a leading part in connection with the Cattle Plague Bill, that Gentleman observed to him that he knew nothing at all about the matter. "What!" was his exclamation, "and you a Member of the Government which brought in the Bill! have you been legislating on what you do not understand?" The reply was, "Certainly; if we only legislated on what we understand there would be no legislation at all." He was convinced that an inquiry into the subject would result in great good to all ranks of the community from the highest to the lowest. Last year he mentioned that leprosy was a type of all that had been said of the dangers and communicability of disease by the process of infection; and he wished now to point out that the mode of dealing with leprosy was the type of many of the mistakes, follies, and crimes which had been perpetrated in the name of humanity. There were still remains existing of the leper-houses which once were so numerous in this land. The disease still prevailed in India and in Syria, and since last year there had been a remarkable case at Alexandria, where Dr. Simonides died in the autumn of leprosy. Thus, we had the disease descending from the original parent of leprosy, and showing itself in the de-

  2007
  scendant of the original Simon. Referring to smallpox, he mentioned the case at Aylesbury of Emanuel Cooke, who twice escaped from the workhouse, was taken before the magistrates, and sentenced to fine or imprisonment. It was also said that one of the Royal Family had suffered from smallpox; and we could only hope that Royal princes were at least properly vaccinated. It was further reported that the Secretary of State for War had suffered from something of the kind. One statement said it was chickenpox, and another said it was something else. He understood on good authority it was smallpox. What with chicken, and cowpox, it only required a little change in age and sex to make a cock-and-bull story; and he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not present to give the House some information on the matter. At all events, we must hope he was not exposed to the isolation inflicted on the pauper at Aylesbury, and that he was not denied the consolation of his friends. The Compulsory Vaccination Bill he had opposed, because it was not fair to subject poor people to the trouble it would entail upon them. It was cruel to ask a poor woman in the country to travel four miles, perhaps, in the depth of winter or height of summer for the purpose of getting her child vaccinated, merely upon the supposition that the disease might be communicated, which had not been proved in a single instance. There was a town (Sheffield) where a meeting of the inhabitants was held in consequence of the surgeon to the troops who were quartered there having made a report that some of the soldiers in the barracks were attacked with smallpox, and that there were numerous cases in the town. But this latter statement must have arisen from a mere guess on the part of the surgeon; that because there was smallpox in the barracks therefore it must be in the town; for when an inquiry was made hardly a single case could be found in the town; and on going back to the barracks the cause of the disease was traced plainly enough to the defective state of the arrangements there, and on removing these the disease disappeared. When the noble Lord stated last year that smallpox was absolutely preventible by vaccination, he must have known that, according to the Report of the Small pox Hospital, in round numbers, 81 per cent of the cases which entered that hospital were vaccinated cases. It might be that
  2008
  the majority of deaths occurred amongst those who had not been vaccinated—probably they could not read or write; but the fact he had stated showed that vaccination did not prevent a recurrence of the disease. With respect to typhus fever it was known that it was produced in many cases by foul water, by defective drainage, and by other kindred causes, which led to blood-poisoning. Several recent, cases of gaol fever occurred at Devizes—where the Judge ordered the windows of the Court to be opened, and the jury sat with their hats on for fear of infection. Had the Judge never heard of John Howard, nor ever seen a Sister of Charity going forth on her mission of mercy?—he would also refer to outbreaks of typhus fever at the village of Terling, in Essex. That outbreak was self-originating, but was said to be due to the defective state of the water supply of the village. With regard to quarantine, he had a memorial signed by many gentlemen, none of whom probably would support him in all his views, who nevertheless saw the absurdity and cruelty of quarantine. A large amount of evidence had been obtained in reference to the cattle plague, and that evidence was not worthy of consideration as to the origin of the disease. The present laws on the subject of infectious diseases were crude and cruel. How was it possible to put such laws in force? Called on as a magistrate to enforce them, he had felt that there is a time when duty ceases and conscience begins; and he had declined any longer to act in administering these laws.
  MR. LIDDELL, in seconding the Motion, said he was in hopes that even in the midst of political excitement the importance—he might almost say the necessity—of this subject would induce the House to give it a very careful attention. His great object was to prevail on the hon. Baronet and the House to allow the scope of this inquiry to be extended to a point beyond that contemplated by the hon. Baronet. He wished to extend the inquiry to a class of diseases unfortunately too prevalent, and to see whether the provisions of the Contagions Diseases Act might not be applied to all the great towns of the kingdom. Many Members of the House were aware that there existed an important central association in London, whose object was to have that Act extended to the civil population of our towns, and, further, very many great towns in the country were prepared to ask for the boon. Within the last

  2009
  few days, the great town of Newcastle, with which he was connected, had held a very important meeting upon the subject, and was prepared to ask the House to extend the Act to them, and he desired to add his voice to theirs. The difficulty that was felt in debating this subject was that one was precluded from bringing forward in public discussion the facts and evidence necessary to prove the case; but those facts and that evidence would be forth coming at the right time and in the right place if the inquiry were extended as suggested. In many of the great towns, as he had said, a remarkable unanimity of opinion had existed on this question, and their case rested, not upon panic or excitement, but upon the sober observation of medical men. The evil was a social evil in the truest sense, because even the sanctity of home was stealthily broken in upon by this intruder, and thousands of children were swept away, or permanently affected by its ravages annually, and the seeds of divers diseases were thus sown broadcast among the population. In order to effect the purpose he had in view it would only be necessary to exclude from the Motion of the hon. Baronet the words "distinguished from contagion," so that both infectious and contagious disorders might be made the subject of the Inquiry. The hon. Baronet had designated the Compulsory Vaccination Act a cruel law; but that epithet certainly did not apply to the Contagious Diseases Act. The military and naval authorities could bear testimony to the fact that the Contagious Diseases Act had been attended with considerable benefit to those places in which it had been in operation; the unfortunate victims of these maladies hailed the medical surveillance as a boon, and that Act might now, he thought, be extended to the large centres of our population with such an amount of advantage to the publie welfare as it was difficult to estimate. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in dealing with great social and sanitary questions, was not a man to be appalled by difficulties, and he appealed to him to grant the Inquiry now asked for.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in Older to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to cause such inquiry to be instituted into the spread of disease by infection (distinguished from contagion) as may tend to check legislation and action
  2010
  in cases unsupported by the evidence, which in times of excitement saves a people from the commission of great crimes or great follies,"—(Sir Jervoise Clarke Jervoise,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUstated that the object of the hon. Baronet was already being carried out by the Medical Department of the Privy Council. The spread and the origin of disease was the subject of scientific study year by year, and of prolonged and accurate investigation. Annually there is laid before Parliament every new experience which is gained by that Office, or which is arrived at throughout the country, or even abroad. As examples he might mention the sixth Report of the year 1864, which gave the result of an interesting inquiry on the spread of communicable diseases in hospitals; the Report of 1866 dealt with the practice of quarantine, and showed it was of very little use as a preventive of yellow fever, although it might be required for commercial reasons. If we did not impose it here on some ships, all our ships would be put in quarantine abroad. The medical officers also made special experimental researches; in 1867 a minute investigation touching the communicability of cholera was made, and anyone who had read that Report would see that no pains or expense had been spared to make the inquiry exhaustive. This year a special investigation was being made regarding the communicability of phthisis and the allied diseases by means of inoculation. The hon. Baronet had complained that the Pall Mall Gazette had spoken of his Motion as unintelligible; he would, perhaps, pardon him if he were obliged to agree with the Pall Mall Gazette. He had been greatly perplexed as to the meaning of the Motion, and had chanced to fall into the same error as the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell). The terms of the Motion, suggested another kind of infection, and a mode of infection which was common in large towns, and especially in our chief military stations; the terms of the Motion were these—
  "The spread of disease by infection (distinguished from contagion) as may tend to cheek legislation and action in cases unsupported by the evidence, winch in times of excitement saves a people from the commission of great crimes or great follies."

  2011
  He, therefore, had come down to the House under the impression that the hon. Baronet intended to refer to the Contagious Diseases Act; the Secretary for War had been under the same impression, and only a few minutes ago had discovered that he (the Secretary for War) might be released from the trouble of reply, and that he (Lord Robert Montagu) was to be the victim of the hon. Baronet's speech. It appeared now, however, that the hon. Baronet desired a Royal Commission to inquire into subjects at present dealt with by the Medical Officer of the Privy Council. If he desired the Commission to travel over the same ground as the medical officers, it would obviously be unnecessary; if he desired it to extend its operations beyond the scope assigned to that officer, he would be simply asking the House to re-constitute the Medical Department of the Board of Health, which Parliament had abolished in 1858. In either case the inquiry he asked for would be conducted under less rigid control than that which ruled the Medical Department of the Privy Council, and would involve a far larger expense than that which was now voted; and for these reasons he recommended the withdrawal of the Motion.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he believed the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) was mistaken as to the object of the hon. Baronet's Motion. As he understood the case, the hon. Baronet wished for an inquiry into the subject of infection, seeming to be under the impression that infection was different from contagion. In this view of the case, the addendum of the hon. Member was not applicable; but he noticed that the hon. Baronet approved the proceedings of a wrong-headed man, at Sheffield, whose sole object in life seemed to be to incite people to resist the beneficent law of vaccination. He (Mr. Bruce) therefore desired to say a word to correct the harm which might result from the observations of the right hon. Baronet. During the last few days a Return had been made as to the results of the Vaccination Act in Ireland since 1864, when compulsory vaccination was first enforced. The Commission stated in that Report that the smallpox returns from workhouse lever hospitals in 1867 showed 4 deaths as compared with 149 in 1864, or 1–37th. The returns of smallpox medical officers of dispensaries showed that only 24 cases had been treated in the half-
  2012
  year ending September, 1867, while 850 cases had been treated in the corresponding half-year of 1864. It also appeared that, out of 153 Unions in Ireland, there were only 4 in which smallpox existed at the time the Report was made. Then the Return showed that in 1864 the deaths from smallpox were 853; in 1665, the number was reduced to 347; in 1866, it was reduced to 187; and in 1867 only 20 died. Considering what an amount of misery had, as this Return showed, been prevented by the Vaccination Act during these few years in only one portion of the kingdom, he could not permit derision of vaccination by a Member of the House of Commons to pass without rebuke. He agreed with the hon. Member for Northumberland on the question he had raised—he thought the Contagious Diseases Act might be beneficially extended to the large towns — but he recommended the hon. Member to bring forward a special Motion on the subject.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

TURNPIKE TRUSTS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. CLIVEsaid, he rose to call attention to the Seventeenth General Report on Turnpike Trusts made by direction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 80. In 1864, he had the honour of being Chairman of a Committee on the subject, of which the Under Secretary for the Home Department (Sir James Fergusson) was a member; so that, whenever during the past year or two he had been asked by his Friends what progress had been made in the matter, or rather, why no progress at all had been made, he answered that there was a Gentleman at the head of that Department of Home Affairs who was thoroughly acquainted with the subject, and would, no doubt, do it justice. He had believed there was every reason to hope for favourable results from the present Administration. But what had occurred? Under the former Administration, 120 or 130 Turnpike Trusts where scheduled for abolition; but since the accession to Office of the present Government — and especially under the Administration of the noble Lord, now a Governor in Australia (the Earl of Belmore)—a retrograde course had been pursued, and the policy adopted for many

  2013
  years past with regard to turnpikes had been exactly reversed. In the first paragraph of the Report, credit was taken for a great improvement in the work in connection with this subject in the Home Office. He objected that a reflection should be thrown upon the administration of the Home Office in former years; and contended that no credit whatever was due to the present administration, notwithstanding the claim which had been put forward. The official Report, contrary to all precedent, was taken up with two or three pages of the old stock trumpery arguments, which had been answered again and again in favour of the continuance of turnpikes; and the statement, moreover, was entirely ex parte. It certainty was disheartening to find that, after so many years' effort to get rid of the evils of the turnpike system, renewed impediments should be thrown by the action of the Government, or by the influence of their supporters, in the way of useful legislation.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, in seconding the Motion, said, that all that the Home Office could do was to press the clerks to produce the returns as soon as possible. He concurred in the complaint made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Clive), and must further complain that the action of the Home Office had led to the introduction, for the first time, of arguments into the annual statement with reference to trusts. He was aware that the Act of Parliament stated that observations might be made in the Report; but the Legislature never intended that it should contain a series of arguments which would enable persons who took a peculiar view to quote an official document in support of it, and to assert that it was the judgment of the Home Office. During the few months that he had filled the Office of Under Secretary for the Home Department, he had never ventured to embody in an official statement of this nature his own views on the subject of turnpike tolls. This was a question of the very greatest importance, and he should like, if the opportunity were afforded, to have a further discussion upon it. When he saw the contents of this annual statement he was inclined to answer it, but refrained from doing so because he thought that course would be inconvenient to the House. He could not enter into the question as it stood now without raising the whole turnpike question; but, when the Turnpike
  2014
  Bill, of which he had charge, came before the House, he should be glad to discuss the whole subject, and to expose the weakness and fallacy of the statements which had been made. The present Government had reversed the process which had been acted upon for years with regard to turnpike trusts, deliberately setting aside the Report of the Select Committee. He perceived in the Report statements which he ventured to think he had answered successfully two or three years ago. He hoped they had not been introduced for the purpose of creating a precedent; but he thought that they ought not to have been introduced in their present shape, even with the object of elucidation. He believed the present state of the law to be unequal, uncertain, and most unsatisfactory; and, therefore, if the Government undertook to bring in a Bill to effect the desired reform, he should be very glad to give them his assistance.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copy of all the Communications received in reply to the Circular sent in February 1866 to certain Turnpike Trustees referred to in p. 9 of the Seventeenth Report on Turnpike Trusts, of which Extracts are therein given, together with the names of the Correspondents,"—(Mr. Clive,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD HENLEYsaid, that the subject was one of great importance. The Report confirmed an idea which he had formed, after what he had heard in Committees on the turnpike system—namely, that the Home Office was not the tribunal by which matters relating to turnpike trusts could be decided in a satisfactory manner. There were as many as 1,033 of those trusts, and it could not be supposed that either the Secretary of State for the Home Department or his Under Secretary had time to attend to them. Besides, they required local knowledge which one could not expect to find in the Home Office. There were 194 trusts out of debt, but with these the Home Office had not dealt very satisfactorily. As for the reasons assigned in the Report for not throwing the reads on the parishes when the trusts had expired, they might be

  2015
  summed up in the allegation that such a course would increase the rates. Why, of course it would; but he had supposed that the great desideratum was to have the roads maintained by the parishes. That had been done in some districts of the metropolis where the expense of maintaining the roads was something like £2,000 a year per mile. When, in 1863, the suburban parishes, such as Fulham and Hammersmith, objected to the Act throwing open about seventy miles of roads in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, on the plea that the wear and tear of those highways were caused by the metropolitan traffic, the answer was that the valuation of those parishes had been enormously increased in consequence of their proximity to the metropolis. In Hammersmith the rateable value of the property in the parish had been increased from £30,000 to £150,000 in about thirty years, and the same argument could be applied to almost every turnpike road in the country which ran through an agricultural district. All parishes through which a high road passed, were to some extent benefited by it. There were 834 trusts still in debt, and in respect of these also the action of the Home Office had not been satisfactory. He threw out these suggestions in the hope that, in any legislation on the subject which might be in contemplation, some of the difficulties might be removed.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the Report showed that there were in round numbers about 1,000 turnpike trusts, of which 800 were in debt, and 200 out of debt. The lettable amount of the tolls was in 1866 about £950,000, and the expense of collection and toll-rents' profits amounted at the lowest computation to about £300,000 more, bringing the total amount which the public contributed up to about £1,250,000. The whole sum expended for the repair of the roads only amounted to about £500,000 however, and in reduction of that the parishes contributed about £50,000. Now, if the repair of the roads throughout England were thrown on the parishes, those parishes would be relieved to a very large extent from the maintenance of many of the parallel roads in existence, or would only have to repair them to an extent sufficient for the agricultural purposes of the various districts. He had been able to prove to farmers who objected to having the maintenance of the roads thrown upon the rates, that if that course were adopted
  2016
  they would pay considerably less in the shape of rates for the repair of the roads than they had to pay now for tolls in going to markets and railway stations. The public were mulcted of £1,500,000 annually, for which they were only benefited in return to the amount of about two-fifths, the rest going in one way or another towards expenses and machinery. The county of Essex had got rid of all its turnpikes and was now experiencing the benefit of the stop it had taken. Surely that was good evidence in favour of the abolition of turnpikes. The Report now before the House ventilated the whole subject thoroughly, and he was glad to hear that the Government intended to bring in a Bill upon the subject.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he thought the Report went in a retrograde direction, and entirely upset all that had been done before. The Home Office had in a most extraordinary way taken the part of the country against the cities, and had actually gone out of its way to show reasons why the law should be—he might almost say—violated. They had gone as far back as the year 1836. All the tolls throughout the country were levied under certain Acts of Parliament. The power to levy was originally a contract, ratified by Parliament, between the trustees and the public, and was always limited to a certain number of years. Every year, therefore, a Turnpike Trust Continuance Bill was brought in, usually at the end of July to continue these contracts and the power of levying tolls. The public in the districts concerned were never consulted with regard to the Bill; there was no possibility of discussing the question, and Parliament was really acting entirely in opposition to the interests of the public in this matter. He would observe that those persons who lent their money on these trusts knew that the investment was in the nature of a terminable annuity, and consequently in the matter of their renewal they had the barest equity. If the turnpikes were to become an institution, under the Home Office, why was the Continuance Act brought in every year? The proper course would be to make the Act permanent. It was a mistake to suppose that this question was one in which no interest was felt. The state of the roads had occasioned riots in Wales, and Sir George Lewis had said the only way the people could remedy the grievance was by taking the law into their own

  2017
  hands. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would be good enough to listen to the earnest appeals that were made to him to pay attention to this matter, which, as time advanced, affected the interests of the country more and more.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH, while admitting that nothing in a small way was more vexatious than to be stopped on the road to pay a toll, said, that the toll system at least secured good roads, which were paid for by those who used them. If the repair of all roads was thrown on the parishes, a much more vexatious state of things would exist—the roads would be allowed to go out of repair. You might force the repair of the road upon the unwilling ratepayers, but they would prove like the horse at the water that could not be made to drink. Farmers would repair the roads to be traversed by their own carts, but would leave them in an unsatisfactory condition for other conveyances. Had we possessed all our present experience we might have devised a better system as regards our legislation on turnpike trusts. Certain districts might have been grouped together, and, as the terms fell out, the trusts might have been continued from year to year until all the roads in that district could have been brought under the Home Office together. If that had been done, greater economy could have been practised, many toll-bars might have been removed, and, finally, one term could have been fixed for all the roads in the district. As it was, great injustice often arose; because an Act was allowed to expire a road was thrown upon the highway rates, perhaps a parallel road was repaired by tolls, and the result was the traffic was diverted to the road which had been freed from toll-bars. This might have been avoided under a more uniform system, which would have allowed those who took an interest in the matter to put the roads of a large district under one management. The gradual abolition of tolls under such a system would have led farmers to look upon highway districts with greater satisfaction. In speaking of the debt, he wished to refer to the system which prevailed in Scotland, and which worked admirably. The system of rating was different, for the landlords assumed the payment of the debt; but, although the English system was different, the solution of the difficulty would be facilitated if the landowners would take one-half the debt on themselves, and the
  2018
  other half were paid by the occupiers. One source of difficulty in dealing with the debt was the apathy of creditors about their capital when it was once lodged in the hands of a trust. That might be natural when 5 per cent interest was paid, but the extraordinary thing was that it should be so in the case of trusts paying 1½ per cent. He had known cases where persons who were only receiving 1½ per cent, and not always that, upon the worst security in the world, had neglected to accept offers to pay them off at £50, and even at £60. In one case he had got on behalf of a charity a composition of £47 for such a debt, which was at the rate of more than thirty years' purchase, where the Act would expire in five years. This apathy accounted for the large debt still remaining on the trusts; but when Government took action, and proposed to do away with the trusts, these same people would object that their property was being confiscated, though they had neglected their chance of obtaining composition for their money invested in the roads. He thought that the only settlement of the question which could prove satisfactory would be to throw the cost of the roads on large districts rather than upon parishes. It was understood that a measure was to be brought forward by the Home Secretary, who would perhaps give some explanation of it, but without knowing what the Government would do the House could hardly come to a practical conclusion.
  MR. SCOURFIELDagreed that the fanner who used the roads would not have to pay more if the roads were maintained out of the rates; but the grievance would be that those who did not use them would have to pay the same as those who did.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was very sorry so much fault had been found with a Report published under his auspices; but many of the objections taken to it were not, in his opinion, valid. It was said that credit was taken for something now carried out by the present Government. It was not, however, this, but the last Government that had the credit—if credit were to be taken at all—for something that had been done by Mr. William Harrison. From the speeches made it might be supposed that the task of settling the turnpike affairs of the country was an easy one; but he was bound to say that, having had his attention drawn, during the last two mouths, to the subject, he had come to the con-

  2019
  clusion that the difficulties in the way appeared greater the nearer they were approached. In consequence of the strong feeling generally existing against any in crease in the rating, the present time was the very worst for dealing with the question; and therefore, if an attempt were made now to throw the roads upon the rates, he believed the outcry would be great indeed, and in many instances it would be just. It was true, according to the Report, that the tolls levied amounted to £945,458, and that the cost of repairs was only 58 per cent of the receipts. But 30 per cent was paid for interest upon debt, making 80 or 90 per cent, and law charges and salaries bring up the amount to about the 100. Beyond this there were the expenses and profits of the toll collectors, and thus a greater cost was imposed on the country than was estimated by the sum of £945,000. He could not say how much this would be. But he thought that before any steps were taken to deal with the subject of turnpike trusts there should be a valuation taken of debts at the present time with a view to ascertain what they were really worth; because, at the rates mentioned by the noble Lord (Lord George Cavendish) they would not prove so formidable in fact as they looked on paper. It would be desirable to know what they were really worth in the market; and he believed that the creditors of the roads would be glad to fake such a valuation if it were fairly made. The next question that arose was, how the roads, when freed from debt, were to be dealt with—whether by county Boards, or by highway districts. He confessed his present impression was that highway districts would give insufficient areas for the purpose. Again, when you were dealing with these turnpike roads, which were not now all main roads, power must be given to any authority set up to declare which should be main roads, and in the case of turnpike roads which were now only common high ways, to let them fall into comparative disrepair. He did not say that they should be allowed to fall into absolute disrepair; but all these roads need not absolutely be kept up on the same footing. It would be necessary, also, to enter into many other points. A difference existed in the penal laws affecting turnpike roads and main roads. To take a small instance. By the Turnpike Acts a person was not allowed to place manure within thirty feet of the middle of the road; in the case of a high-
  2020
  way, the distance allowed was fifteen feet. A case had occurred in which the moment a road was thrown upon the parish manure had been deposited within fifteen feet of it. It would be necessary, therefore, if they proceeded to deal with the question, to consider all the laws relating to the two classes of roads. Great fault had been found with a part of this Report which contained certain reasons; but he thought it was well that the House should have before them a narrative of what occurred in 1866. In giving this narrative his object was not to offer an argument on the part of the Home Office, but to show the nature of the trusts in different parishes. His hon. Friend had included in the Turnpike Trusts Continuance Bill a great number of trusts that were meant to expire. At one time he had thought of inserting in the Continuance Bill all the trusts which were out of debt, and referring the Bill to a Select Committee. He should have done that this Session, but hon. Members whom he would have liked to place upon the Committee expressed a disinclination to undertake so great a task. He proposed, however, to introduce a Continuance Bill at an earlier period than usual—as soon as he could get it ready; and he should have no objection, in cases which seemed to the House to require investigation, to refer them, or any part of them, to a Select Committee. With respect to bringing in a Bill himself, he had had a Bill prepared, but having only just received it from the draftsman, he had not yet had time to examine it; and he should not bring it in unless it was one which met with his entire approval, and unless it was in a shape which satisfied him that it had a chance of passing. His desire was that the thing should be thoroughly understood; but the circumstances of the Session forbade a general inquiry. It was not desirable to discuss the question further on a Motion of this description. He agreed that turnpikes and turnpike tolls were disagreeable things; and on this point he spoke feelingly, because in no part was the toll system more vexatious than in that in which he resided. Up to last year there were three turnpikes between his house and the railway station, and there were now two. As far as he was concerned, therefore, he should be glad to get rid of turnpikes. At the same time, it was only fair to consider who was to bear the burden when tolls were abolished. His own notion was that you

  2021
  could not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on this point without the creation of county Boards, giving them power, as he understood was the case in Scotland, to take tolls at such points as they thought proper.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not overlook the case of those roads where the tolls had been abolished; for redress was called for with respect to them as much as it was called for with respect to those where tolls still existed. A flagrant injustice had been done under the substituted system of rating. There were instances in which those roads were made without any reference to the parish in which they were made, and which was rated for their maintenance. He knew an instance in which a road had been made just outside a gentleman's park, and not with any unjust idea, for, in the first instance, the road had been kept up by tolls; but the abolition of those tolls had thrown the burden upon an adjoining parish.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HARDCASTLE, who had given Notice of a Motion that the position of Turnpike Trusts now expired but annually renewed should be submitted to the consideration of a Select Committee, said he should not press it, but hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would appoint a Select Committee to consider the expired Turnpike Trusts Acts which might be brought under his notice; and he trusted that it would not be long before the Continuance Act was introduced.

ARMY—FORTIFICATIONS—DOCKYARDS AND NAVAL ARSENALS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the plans upon which the Fortifications for the defence of the Dockyards and Naval Arsenals of the United Kingdom, and for the defence of our Colonies, were being constructed. He wished to state at the outset that he brought forward this question in no party spirit, but purely in a national point of view. For much of the information which he had obtained on the subject he was indebted to articles which had appeared in the organ of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—the Standard newspaper — and he had satisfied himself that the information thus obtained was in every instance
  2022
  strictly correct. In 1860 Lord Palmerston startled the House by proposing a Vote of £9,000,000 for fortifications for the defence of our naval arsenals. Upon that occasion a debate of a most interesting character took place, in which the hon. Members for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) and others who had ever been foremost as the careful custodians of the public purse, opposed the Vote; but the influence of the Government was too much for them, and after a protracted debate, extending over two or three nights, and after many Amendments and divisions, the Resolution was carried—Lord Palmerston promising that the Government in power should come to Parliament every year for a Vote for the sum required of that year, and present an Appropriation Act for that purpose. On the 9th of August, 1860, when the second reading of the first Appropriation Bill was proposed, Mr. Edwin James, who was then a Member of the House, moved a very remarkable Amendment, to the effect that, before proceeding further with the Bill, it was desirable that the House should be in the possession of more certain information as to the entire cost of the constructions and the efficient maintenance of the proposed sea and land fortifications, distinguishing the expense of each. That Amendment was seconded by Sir Charles Napier, but it shared the fate of its predecessors. The Minister of the day had his way upon the subject, and the Government went on with the construction of the forts on their own plans, as if the question was not open to debate. It would almost seem reasonable that, before an expenditure of between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 was entered upon, some degree of caution and inquiry with reference to these fortifications should have marked the movements of those in authority; but the House would be surprised when he stated that little or no inquiry took place, as would be seen, when he explained to them the experiments that took place, and the result. They were in no better position now with reference to the construction of these forts than they were in 1860. At that time, as well as at this moment, the following questions among others were entirely open—whether the land forts should be constructed of granite only, or granite in connection with iron shields—whether they were to be faced with iron upon granite, or whether granite was first to be built up, and iron in the

  2023
  shape of fortresses erected upon it; and then what was to be the thickness of the iron, and whether it should be solid or laminated? all of them most serious questions, and each one involving the success or failure of the undertaking. The construction of the first fortification proceeded, and a few experiments were attempted. The first, which took place the year before the Vote to which he had referred, was with reference to a combination of iron and stone. The experiment was made with the 40, 70, and 68-ponndors of that day, at 400 yards range, and the result was that the stone was smashed to atoms, whilst, the iron remained uninjured; and on the following day, the stone being cut away, the iron stood the test of the same guns, even in salvoes. That was the state of their information in 1860. In that year other experiments were tried. Mr. Hawkshaw, the celebrated engineer, who had been a few days since named a member of the new Commission the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington), produced a target on the laminated principle, but that was easily penetrated by two shots from a seven-inch Armstrong breech loader, the second shot, in fact, going clean through it. In 1863 Colonel Inglis produced a laminated target which proved a partial success, and Captain Noble and General Lefroy reported that a six-inch laminated target was not so strong as a four-inch solid iron one. In 1864 and 1865 one or two very remarkable experiments took place—the first experiment in which the shield principle was fairly tested. Two sets of casemates were constructed at Shoeburyness. One had a shield 12 feet by 8 feet and 4 inches thick fixed in front of it. The result was a total failure, and that settled the combination principle of stone and iron, the Report of the Ordnance Select Committee was unfavourable to the stability of casemates so constructed, which they stated were unable to withstand six consecutive shots from the same gun. The Defence Committee also distinctly stated in their Report that granite forts were untenable, and Colonel Inglis had expressed a similar opinion upon one occasion. A 68-pound cast iron shot fired at a granite block shattered it into a thousand pieces, and a more complete demolition could hardly be effected. Those experiments he thought would be sufficient to prove all that he desired to impress upon the House, that this momentous question was far from being settled,
  2024
  and that they had not yet got on the right road with reference to the construction of fortifications; he asked the House whether they would persist, or permit the Government to persist, in the construction of these forts until they had arrived at some certain data from which they could safely start? He had no desire to embarrass the Executive in any way; his only object in bringing the subject forward was the interest of the public, in order that the construction of these fortifications might be discontinued until something more was known about the subject, and that by the suspension of the works a waste of public money might be prevented. In the early part of last year Colonel Jervis presented a Report upon the various fortifications which were then in course of erection, in which Report he minutely described them, distinguishing those of stone and mortar, and of earthworks, and those at Portsmouth and on the Plymouth Breakwater. It was not his intention to go through that Report, but he would simply mention the result. The greater number of forts in which granite was used were described as being constructed for the purpose of receiving at their embrasures iron shields, and from that Report the consideration of the iron shield principle might be said to have originated. But it was with reference to the third class, which was the most important — namely, the Plymouth Break-water forts and the Portsmouth forts, that he desired the attention of the House a few moments. He believed the only fort for which contracts had been completely entered into was that for the Plymouth Breakwater. It was no doubt a structure of great importance. Colonel Jervis had carefully described the principle upon which it was to be built, but he (Mr. O'Beirne) would point out what he considered the fault of its construction, and the necessity for further inquiry. It would be a very costly structure; it was to be built of stone and mortar, of considerable thickness, to the height of 18 feet above high water mark; and upon that structure an iron fortification was to be erected, for which a contract was entered into in the early part of last year. This fort was to be of iron, and would cost £40,000. It was to be placed on a building of stone and mortar, offering to the enemy's guns an assailable surface of 18 feet below the iron wall, which could not, under any circumstances, be protected by the water. Now, if the experiments he

  2025
  had quoted were good for anything they showed that stone and mortar were not materials on which a fort could be safely built if any part of that stone and mortar was exposed to an enemy's fire; that a very few shots from an ordinary sized gun would destroy it and thus send the iron structure which was placed upon it about the men's ears. That opinion was also entertained by experienced engineers, ironmasters, and military men who had given the subject their attention. Stone and mortar, it had been clearly shown, were useless with regard to strength and resisting power. What reliance, therefore, could the House or the country place upon those who had adopted for the erection of one of the most important and one of the most expensive of the intended works, a principle which even the little knowledge we possessed had declared to be worthless. Last year, when the Provision for Expenses Bill, to authorize the expenditure of £800,000 for forts, during the year 1867–8, was in Committee, he (Mr. O'Beirne) moved a Resolution, which he was very anxious at the time to have carried, that all further expenditure on the forts should be stopped until a Committee of the House should have an opportunity of considering and reporting upon the whole subject; but his proposal was modified upon the promise of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War that such experiments as they wished should be carried out. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Hear, hear!] The experiments were to be, as he understood, of two characters—first, with reference to shields; and secondly, with reference to forts. But when the Bill came up for a third reading the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) declined to give any undertaking that the expenditure should be stopped pending the result of such experiments; consequently the House was helpless in the matter, and obliged to depend entirely upon the promise that had been given by the right hon. Baronet. He (Mr. O'Beirne) was naturally anxious to know something about the experiments after that, but mouths passed away and nothing was heard of them. However, in October last a small paragraph appeared in that vigilant journal, the Standard, announcing that experiments had taken place on the 25th of that month, and that in two shots the shield fired at had been knocked to pieces. It was further stated in the same journal that the shield after it had been fired at was carefully
  2026
  wrapped up in a tarpaulin, and that a sentry was placed over it to prevent anyone from ascertaining the actual amount of damage. There was another peculiar feature connected with that transaction. The usual practice of admitting the representatives of the Press to witness these experiments was departed from. He had it on the authority of a gentleman connected with the Press that he was refused admission, being informed that orders had been sent down from London that no stranger whatever was to be present at the experiment. In the following November Session of Parliament the hon. Member for the Queen's County (General Dunne) put a Question to the right hon. Baronet with reference to these experiments, and he (Mr. O'Beirne) subsequently followed that up with Questions with regard to the Malta and Gibraltar shields and the fortifications generally. The reply of the hon. Baronet to those Questions would no doubt be in the recollection of hon. Members who took an interest in the subject. He (Mr. O'Beirne) had also asked the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington), whether the specifications and drawings issued by the War Office for the intended target were a true section of the Plymouth and the Bermuda forts; the noble Lord the Member for Haddington (Lord Elcho) having been informed that they were not. The right hon. Baronet said, that he was not aware that there had been any alteration; that he had given the most strict injunctions that the target should be a correct and faithful representation of the Plymouth and Bermuda forts, as it was intended to erect them, and that if there was any variation it was this—that as it was difficult to give a target the strength and stability of a permanent structure; some additional supports might have been used for that purpose; but in all substantive respects they were the same. Now, he (Mr. O'Beirne) regretted to say that the facts of the case were totally at variance with the opinion which the right hon. Baronet had expressed. The target, which was ordered in the North of England, was in many respects different from the fort now building in the neighbourhood of London, and it in no degree represented the fortification of which it was intended to be an identical example. More than that, the target, he was informed, had, since it had gone to Shoeburyness, been subjected to repeated alterations at an expense of £10,000; and if the fort now erecting in the neighbourhood of London

  2027
  were altered in the same manner it would cost £20,000 more than the amount contracted for. If that statement were untrue or unfounded he would be happy to have it contradicted.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. What does he mean by the fort erecting in the neighbourhood of London?
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he meant the Plymouth Breakwater fort, which was being constructed at Millwall. But in addition to the objections he had already made, he arraigned the fort as unsound in principle, if, indeed, there could be said to be any principle in a plan which was being altered from day to day. But however the plan might be altered or modified, it was still, and always would be, an erroneous one. The structure was of iron, placed upon stone and mortar; and in the iron construction the laminated principle was adopted—a principle which experiment had also proved to be faulty; while stone and mortar, as a base, were, as he had shown, equally so. He now came to the question of the shields. It seemed to him that prudence might have suggested to the right hon. Baronet to have stayed the erection of these shields till the Report of the Committee, which the hon. Baronet himself had appointed, was received; but he declined to prevent their being sent out, and thirty-four had actually gone to their destination, one being retained at home to be fired at. In addition, fifty of these shields were to form an integral portion of the home defences. They were to be let into the embrasures of forts, built of granite, to protect the gunners. But a shot striking the granite would dislodge the shield and expose the men inside to the fire of the enemy. In speaking upon this subject, he could not refrain from expressing his entire approval of the labours of the Committee presided over by his distinguished and gallant Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay). That Committee had done its work in a very efficient manner. He observed that fault had been found with it by some of the Press, because it had not answered the third question that was submitted to its consideration. But he thought the hon. Baronet had done perfectly right. Those who knew the hon. Baronet knew that he had a thorough knowledge of this difficult question; and those who did not know him had only to look at his examination of the various witnesses before the Committee,
  2028
  and the character of the questions he put to them would prove how thoroughly he had mastered the subject. The Report of the Committee when it appeared, would, he believed, give general satisfaction. If he had any objection to make, it was that the Report was not yet printed and issued to Members. [Sir JOHN HAY: It is printed.] It must have been printed only to day—at least he had not got a copy. And here he must complain that he had seen with extreme surprise articles in the Press for the last fortnight commenting on the Report, the character of the evidence, and the nature of the findings, while the Members of the House had not seen it. It might be worth while to ask the Speaker's opinion, whether this was regular—it was certainly scarcely courteous. But, passing from that, he would call the attention of the House to this Report on the shields. It was believed that they were useless and unfitted for their purpose. After a great deal of trouble and loss of time a Committee was appointed on the 5th of December last, and it made its Report on the 11th of February. There were three questions put to the Committee—the first two were vital; the third, he thought, with great respect, had better not have been put. The first question was, how far have these trials proved favourable to the shields? the second, what are the causes which have led to any failure in the shields? and the third was, what changes in the construction of the shields the Committee; would recommend? He was glad, as he had already said, that the Committee declined to give an answer to the third question, as it was not fair to ask them to decide a matter so important in a few weeks, and if they had fixed on any particular shield they ought to have been allowed to superintend its construction. To the first question the Committee answered that they had considered the result of the first trial by the Ordnance Select Committee, on the 21st October, 1867—that was the remarkable trial when the shield was wrapped up in a tarpaulin—and other experiments made since, and they had come to a conclusion unfavourable to the shields, as they did not consider them strong enough to resist the direct attack of powerful ordnance at a distance of 200 yards. They went on to specify as defects the weakness of the girders, and the danger to the gunners from the number of nuts and screws that were liable to be displaced in action. On the other hand, it was stated that

  2029
  the construction adopted allowed of the strengthening of the shield by the super-imposition of additional plates. He thought, then, he had established a case for inquiry, and for pausing in the present expenditure. He would conclude by asking the House to agree to a Resolution to the effect that there be added to the Committee two Members of this House and an additional Engineer; and that all further outlay be suspended till that Committee should have made its Report to the House. Of the £11,000,000 which was first estimated as the cost of the forts, they had already spent £5,000,000: he hoped the House would refuse to sanction any further waste of money until it had full knowledge of how and with what probable results such expenditure should be incurred. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
  COLONEL SYKES, in seconding the Resolution, said, that in 1860 the Defence Commission recommended a system of fortifications involving an expenditure of £11,000,000. Subsequently to 1860 there was a reconsideration of the subject; there was a modification of the plan of the Defence Commission, and the expenditure was reduced to £6,000,000 or £7,000,000. In 1860, he opposed the system of fortifications then recommended. He knew it was impossible to defend our whole sea coast, and therefore he was of opinion that the defence of our arsenals was all that should be undertaken. In 1867, he moved for a Return, and he proposed that the modifications should be set in detail, with a statement as to costs past and prospective, &c. The Return laid on the table in consequence of the Motion made by him showed that the total outlay proposed up to that date was £6,995,000, independently of armament and troops. Up to the 1st of January, 1867, there had been expended upon the works £3,491,872. It was stated that 987 large rifled guns would be required, and 1,104 guns of 95 cwt. and under. The estimated cost of the armament was £1,883,722; the number of artillerymen required would be 9,841; and the number of infantry 22,441. It also appeared from the Return that the land to be purchased would cost no less than £1,064,761; that the actual expenditure up to the first of January, 1867, was £4,556,633; and that £2,438,367 more would be required to complete the fortifications alone. Now, if the works had been of a suitable character—if they had
  2030
  been properly placed and properly built, and if, above all, they had been necessary—the country might, perhaps, have overlooked this enormous expenditure. But there had been annually communicated to him statements to the effect that the fortifications were neither properly placed nor properly built, and that they were not adapted to the purpose for which they were designed. In fact, it had been represented to him that some were on overhanging cliff's, so that in time they would topple over into the sea, or on swampy ground, where the foundation was unstable and treacherous, so that the magazines had cracked, the ramparts had slipped from their bases and filled up the surrounding fosse. The forts erected on Portsdown Hill stood on a mass of chalk. Now, if any geologist had been consulted as to the appropriateness of such a site, he would at once have said that the concussion caused by the great guns being fired from the fortifications would in time make the scarps of the chalk itself crumble away, from the friable nature of the chalk. In particular he wished to direct attention to a letter which was published in The Times newspaper of the 10th of March last year, in reference to some remarks made on this subject by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONremarked that he was not Secretary of State for War at the date mentioned.
  COLONEL SYKESadmitted that he had made a mistake. The letter appeared in The Times on the 10th of March this year.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was not in order in reading a newspaper comment on a debate which had occurred in the present Session.
  COLONEL SYKESwent on to remark that The Times on the 14th of March, 1868, contained a long criticism on the state of the Spithead forts; but he would not read it to the House, as it extended to three or four columns. With regard to the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Cashel (Mr. O'Beirne) respecting shields being applied to masonry, he wished to point out that the engineers of the Defence Commission ought to have known that experiments had been made in America as to the application of iron shields to granite defences, and that it had failed absolutely,—it being found, as indeed might have been expected, that when such shields were placed upon

  2031
  granite the very impact of a heavy shot crushed the granite to powder, and the shields consequently fell from their places. The attempt to place them upon masonry had also been tried, and had utterly failed, and must always fail, from the very nature of the case. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Hear, hear!] Knowing this, the right hon. Baronet ought not to have sanctioned their application to masonry. His hon. Friend (Mr. O'Beirne's) application was, therefore, a very reasonable one. He trusted that the right hon. Baronet would consent to give additional weight to the Committee he had appointed by nominating upon it another distinguished Civil Engineer and two competent and impartial Members of that House. He supported that suggestion without the smallest personal object, because he frankly admitted that he had a bias in the matter. He was not competent to be a Member of the Committee, having from the first entertained a strong prejudice against the general system of fortifications adopted, embracing as it did not less than seventy-one defences; but he trusted that no further expense would be incurred in the direction spoken of by his hon. Friend until the investigation which was recommended had taken place. He believed that the true defences of the country would be found, not in fortifications, but in the stout hearts and strong arms of the people.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "two Members of this House and another Civil Engineer should be added to the Committee appointed to consider the question of the Fortifications for the defence of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies, and that arrangements shall be made to stop, as far as possible, all further outlay until that Committee shall have reported to this House."—(Mr. O'Beirne,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKremarked that they made a great deal of money in England, and were on that account the admiration of the world; but they also threw away enormous sums of money without any good object. Anyone taking a common-sense view of the subject must be of opinion that £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 had been voted for fortifications which were of no use whatever. He asked the
  2032
  right hon. Baronet to put a stop to the erection of these fortifications. He believed it was now admitted that they had made a mistake, and the sooner they retraced their steps the better. The right hon. Baronet had said there were no guns, and he (Alderman Lusk) considered it was a good thing that there were no guns. If they had put gnus in these fortifications six or seven years ago they would be now useless. At one time they spent a great deal of money on martello towers and more recently on Enfield rifles; and in both cases the money had been thrown away. And was it not likely that in the same manner the fortifications in six or seven years would also be useless. Who, he asked, was going to disturb them or take possession of their arsenals, or trouble them at all. And in case of war what was the use of these fortifications? He could understand that floating batteries oft the arsenals might be of use. But there was no hurry. Let them trust to their Volunteers, and they would find them worth more than all these fortifications.
  MR. OSBORNEsaid, he hoped that some Gentleman connected with the Government would rise to answer the very able statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Cashel (Mr. O'Beirne). He had been forcibly struck with the appearance which the House had that evening presented. That House was represented to the public as being the guardian of the public purse. Now, if there was any prospect of a debate which would produce acrimonious recrimination or party personalities, the Benches would have been crowded, and the House would have resounded with cheers. But what had been the state of the House during the whole of the discussion? A question involving the expenditure of millions had been most ably brought forward by his hon. Friend, the representative of a condemned borough—and the highest number of Members in the House at any period during the discussion had been twenty, while the lowest had been fourteen. There were two Members of the Government on the Treasury Bench. There was not a single Member upon the front Opposition Bench, and even the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) was asleep. That was the way in which a question of millions of money was debated and treated by that House. He had always taken a great interest in this question of fortifications. Its history was a melancholy one,

  2033
  and furnished an example of the most profligate and useless expenditure that was ever voted by the "guardians of the public purse." In 1860 a Royal Commission was issued to report upon the defences of the country. And here he might remark that the whole theory of Government seemed now to be this — that everything was to be referred to a Royal Commission, the consequence being that the Ministry abdicated all responsibility, and sheltered themselves under the recommendations of a Commission. They all knew that the Vote for fortifications was passed, in the first instance, under the influence of a panic. The total estimate was £11,850,000, and the works at Portsmouth alone were to cost £1,192,000. These works extended over seventeen miles; and the House rushed into this expenditure without considering that works of that vast extent would require at least 30,000 men to defend them. [Sir JOHN HAY: 80,000.] He had never ventured to put the number so high as that. He wished to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman how, in the face of that statement, he could oppose the present Motion? An army of 80,000 men to defend the works of Portsmouth alone! Where are the men to come from? The Volunteers could not supply them. The Royal Commission of 1860 recommended that £1,000,000 should be expended on floating batteries, together with £500,000 for their armaments. That was the most sensible recommendation which emanated from that Commission; but what had happened? The whole of the money had been expended upon these useless forts, and not one 1d. had been laid out upon floating batteries. As far back as 1860 he resisted the expenditure on fortifications and proposed that floating batteries should be built, and how was he supported on that occasion? He was supported by thirty-nine Members, who, in derision, were called the Thirty-nine Articles. He persevered in his proposal until at length he worked up the minority to 84. What happened then? The hon. and gallant Admiral now in office (Sir John Hay) seconded a Motion made by a gallant officer of Engineers, then a Member of that House (Sir Frederick Smith), to the effect that these forts should not be proceeded with. [Sir JOHN HAY: Hear, hear!] The same hon. and gallant Gentleman stated in 1862 that he had been at one time in favour of the forts at Spithead, but that he had since had reason to change his opi-
  2034
  nion, and he recommended that floating batteries should be constructed. That recommendation was backed up by a great naval authority, the late Sir Richard Dundas, who recommended that instead of constructing floating batteries they should expend £60,000 in rendering ironclad vessels available for purposes of defence in our harbours. The recommendations of these able officers and scientific men had, however, been totally disregarded. What he complained of was that the House had never had before it a proper estimate for these fortifications. The original plan had been altogether departed from, and public money had been thrown away and wasted in the sands at Spithead. According to the original plan there were to be five forts; but only three were in process of construction. It should be recollected that the original estimate for these forts did not contemplate any iron construction. They were to be built of granite, and it was not until Admiral Elliot, a member of the Royal Commission, said they ought to be covered with wrought iron ten inches thick, that the estimate was completely altered; and now the House was involved in an enormous and indefinite expense, without any plan before it. He suspected, moreover, that there was no working plan for the regular construction of fortifications. The present Government had, it was true, succeeded to a damnosa hereditas; but having succeeded to this damnosa hereditas, what was the common sense of their position now? He knew that the Government did not approve of these works. [Mr. Serjeant GASELEE: They say that the contracts were made.] He believed that the contractors for them would, upon the payment of a certain sum of money, be glad to wash their hands of them. He would, therefore advise the Government to close this account and to put an end to a gigantic imposture which was wringing money out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country. It was all very well for the Government to try and get rid of the responsibility. They were all tarred with the same brush. The right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House (General Peel) said he would not accept one atom of responsibility with regard to the forts—that they were the work of the last Government. But why did the party to which the hon. and gallant General belonged vote a large sum of money for the purpose of continuing the fortifications? He could

  2035
  not understand a Government which, knowing this outlay of money to be uncalled for, remained in Office and allowed this wasteful expenditure to go on. While he cordially concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Cashel (Mr. O'Beirne) in his representation of facts, he doubted whether, if his suggestion to add two Members of that House and one Civil Engineer to the Committee were acceded to, there would be any Report at all. He had no confidence in Members of that House reporting upon fortifications; for it was entirely owing to hon. Members that they had been involved in this extravagant outlay of money at all. He was ready to vote a sum of money with a view to closing the contracts. He hoped that some Member of the Government would explain exactly how matters at present stood, and the reason why that most sensible recommendation of the Royal Commissioners, that £1,000,000 should be expended on floating batteries, had been wholly disregarded. They heard a great deal about responsibility. He would read to the House one of the most useful bits of advice ever given by a Minister to the House of Commons. Sir Robert Peel said that, in a time of peace, this country should not be looking to keep up an extensive system of fortifications, and that if the House listened to the opinions of military men, who were always ready to recommend something connected with their own profession, they would involve this country in an outlay that no amount of funds would cover. That was the opinion of Sir Robert Peel in 1846. He would ask hon. Members to take that advice—and as an election was at hand they might be the more inclined to listen to it now than at another time—and to support the Motion of his hon. Friend for the suspension of this useless expenditure.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the hon. Gentleman had fairly quoted him as having always been opposed to these fortifications, for the building of which he was by no means responsible; but he could not conceive that the House which was really responsible for them would interpret unfavourably the action of the present Government in continuing the contracts which were in operation when they succeeded to Office. The sea forts at Spithead he believed to be entirely useless; indeed, they would prove admirable marks to guide an expert enemy into the harbour, while, as Sir Frederick Smith said, in a
  2036
  former debate, in these days of iron-clad vessels they would not be able to keep the enemy out. But when the present Government succeeded to Office these fortifications were raised considerably above their foundations and formed sand banks, and it was thought that the best use they could be put to was to place upon them the fortifications for which the contracts had been already made. With regard to the special question as to floating defences recommended by the Commission, raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) he had to inform him that this was one of the first things considered by the Admiralty after succeeding to Office; but they found that while the House of Commons had agreed to the Vote for the land fortifications, they had struck out the £1,000,000 for the floating batteries. He hoped the hon. Member for Cashel (Mr. O'Beirne) would not press his proposal for adding two Members of that House to the Committee, the members of which had been selected with the greatest care and attention, while its Chairman (Sir Frederick Grey), an Admiral of distinguished ability, had certainly not been selected with reference to his political views. The Commitee in its present form was a most effective one, and one from which might be expected not only a full and honest but also a speedy Report. He did not think there would be any objection to the addition of a Civil Engineer to the Committee; but such an appointment would, of course, considerably add to its expense. He hoped the House would see that the Government was not responsible for the expenditure incurred with reference to these fortifications; but at the same time he must remind hon. Members that the contracts already in force could not be put an end to without a considerable loss being thrown upon the public. It was one thing to disapprove of commencing such fortifications, but quite another to leave them in a half-finished state. He trusted that the hon. Member for Cashel (Mr. O'Beirne) would not press his Motion after the explanation he had given of the circumstances connected with these works.
  MR. SAMUDA, as an Independent Member, would say that to him it was no matter who projected or agreed with these fortifications. If, on re-examination, they were considered useless, they ought to be discontinued. After the statement of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Hay), a naval Lord

  2037
  of the Admiraly, that the Spithead forts would enable an enemy to obtain a better position in the country than if they were not there, a revision of this question was important to the country. He had understood from the Secretary of State for War that it would take £4,000,000 to pay for the necessary guns. That was another reason why the subject should be re-considered. He believed that only £7,000,000 out of the £12,000,000, of the original Estimate, had been spent upon these fortifications, which took their origin in a time of panic, and the permission to construct which was obtained from the House upon a statement that was now found to be wholly unsatisfactory. In 1860 it was represented that the arsenals and dockyards at Portsmouth and Plymouth were undefended, and that these fortifications were necessary to protect them from an enemy. Now the point to which he wished to call attention was that in ancient times, when the navy of this country relied exclusively on sails for their evolutions, it was absolutely necessary, in time of war, to possess Portsmouth and Plymouth; but that necessity did not now exist, when this country had a steam navy which could be speedily directed to any particular spot. Whether the fleet issued from Chatham, Pembroke, or Portsmouth, mattered not. Adverse winds did not stop the ships. It might be well in time of war to abandon those great arsenals, or even destroy them if necessary. It should be remembered, too, that we were making Chatham Dockyard large enough for all the works of the navy. It was an opinion, confirmed by high military authority, that the defence of the country could never be made in these forts. As long as we possessed the command of the sea we were safe, and if we lost the command of the sea, not one of those forts would be useful except to the enemy. His opinion was, and had always been, that this country should depend mainly, if not entirely, upon her ships, and that the number ought to be made equal to those of two or three of the greatest European Powers combined. That being done, if an enemy should obtain a footing in this country, it would be batter for our army to be posted about forty miles inland so as to draw the enemy that distance from his base of operations. That would be a better base for operations, and for stopping a successful raid being made upon the metropolis. If these fortifications were completed, we could not
  2038
  spare an army to man them. The constitution of the Committee was not a matter of so much importance, but what was wanted was to get the matter thoroughly re-considered and revised. He hoped if the hon. Member for Cashel (Mr. O'Beirne) should be induced to withdraw his proposition the matter would not be allowed to slumber.
  GENERAL PERCY HERBERTsaid, he supposed that, as there was "nothing like leather," it was natural that the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Samuda) should prefer ships to forts. If the House agreed with the hon. Member that Portsmouth and Plymouth were now of no consequence, the fortifications there would no doubt be unnecessary. But the construction of those fortifications was based on the belief that the arsenals at Portsmouth and Plymouth were necessary for the maintenance of that naval supremacy upon which the hon. Member himself laid so much stress. The forts at those two places were not designed for use so long as we maintained the command of the sea; but in case that which had occurred should be repeated, and a British fleet should be compelled to retire before the advancing fleets of the enemy. That was the contingency to meet which these forts were constructed, so as, in the event of a hostile fleet getting the command of the Channel, to prevent the arsenals of Portsmouth and Plymouth from failing into the enemy's hands.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, the hon. Member for Nottingham had accused him of being asleep. There would be nothing very wrong in his "taking a nap," especially after the heavy debates they had lately been listening to, but if he had been asleep during the discussion he was not aware of it. At all events he was not asleep during the astounding statement that Portsmouth and Plymouth might be done away with. It was not the first time he had heard the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuda) advocate the employment of private instead of public yards, and of course on the ground of "nothing like leather," it was easy to see why the hon. Member should wish to do away with the latter. With regard to these fortifications, he disapproved of them entirely, but he looked forward to no dimunition of expense so long as this old Parliament continued. He only wished the right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) was there. That right hon. Gentleman had described the excellence of the late and the present

  2039
  Parliament. In that he (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) did not agree. He looked forward to a new Parliament very different from the present, and the reason why he had taken such a prominent part in obtaining household suffrage was his belief that, in Parliaments elected by the new constituencies, we should have no abuses like this, which made the House of Commons stink aloud. No Parliament in its senses, no Parliament elected under household suffrage would, even under the magic wand of Lord Pahuerston—who was the most wonderful mesmerist he had ever seen—ever have consented to such a futile and outrageous outlay of public money. These fortifications were ordered under the influence of panic; and we never knew what we might do when we became old women, and yielded to panic. It was an ill wind that blew nobody any good, and his constituents at Portsmouth had benefited by this expenditure, though nobody else had. At the same time they would not wish their private interests to stand in the way of the public good. This was the reason they did not hear him perpetually boring the House upon naval questions, or asking for an increase of pay to dockyard artificers. His constituents sent him here to represent not their petty interests, but those of the public at large. The proposed addition, of a Civil Engineer to the Commission was, in his opinion, a valuable suggestion, and he thought that arrangement would work very advantageously though he owned he abhorred Commissions and Committees altogether. But he hoped that, after the admission of a Lord of the Admiralty that these forts were useless, the Government would urge the Commission to expedite their labours, as had been done in the case of the Irish Church Commission, which went on slowly until the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) introduced his Resolutions; and he trusted that an early Report would be obtained, and an end put to this outlay.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he could feel no surprise that the hon. and learned Serjeant who had just spoken should entertain great objection to any proposal to do away with Portsmouth, but he did net intend to discuss the proposal of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Samuda), that it might be desirable to suspend Portsmouth and Plymouth during war. He wished, however, to refer to a statement he had made on a former evening, and to which the
  2040
  hon. Member for Tavistock had adverted, as to the armament required for rendering our fortifications defensible. What he said was, that it would require for the armament of our fortifications a number of rifled modern guns, not less than 3,000, involving an expenditure of, at least, £4,000,000. He did not say over how long a period the expenditure was to be spread, or what were the best modes of obtaining the money; and when he made that statement he did not allude only to the fortifications they were now discussing, and which were proposed by Lord Palmerston. He referred to what would be required to enable our fortresses in all parts of the world — including Malta, Gibraltar, Bermuda, and Halifax—to resist any enemy who came to attack them with the advantage of modern arms. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) had complained, perhaps not unnaturally, of the thin attendance in the House at a time when, instead of an acrimonious party debate, they had to discuss a question relating to the expenditure of millions of money. But while he admitted there was force in that observation, he would remind the hon. Gentleman—it was only just to the House of Commons to do so—that if hon. Members were to come down to attend to the expenditure of "millions of money," it was right and proper that they should receive due notice of the purpose and object for which they are expected to be present. He did not complain of the hon. Member for Cashel (Mr. O'Beirne) for bringing forward this subject; on the contrary he gave credit to any Member on either side of the House who called attention to the immense expenditure incurred and being incurred in this system of fortifications, and he always admitted that the more carefully Parliament attended to that expenditure the better. But he did regret the terms and the manner in which the hon. Member for Cashel had brought for ward the subject. The Notice was—
  "To call the attention of the House to the plans upon which the fortifications for the defence of the Dockyards and Naval Arsenals of the United Kingdom and for the defence of our Colonies are being constructed; and to move a Resolution."
  He had had to meet the hon. Member before on this subject, and it had been frequently discussed. He had not been able to collect from the terms of the Notice what was the object the hon. Member had in view. And when the hon. Member said he intended to move a Resolution, he appealed to every

  2041
  Member whether it was not the uniform practice, in courtesy between the two sides, that when a Resolution was to be moved on an important subject, and tending to throw blame on a great Department, the terms of that Resolution should be put on the Paper? The hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by referring to the early experiments made at the commencement of this system of fortifications in 1860. These experiments were made under the immediate superintendence of his hon. and gallant Friend near him (Sir John Hay), in his capacity of Chairman of the Iron Plate Committee, and therefore it would be for his hon. and gallant Friend rather than for him to enter into an explanation of those experiments. But with regard to the system of fortifications, he did not think they were now treated with all the fairness they might claim. The hon. Member for Nottingham spoke of them as the result of a profligate and useless expenditure. [Mr. OSBORNE: I spoke of the expenditure on the Spithead forts.] It was the fashion in the House at the present time to ridicule and decry the expenditure on these fortifications. Now he was fond of justice and fair play. He had no more to do with these fortifications than the hon. Member for Cashel, who introduced this discussion, and the present Government was entirely free from praise or blame in regard to them. [Mr. OSUORNE: You voted for them.] His best reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham was this—that he (Sir John Pakington) never joined in condemnation of Lord Palmerston for proposing, them and those who were supporters and members of Lord Palmerston's Government—who, year after year supported him—should rather abstain from throwing on him the odium of profligate and useless and absurd expenditure. [Mr. OSBORNE: I never said so.] He (Sir John Pakington) never was a supporter of Lord Palmerston; he was always in political opposition to him, but he would say this—he did not believe any man ever exercised power in that House who was more thoroughly English in his views and feelings, or more anxious to exercise the great power he possessed for the honour and interests of the country. Whether right or wrong, he proposed and advocated this system of fortifications with most patriotic and honourable intentions; and when hon. Gentlemen criticized with so much severity those who had carried that system into
  2042
  effect he must say, in justice and fair play, they ought to bear in mind more than they did the changes that had occurred in our armament and the whole military system since the fortifications were commenced. [Lord ELCHO: Look at the contracts of 1867.] He was not referring to contracts—he was answering a speech which he had just listened to. If his noble Friend had anything to say about contracts he would meet him by-and-by. His noble Friend was one of those who referred to the fortifications with undue severity. He (Sir John Pakington) was not responsible for the system which Lord Palmerston thought it right to commence. He was not the advocate of the system, and he was free from all prejudice or concern in the matter except for the last year. What, then, was the state of affairs—what was our military system in 1860? A great portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Cashel had been devoted to a question of how much of our fortifications should consist of granite and how much of iron. [Mr. O'BEIRNE: I said nothing about any part being of granite.] He did not intend to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, the early part of whose speech was certainly devoted to the question as to how far iron ought to be an ingredient in these fortifications. Why, in 1860, nobody ever thought of putting iron into fortifications. What led to the introduction of iron? What but the clothing of our ships with iron? In 1860 no such things as iron ships existed. There had been, indeed, floating batteries, but there were no iron men-of-war; and at that period the system of warfare was between granite forts and wooden ships. No doubt the changes that took place after 1860 were very rapid; but, as he had to advert to other subjects which had been referred to by several hon. Members, he would not further detain the House by dwelling on that early period. He would come now to 1864 and 1865. Experiments were made in those years which the hon. Gentleman had treated, as far as he (Sir John Pakington) was aware, with perfect fairness; and the result of those experiments was to prove, first that a construction of solid iron was much more to be depended on than one of laminated iron; and, secondly, that a construction of iron and stone was not so powerful as one of iron alone. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) had entered into a good deal of matter which really did not

  2043
  bear upon this question, for he had alluded to the American experience of the great imperfections of granite backing to iron fronts. He (Sir John Pakington) was not aware that plan had ever been adopted in any of our English fortifications, and therefore, he would not dwell upon the subject. Then the hon. Member for Cashel went on to say that the question still remained unsettled. That was perfectly true, experiments were still in progress. He now came to a period for which he admitted his entire responsibility. It was a very short period, comparatively, in the history of these fortifications—namely, the time which had elapsed since he had the honour to be called to the office that he now filled—the time since 1867, to which the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire had so often referred. The hon. Member for Cashel had alluded to what had taken place in connection with the experiments to be tried on what was called the Plymouth fort. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman did not impute to him anything like a breach of faith in these trans actions; for he could assure the hon. Member and the House that no imputation was ever more thoroughly undeserved. [Mr. O'BEIRNE: I had no such intention.] He was glad the hon. Gentleman had disclaimed it, because from the time he had become responsible he had been deeply sensible of the difficulty and importance of the subject, and whenever he had to speak of it he endeavoured to do so with the utmost candour and fairness. He thought, however, that the hon. Member had, he was sure unintentionally, misrepresented his promise. The hon. Gentleman said that he (Sir John Pakington) had promised last year that experiments should be made on the Plymouth fort and on shields. Now, when he made the promise with regard to the Plymouth fort he gave no promise with respect to shields, and he thought that no question about shields had then arisen. His noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) brought the question of the Plymouth fort from time to time before the House, and what he (Sir John Pakington) promised was this, that, so far as he could exercise his influence, there should be a bonâ fide trial of that fort, and that the experiment should be made upon a target which should represent the fort as it was intended to be erected. His noble Friend and the hon. Gentleman had alluded to what they described as a certain change in
  2044
  the drawings. [Lord ELCHO: Hear, hear!] Now, he must frankly confess that he was not so much in the secret as his noble Friend seemed to be—he did not know to what extent the change in the drawings had taken place. He had no desire to shield the officers concerned more than was fair. On the other hand, he had a great desire that the officers who were responsible should not be entirely run down and condemned. He thought the House would be disposed to agree with him that if a public officer charged with a great responsibility, for which very few public officers had the necessary ability and skill—if such an officer, charged with the construction of those great works for the defence of England, found, from experience, after he had made his first designs, that those designs could be improved upon and made more fit for the purpose, he ought not to be made the object of censure and condemnation for making the improvement. It should be remembered, too, that this was a time when not only every year, but almost every month was adding to our knowledge on these subjects. He would go no further, but he thought it sufficient to say that in the case supposed, even if there had been some change in the drawings, it ought not to be made a subject of too severe condemnation. He had already said that his promise was that, so far as he had the power, the target should be a correct representation of the fort to be afterwards constructed; but it should be always borne in mind—and it was a part of the case—that it was very difficult to construct a target with the real consistency of the fort, because they could not expect to find in a target of a few yards broad, the strength which the size, shape, and weight of one part of a fortress must give to another. Therefore, this was a thing in which some licence should be allowed. He was happy to say, however, that the preparations for the trial of the target were almost complete, and he hoped his noble Friend would not think it unfair that the target should represent two different constructions, and two different degrees of strength. It would be divided into two parts, one of which would represent what was intended to be the construction of the fort. The hon. Gentleman had complained that the target at Shoeburyness had been constantly altered. Now, he knew nothing about this; he had never heard that any such changes had been made, and his desire was to as-

  2045
  certain the facts before saying anything more on the subject. He came now to the experiments which had been made with respect to the shields. And there he thought the hon. Member for Cashel had been a little unfair when he said in speaking of his (Sir John Pakington's) conduct last autumn that "after much loss of time a Committee was appointed." Now, the facts were these. They did not hear until October—and the hon. Gentleman himself had fixed that month—of the trials of the two shields. He was very sorry they had not been tried long before, and he quite admitted that they ought to have been tried long before they were sent to Gibraltar and Malta. He believed it was owing to the great pressure of the moment for national defence that they were hurried out as fast as possible; therefore, he threw no blame on any one. But the trial was made, the shield failed, and what was his course? As far as he remembered he did not allow a week to pass before he requested his hon. and gallant Friend next him (Sir John Hay) to resume his old post as Chairman of the Iron Plate Committee—and no more competent body could be got—with the view of resuming the experiments and testing the quality of the shields. His hon. and gallant Friend discharged that duty with his usual ability. It appeared that the hon. Member had seen the Report, and had expressed himself satisfied with it. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would not be disposed to find fault with the course which he had taken. He had here to remark on a part of the practice of that House which had prevailed for some few years, that certain portions of their Papers—but what they were, or where the line was drawn, he did not know—were sent to an Office, and were not in the hands of Members unless they chose to ask for them. Great inconvenience arose from this practice, and in the present instance the hon. Member ought to have been in possession of the information which one of these Papers which were not distributed contained. I have myself suffered from this non-distribution of Papers, and I am satisfied that, though the omission is traceable to considerations of economy, the public interests suffer from it. With regard to the Committee which he had lately appointed, he had formerly stated, in answer to a question asked by the hon. Member himself, the motives which had led to its appointment. Not long ago there was a discussion
  2046
  on the subject of the fortifications, and the House was than told that some of them were constructed on marshy ground, that some had cracked, that the scarps had fallen in; that others were built on chalky ground, and could not be relied on; that, in fact, they were in an unsatisfactory state, considering the money which had been spent on them. Now, it was too late to talk about the original plans, and he was not responsible for them; but he had no doubt that the able men called in by Lord Palmerston acted to the best of their ability at the time, and availed themselves of all the scientific knowledge of the day. The complaints to which he had referred rested on the mere assertion, first of one amateur and then of another, for he could only regard his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtou—if his noble Friend would forgive him for saying so—as an amateur. His noble Friend fortified himself by reading an extract from the St. Pauls's Magazine. He had never heard before of the St. Paul's Magazine. He had a great respect for St. Paul, but not for St. Paul's Magazine. Then down came the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen one night, and the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire on another night, with their remarks on the question. When he asked the hon. and gallant Member for his authority, he said it was a writer in The Times, whose name he knew but must not tell. Yet, those were the grounds upon which the decision of men of the highest scientific character—men like Sir John Burgoyne—was to be impugned and condemned, and their works stigmatized. However, he thought the time was come to meet these anonymous and amateur censures, and he accordingly appointed a Committee of Inquiry, and put at the head of it an officer of great distinction and ability, Sir Frederick Grey, in whose competence and honour he had entire trust. With that officer he associated Mr. Hawkshaw, Colonel Harness, Colonel Simmons, and Colonel Dixon. He had since added to the Committee an eminent artillery officer, Colonel Evans, and he did not believe he could have selected men more worthy of public confidence. He hoped that the House would be content to wait for the Report of that Committee, composed, as it was, of such competent persons; and he must decline to accede to the Resolution moved by the hon. Member who had departed most inconveniently from the practice of the House, in not having

  2047
  given notice of the import of his Motion. The Resolution embraced two propositions. The first was that all further expense with regard to the fortifications should be suspended. Now, to that proposition, he could not assent, as it would touch a large amount of existing contracts. The hon. Member desired to add to the Committee two Members of that House and a Civil Engineer. Now, he was as desirous as anyone that the constitution of the Committee should give satisfaction, but he doubted whether the Committee would derive any additional strength from having two Members of that House upon it, or acquire additional power by being made more numerous.
  MR. CHILDERSconfessed that he felt some difficulty in addressing the House on the subject, because, from the want of proper notice of the Resolution, no one could tell what precise proposition was to be brought forward. At the same time he could not help noticing the remarkable line taken that evening by Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. Lord Palmerston's policy and the responsibility of the present Government in connection with it had been treated in a manner entirely undefensible. The House was pretty severely lectured the other night from the Treasury Bench upon the matter of expenditure, and told that those who did not object to any particular public expenditure were just as responsible for it as those who proposed it. If that were true, how much more responsible must be those who not only did not object to the expenditure for the fortifications, but voted for it. He had taken the trouble to refer to the record which showed who did and who did not support the particular policy with respect to these fortifications which was adopted in 1860, and he found, among other names in favour of the proposal, which was then made by the Government of Lord Palmerston on the subject, the names of the First Minister of the Crown, the Secretary of State for War, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for India, and several other Gentlemen by whom his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) was now cheered. When, therefore, his hon and gallant Friend told the House, not only that the present Government were in no way responsible for those fortifications, but that the fortifications themselves were, to a great extent, useless, his hon. and gallant Friend must excuse him for enlarging on the doctrine
  2048
  which had been laid down, and maintaining that the occupants of the Treasury Bench were responsible for those useless works. He hoped, he might add, that hon. Members would not run away with the idea that it was any light matter which they were discussing. He himself was perfectly free so far as the original question of the construction of those fortifications was concerned, inasmuch as he had taken no part in the two divisions on the original Resolutions of 1860. Standing in that position he must say he thought, after the declaration of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, the public mind should be set at rest on the subject. The words which the right hon. Baronet had used towards the end of his speech were, in his opinion, perfectly sound, and he could not blame him for saying that he was not prepared to adopt a Resolution like that under discussion without notice, and under all the circumstances of the case, seeing that there was a large number of contracts at the present moment on hand. That being the view of the Government, he would suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Cashel that, instead of the second part of his Resolution, the terms of which he was sure he would admit were too trenchant, he should accept the following words by way of Amendment:—
  "That in the opinion of this House, no further outlay on the Fortifications for the defence of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies, except such as may be absolutely necessary under existing Contracts, or to complete works which cannot be suspended without serious inconvenience, ought to be incurred until the Report of the Committee recently appointed, shall have been laid before this House."
  A Resolution like that would, he believed, if adopted entirely satisfy the public mind, and be in accordance with that moderate course which his right hon. Friend at the conclusion of his speech pointed out. Then again, with reference to the first proposition of his hon. Friend, "that two Members of this House and a Civil Engineer be added to the Committee," he wished to say that he objected to the proposed appointment of Members of that House, inasmuch as it would have the effect of taking away, in a great measure, the responsibility in the matter, which ought to rest solely on the shoulders of the Executive Government; and his right hon. Friend had promised that he would appoint a civil engineer. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Cashel would accept the Amendment which he had suggested.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he had no wish to inconvenience the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War, or act discourteously towards him or the House. The best course would be to move the adjournment of the debate; but as that could not be done, he should not press his Motion to a division.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he should not have trespassed on the attention of the House had he not understood that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War had in his absence coupled his name with that of St. Paul. Now, he had quoted on a former occasion from the St. Paul's Magazine because the article from which the quotations were extracted, appeared to him to be a very able one, and to have been written by a person who thoroughly understood the subject on which he was writing. He should not, perhaps, have referred to it had not an article of a similar character been published in The Times newspaper, in consequence of which a question had been put by the gallant General opposite (General Dunne) to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Sir John Pukington), in reply to whose answer The Times' correspondent wrote a letter, maintaining the accuracy of his original statement. But, be that as it might, the country had, at all events, he thought, good reason to rejoice that the St. Paul's Magazine and the communication of The Times' correspondent had been quoted in that House, for it was, perhaps, not a little owing to that circumstance that an inquiry into the real state of the fortifications was instituted. He had never questioned the propriety of the Report of the Commission issued by Lord Palmerston, and which recommended the expenditure of the public money upon fortifications; but, assuming that it was necessary that they should be constructed, he had expressed his doubts as to whether the nation was getting the worth of the money expended, and experience had now shown that it might as well have been thrown into the sea, because they were not constructed in such a manner as to resist modern artillery. It was from a belief that the Plymouth fort did not fulfil that condition that he last year brought the subject before the House. He admitted that his right hon. Friend, since he had been in Office, had acted with perfect fairness, and had shown every willingness to have a thorough inquiry. But what he had asked of his right hon. Friend
  2050
  last year was to let them have a section of that Plymouth Breakwater fort as per drawing signed by Colonel Jervis on the 19th of January, 1867, and issued to the contractor. His right hon. Friend implied that he (Lord Elcho) was actuated in the course he took by personal motives: he absolutely disclaimed anything of the kind. Whenever the Minister in cases like that defended the acts of an officer in his Department whose conduct was supposed to be impugned by a Member of that House, he invariably elicited a cheer. For himself, however, he did not in the least attack the individual, but the work; and if the work was found to be faulty he left the House and the country to form their own opinion as to whether the individual was or was not to blame. His right hon. Friend undertook that there should be a section of that fort, but a section as it was now intended to be constructed. That was not what was, he believed, the understanding come to between his right hon. Friend and himself last year. That understanding was that it should be a section of the fort, not as it was intended to be constructed at some future time, but as it was intended to be constructed as per drawing signed by Colonel Jervis on the 19th of January, 1867, and issued to the contractor. In November last he had reason to believe there was a departure from that understanding, in so far as that the section which was being constructed was not according to the design as contracted for, and a Question was asked in the House on the subject. He then went abroad, and when he came home in March he had still further reasons to believe that the original understanding was departed from, and had to bring the matter before the House. What he then wanted, and what was promised by his right hon. Friend, was that there should be two drawings published—namely, one of the fort as originally designed, and another of the same section of the fort with such alterations marked and coloured as would show how it was eventually intended to be erected, so that the public might judge between the two. His firm conviction was that the section as it was now intended to be put up and to be fired at would be found to be as different from the fort originally meant to be constructed as that fort of iron differed from the original design of 1860. If there had not been external action—if the question had not been raised in that House, he believed

  2051
  that fort would have been constructed as it was originally designed and contracted for, and that the country would have had a bad article instead of a good one, whereby the public money would have been wasted.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, he considered that the investment of the public money in fortifications was essentially a bad one, and that, as pointed out in a former debate by General Peel, the real defence of the country was to be found in the fleet and in floating batteries. They had been in reality throwing the money of the national Treasury into the sea. The proposal for the construction of the fortifications was made and agreed to at a time of national panic, when it was supposed that an enemy was about to invade us. But during the past eight years no enemy had invaded them, though the forts had not been constructed, and why should they go on spending this enormous sum of public money on such a chimerical idea? Besides, an enemy would never attempt to land in the face of forts, but would seek some other part of the coast on which to land. They must remember that when the fortifications were constructed, an enormous expense would have to be incurred to defend them; and they would, after all, be perfectly useless. He was glad he was one of the thirty-nine Members who, from the very first, protested and voted against this extravagant expenditure, and was sorry that the House did not take the advice of the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), who so justly pointed out that, in the event of an enemy landing, they might, by means of the existing railway communication, concentrate troops in a few hours, in any part of the kingdom. No real economy would be effected for the nation, until the execution of these fortifications was totally suspended. Believing that the fortifications, when constructed, would be utterly useless, he would move that all investments in fortifications should, from the present time, cease and determine.
  MR. SPEAKERinformed the hon. Gentleman that there being an Amendment before the House, the one he had now moved was inadmissible.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that since he had come into Office he had endeavoured to deal with the question in various ways and with the utmost fairness and moderation, and he was obliged to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho) for the admis-
  2052
  sion he had made to that effect. He would appeal to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), whether it would not be a departure from the usual practice of the House on a matter of great importance if they adopted the proposal he now made? It was a Motion without Notice in reference to a large expenditure, which might be condemned in one moment, and rightly condemned, but which had been going on for a period of eight years. Large sums of money had been expended on works of the greatest national importance; and he submitted to the House with very great confidence that, if they were to reverse their policy and abandon what was done in 1860, they ought not to do so without the fullest notice and the gravest thought. He must say he did not feel at liberty to accept a proposal of that serious importance without a reference to his Colleagues in the Cabinet. The proposal of his hon. Friend who had spoken of the impropriety in the hon. Member for Cashel making a Motion without Notice was itself moved entirely without any Notice; and he appealed to the House whatever its ultimate decision might be, not to proceed with precipitation. He had already promised that the Instructions to the Committee should be laid on the table. Well, they were not going even to wait for those Instructions, and if the Motion of his hon. Friend were accepted by the House he believed it would be necessary to alter them.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the right hon. Baronet opposite altogether misunderstood the object of his hon Friend (Mr. Childers). There were two questions involved, one was whether it was desirable that their great arsenals should be placed in a state in which they could be defended from the attack of a foreign enemy; and the other was, whether the manner in which the fortifications were being executed would best attain the end in view. His hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had raised no doubt as to the first—he had not proposed a reversal of the present policy, or that the fortifications should not be erected. But the question raised was whether there should be an alteration in the manner of their construction? Complaints having been made that these fortifications were being erected in a way that would render them useless for their object, the Government had very properly appointed a Committee to examine into and carefully report upon

  2053
  the manner in which they were being executed. He believed that the complaints against the fortifications were unfounded, but the appointment of a Select Committee implied that there was some doubt on the subject. There was great force in the objection of the Secretary for War that the Motion had been made without notice, and that, in consequence, he wished to consult his Colleagues. The best plan would therefore be to adjourn the debate. No public inconvenience would arise from postponing any ulterior expenditure, as the Report of the Committee was likely to be obtained in a short time. He would suggest that the debate be now adjourned. [Mr. SPAKER intimated that this could not be done.] He would then recommend the hon. Member for Cashel to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that he should have an early opportunity of bringing the matter on again after the right hon. Baronet had consulted his Colleagues.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pontefract.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Royal Commission made two recommendations—one with reference to fortifications, the other with regard to floating batteries for the defence of our shores. If the matter was re-considered by the Government, it would perhaps be found that they had carried out the less important matter, and neglected the more important of the two.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Secretary of State for War has taken exception to the terms of the Notice of the hon. Member for Cashel (Mr. O'Beirne), as not being sufficiently precise and complete, and I should wish to take the direction of the House, as to what should be the practice for the future. It is a rule of the House, that no original Motion should be made without due Notice; but of late years, on the question of going into Committee of Supply on Fridays, the Motions all partake of the nature of original Motions, though made in the form of Amendments to the Motion, "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair;" but they are, in fact, a succession of original Motions, which Members expect will be called on in due order. Now, this is a new practice, and I should like to know if it is the opinion of the House that Notices for Friday should be given in sufficient time and in as complete
  2054
  a form as original Motions. I do not wish to say anything with regard to this particular case, because the practice has not been settled. The Notice to call attention to the question of fortifications, and to move a Resolution by the Member for Cashel, would have been sufficient Notice at a week's distance: but before the day arrived, it would have been suitable and proper that the exact terms of the Resolution should appear upon the Paper. And if that is the general opinion of the House, it is a course that ought to be followed for the future. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), it is not liable to the same objection, because it constantly happens in the course of the debate that the original Motion is objected to, and that having been withdrawn another is substituted more acceptable to the House. I have taken the liberty of making these observations to the House, rather with the view of collecting the opinion of the House with regard to its future practice.
  MR. GOSCHENput it to the hon. Member for Cashel, whether it would not be well to bring this question before the House again? [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Members opposite were not acceding to the wish of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War, who had pleaded that sufficient Notice had not been given. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] As it seemed the wish of the House to divide, they must each vote according to their convictions, and he had no option, but to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Pontefract.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, no further outlay on the Fortifications for the defence of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies, except such as may be absolutely necessary under existing Contracts, or to complete works which cannot be suspended without serious inconvenience, ought to be incurred until the Report of the Committee recently; appointed shall have been laid before this House,"—(Mr. Childers,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 48: Majority 45.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

INDIA—BANK OF BOMBAY.—QUESTION.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he supposed the House would not go into Committee that night, and he therefore rose to call attention to the Papers laid on the table with reference to the Bank of Bombay, and to ask a Question thereupon. The Question was one of pressing importance, relating as it did to the existence of an institution in Bombay, which had a very great effect upon the state of public credit and credit generally in Bombay, and might indirectly seriously affect the credit of this country. In consequence of the failure of the Bank of Bombay, a new bank had been established, and the Government had established relations with it, resembling those which it had sustained with the late Bank. To this he should have felt no objection but for the extraordinary circumstance that all the evils that existed in the old Bank, and that led to its failure, had been re-created in the new Bank, which was to be supported by the Government of India. The old Bank was founded in 1840. It was established by an Act of the Legislative Council, which defined the powers and duties of the directors. The Court of Directors in England sent out instructions on which the Bank Act was passed; and they adopted this fundamental policy, that it was improper to give to a bank in India those unlimited powers which were given to similar institutions in this country; that no funds should be advanced, except on security, either of public loans of the Government of India, or merchandize, or bills of exchange having the security of an independent and solvent person in addition to the drawer and acceptor; and further, that no one should obtain upon his own credit loans exceeding £30,000. There was a further provision that the length of credit to be given should be limited to three months; and there was a strict prohibition against the funds being appropriated in any other manner. Under this admirable system the Bank was carried on for many years, and its credit stood higher than the credit of any bank in the world. Unfortunately, however, a change was made in the constitution of the Bank. A new law was passed empowering the directors to advance money on cash credit, and to buy and sell bills of exchange without those restrictions. Thus they were at liberty to advance what they pleased on the security of a single person, without any collateral security. Then began
2056
in Bombay an inflation of credit, before that time unknown; and when, on the failure of the Bank, the Government called for an explanation of the cause, a schedule was delivered, from which it was apparent that it arose from the changes which had been made. In that schedule he found this — Financial company, bill discounted £100,000, no security; fixed loan, £113,000, no security; a merchant, £50,000, cash credit, and no security. And those three items represented the character of the institution which had failed. In proposing the establishment of a new bank one would have expected that there would be an avoidance of the errors that had brought the old Bank to grief. But looking at the constitution of the new Bank he was surprised to find that there was precisely the same power given to invest funds without security that existed in the old Bank. Under these circumstances he was surprised to find that the Government of Bombay proposed to take shares in the Bank, and that the only security they proposed for their own protection was the appointment of an auditor or inspector, who would not be able to control any laches in the management of the business of the Bank as it proceeded from day to day. The reason assigned for the Government taking shares was, that persons of influence would not take shares unless the Government did so. On making inquiry who those persons of influence were, he was surprised to find that one distinguished member of the Council of the Governor General had applied for shares while these negotiations Mere pending, and that he threatened to withdraw his application unless matters were thus arranged to his satisfaction. Now, he had always thought the besetting sin of Indian administration was the tendency of its members to embark in joint-stock companies, but he did not expect to find this instance of it. He knew the gentleman in question to be a man of the highest sense of honour; but there were hundreds who would imitate his example for one that would imitate his motive, and in India people did not discriminate. He thought that the Government of India should merely watch over the accuracy of its own account, and that it should be made clear that the Government had no intention of securing either the public or the shareholders against loss. He wished, therefore, to know, what were the views of the Secretary of State for India on these

2057
points, and he ventured to suggest that—if it had not already been done—orders should be sent out to India directing and insisting on the constitution of the new Bank on the same principle as that which at its outset regulated the old Bank; that the powers of the directors should be regulated, not by a mere deed of incorporation, but by an Act of the Legislative Council, which should make it penal for the directors to misappropriate the funds of the institution.
MR. DYCE NICOLsaid: I will not detain the House beyond urging, in the strongest manner, on the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India the severing of the present connection between the Bombay Government and the Bank of Bombay, a continuance of which exposes the Government to a repetition of the difficulty in which they are now involved with the old Bank—calculated, as it is, to degrade the authority of the Government in India, and placing it in an entirely false position by assuming a responsibility before the public which, when called on to fulfil, it is under the necessity of repudiating. The present time appears, also, opportune for dissolving this commercial partnership. The community of Bombay have in a great measure recovered from the effects of their insane speculations, and have been the chief recipients of the millions expended in the Abyssinian, expedition, while the chief article of export—namely, cotton—has, within the last few months, increased in value 100 per cent, there can be no longer any claim for the interposition of the Government credit in banking operations. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet will give early notice of the withdrawal of the Government from this co-partnership, and to intimate to the Banks of Bengal and Madras the intention of Government of adopting the same course with those institutions at the expiry of their present charters.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to explain to the hon. Member who, last spoke that he (Sir Stafford Northcote) was in error when he told him the other day, in answer to a question, that the Act of 1863, which made an alteration of the charter of the Bombay Bank, had not been sent home before it was sanctioned. It had not been sent to the usual Department to which these dispatches came—he meant the Judicial Department; but he now found it had been sent to the Finance Department, and
2058
was therefore submitted to the Secretary of State before it was considered by the Legislative Council. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) he agreed with most of what the hon. Member had said; but he had to state that the Bank had only been temporarily constituted under articles of association which had been considered by the Home Government. The Secretary of State in Council had already sent a dispatch to Bombay pointing out that the articles of association were not satisfactory, and expressing a desire that an Act should pass, and that a draft of this Act should be sent home to the Secretary of State, in order that its details might be considered here before it was submitted to the Legislature of Bombay. When the draft came home it would be considered carefully, with a view to making it as perfect as possible. With inspect to the question of the connection of the Government with banks, it was one on which his general opinion had in no way changed, but was rather strengthened by what had occurred. It was his opinion, as a general principle, that it was inexpedient for the Government to be shareholders in Presidency banks, and so rendered, to all appearance, responsible for their management. When the question of allowing the Government to take shares in the new Bank at Bombay came up for decision, he felt so strongly upon it that he overruled the opinions of a large majority of his Council, and sent out a despatch objecting to take shares. In the particular case of Bombay, however, he subsequently surrendered his own opinions upon finding that without the co-operation of the Government it would be impossible to reestablish the Bank, and that if it were not re-established great difficulties would arise and great injustice would be done to the mercantile community in Bombay. His assent, however, had been accompanied with this condition—that a Commission should inquire into the whole subject, and should examine whether the precautions taken were sufficient, or whether it was desirable that any other arrangements should be made. He hoped that by that inquiry some conclusions might be arrived at which would regulate the future relations between the Governor General of India and the Presidency banks generally. In the case to which reference had been made there would be no ground for comment or censure, either as to the spirit or

2059
intention of the distinguished person referred to. He was a shareholder in the old Bank of Bombay, and when the new Bank was proposed to be re-constituted, he made an application in the ordinary course for shares, under the impression that the Government were to be shareholders as before. Finding, however, that an objection was raised by the Secretary of State, he at once said that altered the position of affairs, and withdrew his application. There could be no doubt that both the application and the withdrawal were perfectly right; but it was equally true that this proceeding on the part of a person so exalted in position exercised an immense effect throughout a country like India. The question whether it was possible to lay down any rules forbidding Members of the Government or persons employed in Government Departments to hold shares in banks, he had discussed privately in letters with Sir John Lawrence and with menbers of his own Council; but it was exceedingly difficult to arrive at a decision as to putting limits to private investments; and he could only hope that the Report of the Commission would throw some light upon it. He did not commit himself to any positive opinion upon the point, but owned that he thought the present arrangement undesirable. Power would be given—probably had been given by this time—to the Commission to take evidence in India; and he had desired the Governor General to facilitate, if necessary, the adjournment of the Commission to England, though he did not expect that such a course would be necessary. Sir C. Jackson had sailed that day for Bombay, and had directions from him (Sir Stafford Northcote) to obtain power, if necessary, to carry on the inquiry without delay.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not intend to offer one word of hostile criticism upon what had been done by the right hon. Baronet. Not the least satisfactory part of his explanation was that in which he stated his views as to the undesirable-ness of the Government becoming shareholders in a bank. But there was one moral to be drawn from the case of the old Bank of Bombay which ought not to be overlooked—namely, the inefficiency and unreliable character of Government inspection and Government interference in commercial matters. Where there was Government inspection the public was always likely to cease to be vigilant or to contest the action of the directors; and then if
2060
anything went wrong they held the Government responsible for what really was the result of their own want of caution. It was very desirable, now that there was a constant demand for Government supervision and direction in a variety of ways, that from the recent occurrences in India a lesson should be drawn and that it should be impressed both upon the Government and the mercantile community. Anything more disastrous than this case of the Bank of Bombay he could hardly conceive, for it had covered the Government of Bombay with a kind of discredit, at the same time that the supervision of the Government had wholly failed to avert that ruin against which it was supposed to operate as a complete safeguard.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought it certain that the fact of a member of the Council of Government in India being connected with the management of a bank must give a great impulse to speculation. As matters stood in India, it appeared as if there were an irresponsible Council which was continually reversing the opinions of the Secretary of State and the House of Commons. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India would adopt effective measures to prevent a recurrence of the evils complained of. The right hon. Baronet had not distinctly stated that he had taken steps to prevent the possibility of a member of the Governor's Council becoming a shareholder.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Committee deferred till Monday next.

ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS BILL— [BILL 88.]
(Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens, Mr. Kinuaird, Mr. Locke.)
ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS BILL— [BILL 88.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens.)
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that as the Bill stood persons who had no interest in the finances of the metropolis would be at liberty to impose burdens on the taxpayers. With a view of having this altered he moved the re-committal of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the words "Bill be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "re-committed, for the purpose of amending the Schedule,"—(Mr. Ayrton,)
  —instead thereof.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, this was not a Government Bill, but last year the First Minister of the Crown stated that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens), who introduced it, would have his sympathy. The question raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was not a new one. The House, after a full discussion of the subject, had decided on adopting the area of the Metropolitan Board of Works. No sufficient reasons for re-considering that decision had been advanced either by the hon. Member or by the deputation that had waited that morning upon his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and his right hon. Friend was of opinion that there were no good grounds for re-committing the Bill.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he apprehended that the effect of the Bill would be to increase and not as was supposed to diminish the inequalities of taxation in the metropolis. The measure would impose a charge of 2d. in the pound for the purpose of carrying out objects which could be effected equally well without it. The vestries, and not the Board of Works which did not possess the confidence of the ratepayers, ought to be charged with carrying out the measure, and he would appeal to the hon. Member for Finsbury to agree to its being re-committed.
  MR. MELLY, as representing a large constituency of 150,000 persons, objected to the re-committal of the Bill, which he hoped would be at once read a third time and passed.
  COLONEL HOGGsaid, that the accusations made against the Metropolitan Board of Works were unfounded. The Board did not wish for additional responsibilities, although they would discharge to the best of their ability any fresh duties which Parliament might impose upon them.
  MR. FAWCETTthought it was altogether too late to raise the objections
  2062
  made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he felt that the metropolis had not had opportunity enough to consider this Bill. The Bill had been hurried through the House and therefore it ought to be re-committed.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," I put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  1. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized to raise any sum of money, not exceeding £600,000, by an issue of Exchequer Bonds.

  2. Resolved, That the principal of all Exchequer Bonds which may be so issued shall be paid off at par at any period not exceeding five years from the date of such Bonds.

  3. Resolved, That the interest of such Exchequer Bonds shall be payable half-yearly, and shall be charged upon and issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or the growing produce thereof.

  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CRAUFURD, Bill to amend the Acts relating to Weights and Measures in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CRAUFURD and Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 109.]

  JURORS' AFFIRMATIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CRAUFURD, Bill to give relief to Jurors who may refuse or be unwilling, from alleged conscientious motives, to be sworn in Civil or Criminal Proceedings in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CRAUFURD and Mr. DUNLOP.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 110.]

  CUSTOMS AND INCOME TAX BILL.
  Bill "to grant certain Duties of Customs and Income Tax," presented, and read the first time. [Bill 108.]
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
— Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Ellesmere, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Broughty Ferry Provisional Order Confirmation* (80).
Committee—Perth and Brechin Provisional Orders Confirmation* (64); Capital Punishment within Prisons* (83).
Report—Perth and Brechin Provisional Orders Confirmation* (64); Capital Punishment within Prisons* (83).
Third Reading—Local Government Supplemental (1868)* (70), and passed.

VICTORIA—THE APPROPRIATION ACT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LYVEDEN, in rising to call the attention of the House to the Correspondence respecting and arising from the Non-enactment of the Appropriation Act in Victoria consequent upon the Recall of the Governor of the Colony, said, that he could hardly hope, after the excitement of a crisis in this country, to attract their Lordships' minds to one in a distant colony which was however of the utmost importance. But, in the first place, he desired to say that in the remarks which he was about to make, he was far from desiring to make this a party question, and still more was he desirous of avoiding anything like a personal attack on the noble Duke at the head of the Department (the Duke of Buckingham), to whose courtesy he was ready to bear his personal testimony. The position in which the colony of Victoria now stood was this — Previously to the year 1850 the colony was known as the settlement of Port Philip. In 1850, however, it was constituted a colony; the Constitution given to it by an Act of the Imperial Parliament comprised a Legislative Council, part of which was nominative and part elective. But by a subsequent Act it received the usual colonial Constitution, consisting of a Legislative Assembly and a Legislative Council, the former being elected by a large constituency, and the latter being elected for a longer term of years by electors possessing a higher franchise. Between these two Assemblies had arisen the same dispute that had prevailed in the mother country respecting their privileges, and the House of Assembly had tried the system of what were here called "tacks" by way of compelling the Council to carry measures which would not be by themselves accepted. In the midst of these contests occurred the appointment of Sir Charles Darling. Now, of Sir Charles Darling he (Lord Lyveden) desired to speak with the utmost respect. He had filled the office of Governor of different colonies under the Crown for upwards of eighteen years, with the approbation of those Secretaries of State under whom he had served. But circumstances of great difficulty arose in the government of Victoria, in consequence of this conflict between the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly was what might be
  1964
  termed a Protectionist body, and they, in passing the Appropriation Bill of 1864, tacked on to it a Protectionist tariff, under the not very euphonious title of a Tariff and Appropriation Bill, which, however, the Upper House refused to sanction. This led to considerable discussion, in which Sir Charles Darling sided with the Legislative Assembly, and the result was his recall by the Home Government, and notwithstanding his long and valuable services, he was left without any compensation or retiring allowance, or the chance of re-appointment. A Committee of the Legislative Assembly having investigated the case, and desiring to compensate Sir Charles for his services, recommended a grant of £20,000 to Lady Darling, to avoid the objection they knew existed to a Vote for himself. This Vote of the Legislative Assembly, however, failed to receive the sanction of the Upper House. He (Lord Lyveden) considered that the matter was of the utmost importance; for it really involved the question whether this country should maintain any control over the colonies. It was an invariable rule that no colonial Governor was permitted to receive, either personally, or through his family, any sum of money from the colony under his government. Sir William Molesworth, when Secretary of State for the Colonies, sent a circular to the Governors of the colonies in the following terms:—
  "I have had lately some reason to suppose that a rule, for some time established in Her Majesty's colonial service, is not universally known. It is that which absolutely prohibits the receipt of pecuniary or valuable presents by Governors from the inhabitants of the colonies under their administration, or any class of them, during the continuance of their office. It is quite unnecessary for me to detail the reasons for this prohibition, which are evident of themselves; it may be enough to say that they rest on no considerations affecting the honour of gentlemen selected by the Crown to fill situations of this high importance, but on the necessity of preserving them, in the eyes of the public, free from all suspicion. 2. These reasons apply to the receipt of presents of the same description by a Governor on leaving his office with scarcely less force than during its continuance. And although Her Majesty's Government cannot exercise any direct control over the actions of gentlemen on the point of leaving the public service, they feel it their duty to record this opinion, and to express their hope that it may be acted on as a general rule."
  By the 39th Colonial Regulation, the Governor was prohibited from receiving presents pecuniary or valuable from the inhabitants of the colony, or any class of

  1965
  them, during the continuance of his office, and from giving such presents, and this rule is to be equally observed on leaving his office. On the Vote of the Assembly coming to the knowledge of Sir Charles Darling, he sent the following message to the Legislative Assembly on the subject:—
  "The Governor feels it to be his duty, while yet administering the government, to intimate that his family would not feel at liberty to accept the bounty of the Parliament and people of Victoria, until the Government shall have first ascertained whether Her Majesty may be pleased to signify any commands therein."
  Upon this message the Assembly changed their Vote into an Address to Her Majesty praying her to allow the proposal. This was forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The answer of the Earl of Carnarvon was as follows:—
  "I am unable to advise Her Majesty to accede to the request it conveys. The rule that a Governor should not receive pecuniary or valuable presents from the inhabitants of the colony over which he presides, either during the continuance of his office or on having it, is expressly laid down in the Colonial Regulations, and for obvious reasons it has always been rigidly enforced. It is plain that such a rule would be merely nugatory if it were held that what the Governor was precluded from receiving might be properly given to his wife. It is, under these circumstances, impossible that Her Majesty should be advised to sanction the literal or substantial violation of this rule by any of her servants; or, on the other hand, that the acceptance of the proposed gift should be regarded otherwise than as a final relinquishment by Sir Charles Darling of that service, and of all the emoluments and expectations attaching to it.…. If you desire to retain your connection with the colonial service of this country, you are not free to accept the Vote."
  His Lordship further added—
  "He must regard a gift to a Governor's family as equivalent to a gift to the Governor himself. … And emoluments by way of pensions to Governors can only be claimed upon the under standing that those who claim them abstain from the acceptance of emoluments which are prohibited by the rules of the service."
  If the Governor of a colony were allowed to receive through his family—as in the present instance of the grant of a sume £20,000 to Lady Darling — the Crown would, in fact, lose all control over the colonies; and it would be better to let them elect their own Governors and pay them. The noble Duke (the Duke of Buckingham) succeeded the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) as Secretary of State; and the new Governor (Sir Henry Manners Sutton), in his first despatch stated that—
  "By the 57th clause of the Constitution Act, the Legislative Assembly was precluded from ori-
  1966
  ginating or passing any Vote of money for any purpose not recommended in a Message by the Governor; and a refusal therefore to comply with the advice that the proposed grant to Lady Darling should be included in the Estimates, which are uniformly transmitted by message, would have been in effect a refusal on his part to afford them a constitutional opportunity for discussing it, while his acquiescence in the recommendation of his advisers could not be regarded as implying any personal opinion with respect to the policy of that or any other item included in the Estimates."
  That was a most extraordinary statement. He (Lord Lyveden) submitted that Sir Henry Manners Sutton was altogether mistaken in the view he took of the matter. The object of the 57th clause of the Constitution Act was to prevent the Governor from doing exactly what Sir Henry Manners Sutton had done—proposing any Vote of money against the opinion of the Legislative Council and the Secretary of State. The Legislative Assembly never could have voted the money unless the Governor had enabled them to do so by sending down his Message. Sir Henry Manners much support or advice from the noble Sutton in all this did not receive very Duke; certainly his first despatch was a very laconic one. The noble Duke said—
  "I have the honour to transmit to you, for your information, the accompanying copy of a letter from Sir Charles Darling, from which you will perceive that he has elected to relinquish the colonial service."
  The noble Duke merely informed him of the bare fact, and gave him no instructions on the subject; the letter naturally enough led to the inference that the grant might be accepted: and after such a despatch they could hardly wonder at what Sir Henry Manners Sutton had done. Had the noble Duke expressed any opinion on the Vote to Sir Charles Darling the Governor would have acted on it. The grant had been re-refused in every shape by the Legislative Council, and the difficulty was proposed to be remedied by the dissolution of the Assembly. The noble Duke forbore to express any opinion on this subject too, and even approved Sir Henry Manners Sutton's conduct in submitting the Vote to the Assembly; indeed, he afterwards says—
  "It is not so clear and unmistakable a violation of the existing rule as to call for the extreme measure of forbidding the Governor to be party, under the advice of his responsible ministers, to those formal Acts which are necessary to bring the grant under the consideration of the local Parliament."
  But upon every theory of colonial government it was absolutely incumbent on the noble Duke to direct the Governor to abstain

  1967
  altogether from taking the part he had done in this matter. The initiative was given to the Crown for no other reason than to check such grants, which were completely forbidden by the Secretary of Stale and the Colonial Office Regulations. How stood the question now? The Assembly had been dissolved, and it appeared by the latest accounts the new Assembly were very much of the same temper as the last. He had also seen it stated that the Ministry had resigned. He wished to know what course the noble Duke now intended to pursue. He did not desire to express any opinion in favour of one Assembly or the other; but, with respect to Sir Charles Darling, he could not help thinking that that gentleman was entitled to some consideration from the Crown. A more important consideration, however, related to the action which the Secretary for the Colonies proposed to take at the present moment. It was desirable that the noble Duke should explain why, on one occasion, he told the Governor that he must not propose the Vote except on the clear understanding that it might be brought before the Legislative Council in a manner to enable them to exercise their discretion without throwing the colony into confusion, and on another occasion stated that the proposal of the Vote would not be so clear a violation of the rule of the Colonial Office as to cause him to interfere to forbid its proposal. He wished to know how the noble Duke reconciled those two statements. This was an important question in reference to colonial government; and he could not help thinking that any discussion which might arise on this subject in their Lordships' House would be extremely advantageous, as tending to show what was the opinion of their Lordships as to the position of the colony. In his mind it was one of extreme peril, and so it appeared to the Governor, who stated that a conflict such as that which is now in progress strains the Constitution of the colony, and I cannot assert that the Constitution can endure this strain much longer. In these circumstances he hoped he was justified in calling the attention of their Lordships to the subject and asking some explanation of the views of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Lyveden) in thinking the question now raised by no means unimportant, especially as it originated from difficulties which had
  1968
  arisen in one of our most important colonies. It was a question, indeed, which affected the whole of our colonial Empire, and could not be over-rated. It had a two-fold aspect—one in reference to the course to be pursued in dealing with colonies where free institutions were established, and the other in reference to the honour and integrity of the colonial service. In respect of the latter view—a proposal had been made to grant a large sum of money to an officer whom a former Secretary of State thought fit to remove from the government of the colony with which he was charged—an officer who had served long, whose services had been commended by previous Colonial Secretaries, and who relinquished the colonial service of the Crown with the prospect of receiving a grant from the colony he had governed. That was a circumstance which he thought had never before occurred—certainly not of late years. As to the proposal to confer this grant on Sir Charles Darling, he (the Duke of Buckingham) thought there could not be two opinions as to the impropriety of the principle of such a grant. Entertaining that opinion, he had conducted a correspondence of some extent with the Government of Victoria. He did not think that it was necessary that he should go into the question of the recall of Governor Sir Charles Darling, nor as to the position which he now held. The matter clearly resolved into a question as to the conduct which he (the Duke of Buckingham) had pursued since he had been in Office, and whether he ought not to have taken means to prevent the grant being discussed in the Legislative Assembly. The noble Lord had called attention to the origin of the proposal, to the recall of Sir Charles Darling, and to the proposal of the Legislative Assembly to present a grant of £20,000 to Lady Darling, and had referred to the despatches on the subject. Before, however, referring to those despatches, he would dwell for a moment on the position in which the question stood before it came under his cognizance. The noble Lord seemed to think that, when the matter was first brought before him by the letters of Sir Charles Darling, which he transmitted in a brief accompanying despatch to the colonies, he ought to have sent out instructions that the Vote was on no account to be submitted to the consideration of the Legislative Assembly. Now, he certainly should not have been indisposed, had he felt he had the power to act in consonance

  1969
  with his own feelings on the subject, to take that course; but he had to take into account not merely the power which the Government had, but the position in which the whole affair at the time stood. That position was that, in May, 1866, certain Resolutions had been passed by a Committee of the Legislative Assembly proposing to make the present in question to Lady Darling. The Answer of Sir Charles Darling to the Address communicating the Resolutions were answered by Sir Charles in proper terms. Subsequently to the Answer of Sir Charles Darling to the Address, and partly in consequence of it, an Address was transmitted to this country on the 26th of May, from Victoria, requesting that Her Majesty might be graciously pleased to give her sanction to the grant. That despatch reached England on the 20th of July; and an answer to it was sent out to the colony, but no peremptory instructions were given in that answer, and no intimation was conveyed in it that the Address contained a proposal the principle of which the Government must condemn. It was not, indeed, until five months afterwards that his predecessor had deemed it necessary to express his opinion to the colony on the subject of the Address, and that opinion, sent out in December, contained the information that its prayer could not be complied with. A correspondence with Sir Charles Darling, which extended over many months, was afterwards communicated to the colony, accompanied by a letter from the Under Secretary of State, warning the Governor distinctly that any grant whatsoever to any member of his family must be looked upon as a grant to himself, and that he could not remain in the colonial service if he were to accept any such grant. He had, therefore, before him the facts that two or three warnings had been given to Sir Charles Darling, plainly intimating to him that such a grant could not be allowed to be accepted by him without the forfeiture of his position in the colonial service, as well as all prospect of future employment or pension under the Crown; and, on the other hand, that the colonists had been told that the prayer of their Address, asking to be permitted to make the grant, must be refused. Under those circumstances, he could not see, when the subject came under his notice how any further remonstrances were likely to be productive of the slightest effect, or what power he had to enforce such remonstrances
  1970
  if made. The noble Lord (Lord Lyveden) with regard to the latter point admitted that the question of the power of such enforcement turned on the interpretation of the clause in the Constitution Act, in accordance with which all money grants in the colony must originate with the Governor in the same way as in the House of Commons grants of money must originate, in accordance with the Standing Orders, with the responsible Ministers of the Crown. Now, it might be said that under the operation of that clause the Governor could have withheld his assent altogether from the Vote recommended by his responsible advisers; and he (the Duke of Buckingham) was not prepared to contend that such a power might not exist. It was not a power, however, which had been used in the way in which it was suggested it might have been used in the present instance. The origin of the clause in the Constitution Act had, in fact, been ascribed to the expediency of protecting the colonists from claims for unprofitable or reckless grants for local purposes, or not of importance to the colony at large; and, although there might be, theoretically speaking, such a power as that to which he had just alluded, he did not believe that it was a power which could be practically enforced unless its exercise happened to be in accordance with the general feeling of the colonists themselves. He, at all events, did not think that it could be exercised in opposition to the will of their Legislature. It did not under those circumstances appear to him desirable that he should, in relation to the particular grant in question, enter into a dispute with the colony, of which the end could not be easily foreseen, and which must assume the form of an attempt on the part of the Imperial Government to endeavour to coerce the full representative Government which had been given to the colony. That was the conclusion at which he had arrived; although he felt at the same time that the grant was one which was objectionable in principle, and which if carried into effect would tend to do serious harm to the colonial service. He was aware that the great mass of the people of the colony were in favour, for various reasons, of the grant to Lady Darling, and he thought the noble Lord who preceded him at the Colonial Office (the Earl of Carnarvon) had adopted a wise course in not doing that which he himself had abstained from doing—taking the extreme

  1971
  step of advising the Governor not to submit such a Vote, when proposed, to the consideration of the Legislative Council. The noble Lord (Lord Lyveden) had, he might add, called attention to two extracts from the despatches which he (the Duke of Buckingham) had written, which he seemed to think were completely contradictory. He stated that in the despatch of the 1st of January the Governor was warned that he ought not, in a certain event, to recommend the Vote except on the understanding that it was brought before the Council. The noble Lord appeared to think that was quite at variance with the paragraph in the despatch of October, in which it was stated that as Sir Charles Darling was no longer in the service of the Crown it would not be right for him, as Secretary of State, or for the Governor, to express any opinion on the proposed grant to Lady Darling. As to the despatch of January 1, if that Vote had been attempted to be passed in either of the different forms in which it had been submitted, and if Sir Henry Manners Sutton's Ministers had failed in passing it either in a separate form or by including it in the Appropriation Act, and if after a dissolution they also failed, it did not appear to him expedient that Sir Henry Manners Sutton's Ministers should present that grant again in the same form, if they should think it right to submit it again. Therefore he gave the Governor the instructions referred to on the 1st of January; but those instructions in no way prevented him from continuing to submit the grant, and they did not seem to him in any way at variance with what he wrote in October, stating that, as Sir Charles Darling was no longer in the service of the Crown, it would be right neither for the Secretary of State nor for the Governor to express any opinion on the proposed grant to Lady Darling. That passage had been a good deal criticized by the noble Lord, who asked why it was not right either for the Secretary of State or the Governor to express an opinion on that grant under those particular circumstances. Sir Charles Darling had ceased to be in the service of the Crown. He must either in that matter have been looked upon as a private individual or as a person coming within the scope of the regulation as to Governors either holding or leaving their posts. If Sir Charles Darling was merely a private individual in the colony, it certainly would not have been a case, according to consti-
  1972
  tutional practice, for the Crown to have interfered by the expression of any opinion on the question of a grant proposed to be made in accordance with public opinion by a colony with free representative institutions. If, on the other hand, Sir Charles Darling was a member of the colonial service, and to be regarded as a person falling within the operation of the regulation for Governors holding office or about to leave it, then it was not expedient for him (the Duke of Marlborough) as Secretary of State to express any opinion on the question of the grant, because the very case that had occurred, or even a stronger one, had been distinctly provided for in the instructions given to Sir Henry Manners Sutton on assuming office in the colony. By the Constitution Act it was prescribed that no money votes should be considered except those introduced by the responsible Ministers of the Crown with the sanction of the Governor. No Bill containing any money grant could therefore reach the Council unless it had been so initiated, and that was the power which the noble Lord thought ought to have been used in that particular case. But it would have been very difficult to have used it in such a case, and he (the Duke of Bucking, ham) thought he was right in saying in his despatch that they ought to express no opinion on the question, because the instructions under which Sir Henry Manners Sutton was acting in the colony contained almost a positive direction to him not to interfere at such a stage in such a grant. He said "almost contained," because, though they did not contain that positive direction, they, in fact, provided for the very case that had occurred, which he looked upon as that of a grant to a Governor. In Sir Henry Manners Sutton's instructions there was a direction that, should any Bill containing a grant of money or land for a Governor be brought up for assent, it should be reserved for the approval of the Home Government. It seemed to him that he could not supersede that instruction. The instruction that the Governor was to reserve such a measure for assent distinctly implied that he must have sanctioned its initiation, otherwise no such Bill could be brought up for that assent. When he found those instructions in the hands of an able Governor, as Sir Henry Manners Sutton had been deemed, that he had been sent out expressly to deal with the difficulties connected with Sir Charles Darling's conduct in Victoria, and

  1973
  that those instructions were given not by himself nor by the present Government, but by a right hon. Gentleman who formally held the seals of the Colonial Department (Sir William Molesworth), it did not appear to him that he ought to express any opinion adverse to those instructions, or attempt at a distance involving a three or four months' correspondence, to direct the Governor further on a matter the position of which was daily and weekly changing. The reasons, therefore, why he had sent no farther instructions, in the first instance, than merely to communicate the letter of Sir Charles Darling were that it appeared to him that letter was merely the confirmation of what had already been? communicated, that his predecessor had dealt with the Address on that subject. On the general question of the relations between this country and the colonies it also seemed to him most inexpedient that they should hastily enter on questions on which a strong feeling existed in the colony, on questions which did not vitally affect the interests of this country, and on questions such as those in which our own regulations failed to prohibit the person from accepting such a grant. He thought that by giving free representative institutions to those colonies we had practically placed ourselves in the position rather of guiders than of rulers, that our rule must be guided strictly by the terms of the Act under which their constitutions were established, and by the general instructions given to Governors in regard to their management; and that to attempt hastily to vary those instructions, to exceed in any degree the limits under which they usually conceded representative institutions, was a course full of danger and certain eventually to result in raising feelings in the colonies inimical to that continued union and affection in regard to this country which it was the interest of this country and also he believed both the interest and the desire of the colonists to cherish. It appeared to him that that question at the stage at which it passed under his supervision could not have been stopped but by a course of action that would inevitably have raised a conflict between this country and that colony; and the question was not one, in his judgment, that would have been a sufficient justification for our entering into such a dispute. No doubt, the principle of the grant was an objectionable one; and he thought it was much to be regretted that when those Constitution
  1974
  Acts were passed, such presents and grants had not been absolutely forbidden; and, also, that it was a misfortune that such instructions were not given originally, when those representative institutions were established, to the Governors who were to administer them, as would have prevented the proposal of such grants. But he (the Duke of Buckingham) had had to deal, not with that which he thought was desirable, but with the facts as they stood. It seemed to him that it would not have been wise to have taken such a course as would have turned what was now a question between two branches of the Colonial Legislature into a conflict between this country and the colony. The Government had been censured for not having expressed a more decided opinion; but the state of feeling in the Colony was such that there was no prospect of success without causing something more than irritation; and he believed that, when the matter was concluded, instead of being censured for not taking more decided steps, the Government deserved to be thanked for averting a dispute between this country and the colony. It was impossible for him to say what answer he should give to the despatches until he had received them, although he admitted the general purport of those despatches had been telegraphed. It was not possible for him to give instructions to the colony upon a matter of this importance until full intelligence had been received; and even then it would not be expedient to fetter the Governor with instructions which must be framed three months in advance of the circumstances they were intended to meet. It seemed to him that the best reliance this country could have for the safe government of the colonies and the maintenance of the authority of the Crown was to select, as had been done by Sir. Cardwell, able and good men as Governors, and to give them before leaving this county the fullest possible instructions; but to avoid, as much as possible, fettering them with instructions which must be based on suppositions, and could not be based upon facts.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the statement of the noble Duke (the Duke of Buckingham) in reiteration of the opinion expressed by him some nights ago—that, on the merits of the case, this Vote of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria was highly inexpedient, and involved a principle dangerous to the connection between the

  1975
  mother country and the colony—had very much narrowed the ground of difference between the noble Duke and those who dissented from the course he had taken. It had, however, narrowed it to a point of the highest importance as regarded the administration of the Crown over colonies enjoying constitutional government. The noble Duke had explained his course with great moderation and perfect candour; and his position was that in dealing with a colony possessing a full constitutional system it was impossible for the Crown to resist the colony, if such a Vote were proposed to a Governor who had acted in accordance with the wishes of the Assembly. That was a very dangerous principle to lay down. No one would go further than himself in accepting the doctrine of, colonial freedom. It had now come to this—that there was hardly any question affecting the internal government of the colony, even, although the measures adopted should be injurious to the interests of the mother country, upon which, if those measures were bonâ fide directed to the regulation of their own affairs, it would be expedient for the Imperial Government to resist the final decision of the colonial Assembly. Instead of receiving from our colonies any special commercial advantages, which used to be considered almost the sole value of the colonies, we now allowed the colonists to adopt fiscal systems which were directly injurious to our own commerce. The truth was that our connection with the colonies was now almost reduced, in the case, at least, of colonies having the possession of a Parliamentary system, to the nomination of their Governors; and he would venture to maintain that this remaining tie was retained in their interests, and not in those of the mother country. It saved them from the evils of Presidential Elections, and placed over them a Governor who was above all party contentions, and who represented the dignity and the impartiality of the Imperial Crown. Now, the object of the rule laid down by the Colonial Office that colonial Governors should never receive from the colonies any Vote of money or grant of land, or any other bribe which might influence their conduct, was to maintain the impartiality of the Governor and the purity of the relations between the Imperial Crown and the colony, and to secure that the Governor should never be tempted by pecuniary or selfish considerations to become a mere partizan in the contentions of the
  1976
  colonial Assemblies. That was a rule having reference solely to Imperial considerations, and it was a rule which we ought not to allow the colonies to break through whenever a chance majority of the Assembly might be inclined to do so, in order to reward a Governor who might be supposed to be a partizan of their own. He did not wish to say a single harsh word in regard to the conduct of Sir Charles Darling. It was enough to say that his recall by Mr. Secretary Cardwell was assented to not only by his own party, but by all parties in both Houses of Parliament; and if there were any hardship in his case—if it were necessary for the ends of justice that the question should be re-considered—and that compensation should be given to him for that which was an error of judgment committed under difficult and peculiar circumstances—that investigation ought to have been made at home, and that compensation given to him also at home. It was clearly contrary to Imperial policy that any compensation should be voted by a colony to a Governor, and the question was whether an exception should have been made in the particular case of Sir Charles Darling. No one had described in stronger language than the noble Duke the danger of the quarrel between the two Houses of the Legislature as regarded the maintenance of the existing Constitution of the colony. It was commonly supposed by many who had not read the papers that this was a mere continuation of the old quarrel between the two Houses respecting subjects of internal taxation, one party being favourable to protective duties, and another in favour of Free Trade. But the quarrel that had now arisen between the two Houses of Legislature was on a wholly separate question from that which had been the subject of difference two years ago. It was a new quarrel got up, originated, and caused entirely by the mistaken action of the Colonial Office at home. It had arisen in fact out of the initiative taken by the noble Duke.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM: I did not take the initiative.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLwould maintain that the course taken by the noble Duke did amount to giving the initiative of the Crown to a Vote come to by the House of Assembly. The circumstances were these—when the news of the recall of Sir Charles Darling was received in the colony, the Legislative Assembly agreed to an Address proposing a Vote of £20,000

  1977
  to Sir Charles Darling, or rather to Lady Darling, not by way of Bill, but from the Estimates. The noble Duke had laid some stress on the despatch of the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon); but he put a very strained interpretation on the noble Earl's language, because the despatch distinctly intimated that the Colonial Office would give no assent to the introduction of such a Vote into either House of Legislature. It pointed out that such a Vote would be at variance with Imperial principles and the Regulations of the Colonial Office, and that its acceptance would imply that Sir Charles Darling had entirely relinquished the colonial service.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM: Will the noble Duke give me the date of that despatch?
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the despatch, which was the first sent out by the Colonial Office after learning the proposal of a grant to Lady Darling, was dated the 8th of December, 1866. After reciting the rule of the Office precluding the receipt of grants by colonial Governors — either during office or after resigning—it pointed out that that rule would be rendered nugatory if such grants could be awarded to a Governor's wife. It added—
  "It is, under these circumstances, impossible that Her Majesty should be advised to sanction the literal or substantial violation of this rule by any of her servants; or, on the other hand, that the acceptance of the proposed grant should be regarded as otherwise than as a final relinquishment by Sir Charles Darling of that service, and of all the emoluments or expectations attaching to it."
  Now, it did not appear to him that these words necessarily implied any sanction to the Vote even in the event of Sir Charles Darling retiring from the colonial service. That case was indeed mentioned contingently, but not as a contingency which was contemplated as likely to arise. Indeed, he believed that, within a few days after the noble Earl had written the despatch, he was applied to by Sir Charles Darling for another appointment. The despatch referred to his retirement rather as a contingency not to be expected.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMasked the noble Duke to refer to a letter written by Sir Charles Darling in the previous October.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLadmitted that in the course of the correspondence, Sir Charles Darling might have alluded to the contingency of his retirement from the colonial service; but all he (the Duke of
  1978
  Argyll) contended for was that the noble Duke, having this despatch of his predecessor before him, was in no respect bound by any opinion therein expressed, but was perfectly free to decide what course should be taken in the event of that contingency being realized. Now, while in this country it was only an invariable rule of Parliamentary practice that no grant could be initiated, except by the Ministers of the Crown, in the colonies this rule was laid down by statute. Sir Charles Darling intimated his intention finally to retire from office, avowedly for the purpose of receiving this Vote, and it was under these circumstances that the question came before the noble Duke. It seemed to him that the despatch of the noble Duke of the 10th of May did amount to giving the initiative of the Crown to this grant, because it simply intimated, with reference to the despatch of his predecessor, that Sir Charles Darling had elected to retire from the service altogether; and if it was not intended to express any opinion on the subject the only object could be to throw the whole responsibility on the colonial Government. His (the Duke of Argyll's) interpretation that that despatch was an intimation of the consent of the Crown, was confirmed by the fact that on its receipt the Governor at once concluded that the noble Duke meant him to allow the discussion of the Vote in the Legislative Assembly, which could only be done by the consent, and at the initiative of the Crown. There were two questions for consideration—one whether such a grant should be proposed at all, and the other in what form it should be proposed. Now, this new quarrel between the two Houses had arisen, not merely from the grant itself, but also from the form in which it was proposed. The Vote was, in fact, a party Vote, intended to compensate Sir Charles Darling for what was regarded both in the Colony and at home as partisanship, and to fix a stigma on those Members of the Legislative Council who had opposed him; yet, under these circumstances, the £20,000 was inserted in the Estimates and included in the Appropriation Bill, being the most offensive course towards the Council which could have been adopted. The next despatch of the noble Duke was dated the 1st of January last, by which time he had apparently discovered the mistake he had made in allowing the re-opening of the question, or had at least become alive to

  1979
  the objectionable form in which the Vote had been proposed. Accordingly, in that despatch he expressed regret at the vote having been included in the Appropriation Bill; it being a grant exceptional in its character, and notoriously obnoxious to a large portion of the Legislative Council, and he condemned any attempt to coerce the Council into sanctioning it. If, he added, the Vote were considered at all, it should be in the form of a separate Bill, for under those circumstances the Council would not feel the same sense of unconstitutional treatment. Now, if the noble Duke felt so strongly the unconstitutional form of a "tack," why had he not at least told the Governor to insist, in the event of the Vote being introduced, on its being proposed in the form of a Bill, so as to place no unconstitutional duress on the Legislative Council? These were matters entirely under the control of the Colonial Office, and he regretted that the noble Duke, by taking the initiative and giving the consent of the Crown first to the introduction of the Vote at all, and next without any condition as to its form, had revived the quarrel between the two Houses which, in April, 1866, had been brought to a happy issue. He protested, too, against the noble Duke's argument that in the case of colonies enjoying constitutional government, we were unable to defend even our own honour with regard to the purity of the Governors sent to represent the Imperial Government. Such language was most dangerous for any Minister of the Crown to hold, and he hoped what had occurred in this case, would be a lesson to Colonial Secretaries not to allow, under any circumstances, the infraction of a rule which was clearly of Imperial importance and value, laid down solely with the view of preserving the honour of the Crown and the purity of its representatives in the colonies.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the earliest steps of these transactions had been sufficiently explained by the previous speakers to render any detailed reference to them unnecessary. The quarrel arose, as had been described, in 1864. In 1865 a majority of the Legislative Assembly passed a Protectionist Tariff, and, anticipating the opposition of the Council, the members of which were mostly Free-traders, they first levied the new scale of duties by simple Resolutions—a course utterly unwarrantable—and then tacked the Tariff to the Appropriation Bill. That
  1980
  Appropriation Bill was rejected by the Council. Meanwhile, the Assembly continued to levy the new scale of duties by Resolutions. Actions were brought by the public creditors; and the Government adopted a system which he regarded as indefensible, and calculated to be very prejudicial to the interests of a colony—the system of confessing the debt and allowing judgment to go by default. The case came before the Supreme Court, where it was, without hesitation, decided that such a course was illegal. The dispute between the two Houses meanwhile continued; and an Address, signed, if not by the whole of the Council, by a very large number of influential men in the colony, was forwarded to the Crown. Sir Charles Darling, in transmitting that Address, coupled with it a statement to the effect that he should not feel himself at liberty to receive into his councils any of those whose signatures were appended to that Address. Mr. Cardwell, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, justly took exception to that statement, and Sir Charles Darling was recalled on that ground, and on that ground alone. That was the position of affairs when he (the Earl of Carnarvon) received the seals of the Colonial Office. Meanwhile, the difficulty between the two Houses had undergone a sort of temporary compromise, and the attack on the Appropriation Bill had been abandoned. But then arose the question of the money grant to Lady Darling, made in lieu of to Sir Charles Darling, and it was with that case that he was called upon to deal. Now he had been blamed for having been too guarded in the answer which he had returned on receiving the first announcement of that grant. He might in the first place observe that, being fully alive to the gravity of the occasion, and knowing well, though he had been in Office only a fortnight at the time, how strong and bitter was the feeling in the colony, he was loth even in semblance to prejudge a question in which so many persons were interested. Sir Charles Darling having arrived in England, a correspondence ensued, and he thought at the time that correspondence ought to be brought partially at least to a close before he could regard himself as being in a position to act on the part of the Crown. He might, perhaps, observe that, independently of remonstrances and similar communications, he received no less than eight distinct personal applications on the part of Sir

  1981
  Charles Darling; and if, in the course of a correspondence which grow into a most voluminous bulk, he had overlooked or neglected to deal with any point, the enormous mass of papers with which he had to deal really furnished him with some excuse. On the 28th of August Sir Charles Darling prayed for a tribunal to inquire into the circumstances of his recall. In answer he (the Earl of Carnarvon) declined to appoint any such extraordinary tribunal. On the 11th of September Sir Charles Darling prayed to be appointed to a position of equal rank and dignity to that of Victoria. On the 28th of September he requested half salary from the day of his leaving the colony to the arrival of Sir Henry Manners Sutton. In his reply he (the Earl of Carnarvon) regretted that he could not comply for technical reasons. On the 20th of October Sir Charles Darling requested the £20,000, which might be divided among his children. His (the Earl of Carnarvon's) reply was that he could not qualify his original view. On the 24th of October Sir Charles Darling requested full pension, an application which he declined to entertain at the time for technical reasons. On the 4th of November Sir Charles Darling requested a review of his recall in reference to a judgment of the Privy Council, to which he (the Earl of Carnarvon) answered that he must adhere to the conclusion which he had already expressed. On the 3rd of December Sir Charles Darling applied for the government of New South Wales; and in reply he (the Earl of Carnarvon) stated that it was not then vacant. On the 18th of January Sir Charles Darling wrote to ask whether Her Majesty's Government would oppose a petition to Parliament. Upon that point he (the Earl of Carnarvon) declined to give any pledge. The real questions that came before him were—whether the grant should be allowed; and, secondly, if so, the form in which the grant should be proposed. Now, with regard to the first question, he informed Sir Charles Darling and the Government of Victoria that it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to be a party to that Vote. He would not enter into a discussion of the Colonial Regulation, which he regarded as one that was very just and right, for that subject had been fully dwelt upon in the course of the debate; but, in order to place his case clearly before the House, he would trouble them with one extract, and only one, because
  1982
  he thought that, by so doing, he could clearly show the view which he then entertained. On the 12th of October, by his directions, Hr. Adderley sent the following despatch to Sir Charles Darling:—
  "Lord Carnarvon sincerely regrets the severe pecuniary loss which your premature recall has entailed upon you; and it would have been personally gratifying to him to have been the channel of communication in conveying the Crown's sanction to your acceptance of the proposed grant. But, after a careful study of the Regulations in question, and of the reasons on which they are founded, Lord Carnarvon is forced to come to the conclusion that the rule was framed with the distinct intention of including such cases as the present, and that he could not now relax it without sanctioning an indefinite relaxation in other cases. Its principle is, that no Governor shall be allowed to expose himself to the temptation which may arise from expecting beneficial donations from the colonists, or any section of them, or to the suspicions which arise from his acceptance of such donations. Whether they are made directly to himself, or in trust for him, or to some member of his family, so that he may have the enjoyment of them, is obviously immaterial. The proposed grant, as, indeed, you appear to admit, is palpably a gift to yourself through Lady Darling. It may not transgress the rule in its letter, but would be a manifest evasion of its principle. It is for the interest of the public service that this principle should be firmly adhered to; and, under these circumstances, Lord Carnarvon is bound to withhold his consent, and distinctly to inform you that, if you desire to retain your connection with the colonial service of this country, you are not free to accept the Vote. Lord Carnarvon sincerely wishes that he could come to any other decision; but he is clear that this is his duty, though a very painful one."
  In everything he had written he (the Earl of Carnarvon) sincerely compassionated the condition in which Sir Charles Darling was placed, and desired to avoid the use of any harsh expression towards him; but he submitted that there was nothing equivocal in the language which he employed. He stated distinctly that, if Sir Charles Darling accepted this grant, he would forfeit all claims to retain his connection with the colonial service of this country. Now, he contended that when his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies wrote that Sir Charles Darling had "elected finally to relinquish the colonial service," the words employed unintentionally involved a misrepresentation of his intentions. When a superior officer informed his subordinate that he could not take a certain course without certain effects resulting, it could not be said that he thereby gave him an option as to which course he could pursue, any more than the law made it optional for a man to commit a crime or not because it attached a pe-

  1983
  nalty to the commission of the crime. If the noble Duke (the Duke of Buckingham) entertained any doubt as to his intentions, it would have been easy enough for him to have applied to him, and to have asked him what his views were in writing that despatch. He was at a loss to understand how Sir Henry Manners Sutton brought himself to lay the Vote before the Assembly, because there was certainly nothing in the despatches of the noble Duke to warrant it, unless papers had passed which were not before the House. The noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies said that he was justified in the course he had taken by the fact that he (the Earl of Carnarvon) had not told the Governor that he was not at liberty to recommend this Vote. The truth was he had never contemplated such a proceeding on the part of the Governor. Had he thought for a moment that such a course would have been adopted by Sir Henry Manners Sutton, he should not have been content with a mere correspondence upon the subject; he should have felt it to be his duty to put upon paper in the most distinct terms he could have commanded the course he thought it would be right for the Governor of the colony to pursue under the circumstances. He agreed with the noble Lord that, at so great a distance as we are from Australia, it was impossible for the Colonial Office to regulate every minute detail in the conduct of the Governor of the colony; but, at the same time, they should give him such general directions as would serve to guide him in the course he should pursue. The noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies made use of words, the import of which, he thought, he could scarcely have fully appreciated. The noble Duke said that whatever theoretical right the Colonial Office might have to interpose in such a case, such a right had practically ceased to exist. He begged to express his entire dissent from that view. The right of the Crown to interfere in such a case not only existed in theory but in practice; and if the Advisers of the Crown were assured that any constitutional principle were being violated, it would be their duty to interpose the veto of the Crown, and they ought not to shrink from the performance of that duty for fear of raising any difficulty between the colony and this country. It could scarcely, however, have been the intention of the noble Duke that the words he used should bear the interpretation
  1984
  they had put upon them. The meaning of the noble Duke probably was to intimate that, in a critical case such as that which had occurred in Victoria, it might be necessary for the Secretary of State to use those powers which belonged to him to induce the contending parties to come to some compromise, and thus to settle a question full of danger and difficulty. There was a point, beyond which the Secretary for the Colonies could not go; and there was a point beyond which he ought not to go. Supposing, for instance, that a public subscription had been voluntarily raised at Victoria, on behalf of the Governor, as a private individual when stripped of his office, it would undoubtedly have been impossible for the Crown to have interfered, and Sir Charles Darling, if so disposed, might have been perfectly free to have accepted it—except so far as his conscience was concerned. Of course, there was also a limit beyond which the Minister of the Crown might consider whether it was his duty to go upon a point of this sort. The question also arose, in what form the Secretary of State, when he did interfere, was to deal with the question, and in such a case the form would probably be the very essence of the matter. He could understand a Secretary of State—seeing the difficulty that existed in a colony like Victoria, seeing the suspension of all legislation and public works, and seeing the state of anarchy and confusion which existed there—saying that, under these circumstances, he need not pledge the Crown to an obstinate antagonism to the wishes of the colony, and that both parties having got themselves into a false position, it was his duty as far as possible, without violating the rights of the Crown, to find some mode by which he could extract them from the position in which they were placed. The course adopted, however, was not calculated to have that effect, and was not altogether consistent with the position in which the Crown ought to be placed in the colonies. The noble Duke the Colonial Secretary stated in one of his despatches that it was necessary, as a formal step, that the Governor should lay the Vote before the two Houses of the Colonial Legislature. He demurred to that entirely. There was another way in which the matter might have been dealt with far more satisfactorily. The Governor should not have laid the matter before the Assembly exclusively. An Address, in favour of the proposal, might

  1985
  have been proposed in both Houses by the colonial Minister, and sent up to the Governor, praying him to make a formal recommendation. Had that course been adopted, and had the Lower House been induced to abandon the pernicious system of "tacking," both Houses might have joined in a general Address to the Governor, and the matter would have stood in a very different position. He demurred altogether to the proposition of the noble Lord, that the course that was adopted was the one best calculated to bring the matter under the consideration of the Crown. He was aware that there were some noble Lords who had spoken that evening, who thought that under no circumstances should there have been a relaxation of the rule. He admitted that there was a good deal to be said in favour of that view of the case; but at the same time, in justice to the noble Duke the Colonial Secretary, he must say that, in this country, we could scarcely form an estimate how severe the struggle in Victoria had been with respect to this matter. Sir Henry Manners Button, in one of his recent despatches, used these remarkable words—
  "I do not conceal from your Grace the fact, not the less certain because it is lamentable, that a conflict such as that which is now in progress strains the Constitution of the colony, and I cannot assert that the Constitution will endure this strain if it should be prolonged."
  It was very rarely indeed, in the recent history of colonial administration, that any colonial Governor had penned such a despatch as that; and the House was bound to suppose that it had not been written without a full sense of the importance which would be attached to its words. The position was, therefore, a very grave one. It was evident that confusion was growing into anarchy, and that the state of affairs might result in breaking up the Constitution and unfixing the foundations of civil government. What events occurred subsequent to this transaction? On the 7th July the Governor made his recommendation to the House of Assembly to pass the measure, which was agreed to and tacked on to the Appropriation Bill and sent up to the Council. The Council naturally objected to the proceeding, and then ensued the confusion which was so much to be deplored. On the 2nd of October the Governor, taking what appeared to be a still more objectionable course, recommended to both Houses the adoption of the measure. Under these
  1986
  circumstances, as might have been exacted, the grant was rejected by the Council. In the meantime it was necessary to carry on the business of the year, it was necessary to find Ways and Means; and accordingly what he must call the old dodge was had recourse to—the Attorney General instructed the public servants to bring their actions against the State for my money due to them. These actions were brought, judgment was confessed, and the Governor was invited to sign the necessary warrants. But a collateral issue was raised on some other point; it was taken up to the Supreme Court, which pronounced a judgment which invalidated the whole proceeding. That judgment declared first of all that these payments were absolutely illegal, and that the Governor when he signed the warrants committed an illegal act. This was a very unseemly and discreditable state of things. To sum up the whole case, he—while admitting that there had been difficulties in the way of his noble Friend the noble Duke and of Sir Henry Manners Button—felt bound to say that he regretted the course taken by the Governor proprio motu; he regretted the form he had adopted; he regretted that the system of confessing judgments, which had been so strongly denounced by Mr. Cardwell in a very similar case, had ever been allowed in the colony; he regretted that his noble Friend the noble Duke had written despatches of rather ambiguous character; he regretted and strongly condemned the system of "tacking." No course could be taken more utterly inconsistent with the freedom of discussion. He could not understand how the noble Duke could speak so mildly of this as he had done in one of his despatches. He thought there was a fresh cause of regret in the unsatisfactory mode in which the legislative constituencies of the colonies were created, no securities being laid down which would prevent such a deadlock as had occurred. If that system was to be maintained, the just power and authority of the Council ought to be upheld; for if it was not upheld it would be far safer for the colony to have but one single Chamber of the Legislature. Nothing could be more dangerous than having a nominal responsibility vested in a second Chamber, which practically was never exercised. In view of all this correspondence he must bear witness to the extremely difficult position in which colonial Governors often found themselves.

  1987
  Questions must from time to time arise which required not merely general knowledge of constitutional law, but of technical and professional details, which few could command. Their advisers were taken out of their own Governments and pledged to one political party in the colony. It was his fixed determination, had he remained in Office, to strive as earnestly as possible for the appointment of some one permanent and impartial legal adviser, who might be in a position to advise a colonial Governor as emergencies arose. He could not say that he regretted this discussion; he was satisfied that, conducted as it had been with so much temper, it would be useful to the colonies. No one could doubt the great wealth and prosperity of those colonies. He trusted they would fortify themselves by wise and useful legislation; that they would avoid presenting a spectacle so little seemly as that which, in the present instance, had been recently exhibited; that they would avoid the clash and antagonism of two Houses, and become models of that constitutional regard for liberty and law which distinguished this country.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had been unwilling to stand in the way of the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) when he rose to address the House on this question, in which he naturally took so deep an interest; but he was anxious to enter at the earliest possible opportunity his protest against the constitutional doctrine which had been laid down, by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), who, he was sorry to see, had now left the House. He regretted also that his noble Friend who had just sat down had lent his countenance to that doctrine; for he ventured to say it was a doctrine which required most careful consideration at their Lordships' hands, because upon the propriety or impropriety of it depended the whole question of the free action of those constitutional institutions which had been granted to our colonies. Referring first to the question of policy with regard to a grant of money such as was proposed to Lady Darling, on that question they were fortunately all agreed. There was no one of their Lordships, he believed, who did not think that the rule of the colonial service on this subject was founded on considerations of the highest expediency, and that it ought to be maintained and enforced, so far as there was power to maintain and enforce it. But he asked them
  1988
  to bear in mind that the rule was, after all, only a rule of the service. It was not the law of the land. It was a rule very properly laid down in the circular despatch of Sir William Molesworth which had been referred to; but which the Government of Her Majesty could only enforce by treating any departure from or infringement of it as a forfeiture of all claim to future colonial employment. Many years ago, at the end of last century, when the subject of receiving presents from the Natives of India had attracted, for a well-known reason, great attention in this country, a law was passed dealing with the case of India; but it had never been extended to the colonies. The India Act of 1793 was extremely stringent and emphatic. It provided that the receiving by any Governor or any officer in India any present either to himself or any other person, under any colour or pretext, should be punished as a high crime and misdemeanour, subject to severe penalties, while the present itself should be forfeited to the Crown. There was no such law applicable to our colonies. There was a wholesome rule which applied to the subject; but there was nothing obligatory. The proposition made in the colony was to make a benefaction to the family of Sir Charles Darling, which might be highly impolitic, but would not be illegal or contrary to any Imperial statute. The majority of the Legislative Assembly and the Ministry of the colony being anxious to make a grant of that kind, what is the position of things at home? And here he took issue directly with the doctrine of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), supported as it was by the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon). The noble Duke said there were no means by which the Crown could preserve the purity of the reputation of its colonial Governors, or restrain, in cases which affected Imperial interests, the action of the colonial Legislatures by its veto. There were constitutional means by which that could be done. But the issue was, where was the point, where was the stage, at which the Government of the mother country could step in and interpose, and before which that interference would be in contravention of the free action of the colonial Government? Sir Henry Manners Sutton had a Ministry possessing the confidence of a preponderating majority of the Legislative Assembly. He knew—and he had made the experiment—that any attempt

  1989
  to form a Ministry in opposition to the Legislative Assembly must necessarily fail. He was therefore reduced practically to the option of placing confidence in his Ministry, or having no Ministry at all. That Ministry came to him and said, "Here are the Estimates of the year, and one of the things we mean to propose is a grant of £20,000 to Lady Darling, which we conceive the Queen thinks to be impolitic, and which the Government thinks is impolitic; but the Assembly insists on bringing it forward." If they laid down the rule that the Secretary of State of the mother country was to hold the leading strings of the Ministry of the Colony, to settle the system, and to tell them what they might propose and what they might not propose, then he (the Lord Chancellor) said; that the pretence of free colonial institutions was a delusion and a mockery. Unless they could supply the means—and he knew no such power in the Constitution—of providing the Governor of the colony with a new Ministry, who would command the confidence of the Legislative Assembly, and would be able to carry on the government of the colony, he must at that stage—and, mark, he said, only at that stage—take the advice tendered to him by his Ministry and allow the Legislative Assembly and the Council the opportunity of discussing measures which the Ministry proposed to bring forward. And when the 57th section of the Colonial Constitution Act was referred to, he begged to say the section had been entirely misapprehended. That section was only a repetition of a Standing Order of the English House of Commons—that no Vote of public money should be proposed except by the responsible Advisers of the Crown. And what was the object of the section in the colony? It was not to settle the relations of the Governor and his Ministry. It was to prevent Members of the Legislative Assembly, not being Members of the Government proposing the expenditure of the public money, and for that alone. Therefore when the noble Duke said, and his noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) repeated, that it was the duty of the Home Government, at this stage, to have directed the Governor of the colony to place his veto on the introduction of any proposition to the Legislative Assembly of the Vote to Lady Darling, he (the Lord Chancellor) said that, unless with a view to dispense wish his Ministry, that was counsel which
  1990
  no Government could agree to. No Government would remain in Office unless they had the confidence of the Governor of the colony, and the power of introducing measures to the Legislature which they deemed to be for the good of the commonwealth. This was the sole question in the case — the point of time at which the Governor of the colony should interpose to prevent free discussion. When a measure had passed the two Houses and was presented for the assent of the Governor, then the working of the institutions of the colony was in harmony with the working of the institutions of this country. No doubt the proposed grant was in opposition to the rule of the Colonial Office, but it was not within the spirit of the Constitution that such a measure should not be allowed to be discussed. What were the instructions given to a Governor of a colony? He held in his hand the instructions of Mr. Cardwell, sent out with Sir Henry Manners Sutton, that there was a certain class of measures with regard to which he was, unless he thought fit at once to refuse the Royal Assent, to withhold that Assent, and refer the measures to the Government at home. And one of the class of measures was this—any Bill whereby any grant of money or gratuity may be made to a colonial servant. His noble Friend said it was the duty of the Home Government not to allow any such measure to be considered. He (the Lord Chancellor) said that that was not the spirit of the Constitution of the colony. The spirit of the Constitution was that there should be free discussion. Let the Ministry who have the confidence of the Assembly propose a measure, and let it be discussed, and if one Chamber or the two Chambers rejected it there was an end of the measure; but if both Chambers passed it, then, and then only, it was for the Home Government to form their judgment and to say whether the Assent of the Crown ought to be refused. He desired to refer to history in order to correct a misapprehension into which some noble Lords had fallen as to what took place when the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) was Secretary of State. He thought there was nothing in what the noble Earl did open in any degree to misunderstanding or censure. He was really responsible only for this—for the answer given by him to the Address forwarded for presentation to Her Majesty. But what was the character of

  1991
  that Address? What was proposed was, that Her Majesty should be asked by the Address emanating from the Legislative Assembly, entreating Her Majesty to give permission to Sir Charles Darling to accept on the part of his family the proposed present—it was not to ask Her Majesty to give assent to any legislative measure to be proposed—it was to relax the rule of the colonial service and to allow Sir Charles Darling, although retaining office, to accept a gratuity that was proposed, and it is to that extent the answer given by the noble Earl was the answer that ought to be given, because the answer was that the rule that a Governor should not receive presents was laid down in the Colonial Regulations. It was under these circumstances impossible that Her Majesty should be asked to violate those Regulations, and that the acceptance of the present would be regarded as a relinquishment of his Governorship by Sir Charles Darling. It was refused, and properly refused. And what then took place? Sir Charles Darling, after some correspondence, proposed to leave the service, and to forfeit any expectations of any future employment under the Crown. With regard to the grant, the question was, as he had before stated, what was the proper time for the interposition of the Home Government. He (the Lord Chancellor) ventured to think that, it being proposed by the Ministry of the colony to introduce a Bill or an Estimate on the subject, it would have been entirely premature, before it was known what the Colonial Legislature would do with it, for the Secretary of State to enter into a speculation, and say, if such a Bill were passed, he was to take such and such a view of the case. And what was done? The Ministry — the Colonial Ministry—thought Sir Henry Manners Sutton told them they were entitled to place on the Estimates a Vote of this kind. The Governor imposed no impediment in the way of the Vote being considered. He expressed, however, no approval of the measure; on the contrary, by a memorandum he put on record his doubts of its policy. The Estimate was proposed and carried by the Legislative Assembly. And here again he must take leave to differ from the view of the subject which had been expressed by his noble Friend who had just sat down. His noble Friend contended that it was a great mistake to have a "tack" to a Bill which was sent up to the Upper House. But he seemed to forget that there was no
  1992
  "tack" at all in the case. A "tack" meant the addition by the Lower Chamber to a Money Bill of something which had nothing to do with such a measure. What, however, was done in the instance under discussion was, the Estimates being agreed to, to make a grant to Lady Darling, and to include the whole in the Appropriation Bill. In fact, that which was done in the colony was nothing more than was constantly done at home. The whole of the Supplies were included in the Appropriation Bill of the year, and were thus sent up to the Upper House. But that having occurred once, a similar circumstance would in all probability never occur again; for his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office had very strongly urged on the Governor of the colony the expediency of so arranging with his Ministry that should the proposal to make the grant be renewed, it should, as it were, be isolated from the rest of the Estimates, and be made the subject of a separate measure, so that it might go up to the Upper Chamber in that shape, and that its rejection by them might not interfere with the general Supplies of the year. That, he thought, was very wholesome advice; but then it was advice which might possibly be pressed too far. If, for instance, the Ministry, just as a Ministry in this country might do, should claim the right of including all their Votes in Supply in the Appropriation Bill, it was hard to say how far he, at that stage, could offer to such a proceeding an effective opposition. The whole question, he felt, was one of as great importance as could occupy their Lordships' attention, in the interest of the colonies; but he should look upon the present discussion with much greater alarm and anxiety than he did, did he think the House was prepared to lend its countenance to the doctrine that the Government of this country was to control and meddle with the action of the Ministers of a colony, by stating what measures should and should not be presented by them to the consideration of the colonial Parliament.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should not, my Lords, at this hour of the evening, venture to detain you, but that the doctrines you have just heard laid down by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack seem to me to be dangerous in their character and likely to do injury wherever they are heard or read of. I do not, therefore, like to let the speech of my noble and learned Friend pass without

  1993
  entering my protest against the doctrine enunciated, although that protest comes from so young a Member of the House as myself. My noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack gave us a history of the crisis in the colony of Victoria, which, though strictly accurate, was, I think, somewhat too technical in its colour. I take the real state of the case to be shortly this. A Governor has been removed by the Secretary of State from his office because he had shown too great a partiality to one party, and an inclination to support one branch of the colonial Legislature against the other. No sooner was the Governor removed than the branch of the Legislature which he favoured proposed to award him a grant of money for having departed from the Imperial policy. If this is to be permitted, it is simply saying that this country must look calmly on while one of the branches of the colonial Legislatures encourages the Governor to disregard the spirit of the orders he had received from home, and that defiance of the Imperial rule by one portion of the colonial Legislature is not to receive any notice, censure, or resistance from the Home Government. Now, this is a policy which, divested of its technical aspect, your Lordships will not, I am sure, approve, and which cannot if followed out be otherwise than productive of danger to the Empire at large. I, for one, cannot concur in the estimate of a colonial Governor's position which my noble and learned Friend appears to have formed, he seems to regard a Governor of a colony as a mere mute personage; as a gentleman who is to have no will of his own, who is to represent nothing, and who is to do, with a certain amount of obsequiousness and servility, whatever the Ministers who happen to be seated in his council-chamber may bid him. Before, my Lords, you endorse such a doctrine as that, I would ask you to consider for a moment the consequences to which it is likely to lead. Do not, I pray you, be hurried away by the argument of my noble and learned Friend that, if you allow a Secretary of State to interfere as suggested before a Money Bill is introduced, you are thereby stifling discussion. The course which the Houses of Parliament in Victoria ought to have pursued if they wished to raise a question of this kind is perfectly clear. It is a course which is adopted every day in this country. They might simply have addressed the Crown expressing their views on the subject of the proposed appropriation of
  1994
  this money, and then the opinions of the Governor and of the Secretary of State, under whom the Governor acts, would in due form have been taken and expressed on the matter. I, however, understand my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack to lay down in the broadest and most distinct manner the doctrine that the Secretary of State was never to be permitted to interfere beforehand with any proposal which might be made by a Ministry in a colony where free constitutional government existed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not say so. I said that a Secretary of State who so interferes would run the risk of placing the Governor in such a position that he would be no longer able to retain the Ministry who advised him, and that the Ministry would refuse to act under his dictation.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry I misunderstood what fell from my noble and learned Friend; but I thought he censured very deeply any Secretary of State who should interfere in the way I have described. But, be that as it may, occasions may easily arise in which a Secretary of State may have before him only the alternative of interfering or allowing the honour of England to be tarnished. Let me suppose, for instance, that a colonial Ministry propose a Budget of repudiation. Will anybody contend that under such circumstances it would not be the duty of the Governor to put an absolute veto on the introduction of that Budget? I will not dilate on the results which might flow from that policy. In the case of our free colonies it might, perhaps, weaken the tie which subsists between them and the mother country; but, in the presence of such an argument, are we not entitled to ask what is the exact value of that tie? Might we not appreciate its value too highly: Would it not be better a thousand times better—that the tie should be broken than that anything dishonouring to the Crown of England should be suffered? There is a large class with regard to which it might be the distinct duty of a Governor to impose a veto on the proposals of his contitutional advisers, and the duty of the Secretary of State to enforce the adoption of that course. But you may go further. The policy which a constitutional Ministry in a colony may recommend may, though not absolutely dishonourable to the Crown, be dangerous to Imperial interests all over,

  1995
  the globe. They may recommend something which would be very embarrassing as regards the relations of the Crown to its colonies in every part of the world. This was partially so in the present case. If it be in the power of a colonial Assembly to buy off a Governor who represents the Crown, the power of the Crown is weakened throughout the entire extent of its dominions. It appears to me, therefore, a very dangerous doctrine to lay down that a Governor must not interfere with the action of his responsible advisers, and that the Secretary of State may not call a Governor to account for his conduct if he omits to do so at the proper time. I do not desire to enter more at present into the question which has been raised in this discussion. This is not an hour to do so; but I feel it is but a small portion of a very large subject which will more and more intrude itself upon your Lordship's attention. You will have more and more to consider how far the relation of England with those free constitutional colonies is a reality or a delusion. My noble and learned Friend says that free constitutional government would be a mockery and a delusion if the Secretary of State might interfere in the manner for which I contend and prevent discussion. But, my Lords, the connection between the Crown of England and its colonies will, in my opinion, be indeed a mockery and a delusion if his doctrine is allowed to prevail. Be the result what it may we must take care that whatever power we retain over them shall be a real power and that it shall be freely and honestly exercised for the good and the honour of the Empire. The moment circumstances arise in which it may appear to us that we can no longer exercise that power for those great ends the best and most honourable course for us to adopt is to resign it altogether.
  EARL GREYsaid, that the noble Marquess who had just sat down (the Marquess of Salisbury) had so ably combated the doctrines laid down by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that it was needless for him to trouble their Lordships with some observations which he otherwise should have wished to address to them. At the same time the subject was of such grave importance that he might be permitted to add a few remarks to those just made by the noble Marquess, and in which he entirely concurred. He thought it absolutely necessary to the honour and interests of this country, if the
  1996
  connection between us and the colonies was to be continued, that we should maintain some degree of authority over them; and that authority could be exercised only through the Governor. On the other hand, the Governor could not be an effective instrument for exercising that authority unless his independence was preserved by a strict adherence to a rule laid down, not only within the last few years, but almost ever since we had had colonies. He believed that, as early as the time of Charles II., instructions to the same effect as were now given on that point were issued to our colonial Governors. Such Governors had certainly from an early period been prohibited from accepting any reward from the colonies. It had been argued that that prohibition applied to Governors only while in the service of the Crown; and that in regard to India, Parliament had passed an Act expressly forbidding our public servants to accept gifts from Native Princes, which Act did not operate elsewhere. It was perfectly true that the Act referred to did not apply to persons who had been in the colonial service of the Crown, and that the severer rule was confined to those who had served in India. But this by no means implied that Parliament had ever meant to sanction the making of grants to those who had been colonial Governors. It arose from the fact that legislation was necessary to restrain the practice in the one case and not in the other. If a Native Prince, not under the control of the British authorities, made a gift to a person who had held a public office in India, perhaps to reward him for some neglect of duty, there were no means to prevent so dangerous an abuse till it was made penal to accept such gifts. But in a colony no such case could arise, because the law invested the Crown with authority to prevent such a grant being made, by refusing its assent to any Act for making it. In another part of his speech the noble and learned Lord's argument, if admitted, would go to the length of making a colonial Governor a mere machine without the power of exercising any control whatever over his advisers or the Legislature. The noble and learned Lord said that the Governor could not have refused to allow a grant to be proposed, because if he had he would have been left without a Ministry. But if to avoid that inconvenience was to be regarded as a sufficient reason for permitting the grant to be proposed, it would equally be a reason for not afterwards withholding

  1997
  his assent from the Bill in which the grant was included. Indeed, it would be far more difficult for the Governor to interfere with the grant at the later than at the earlier stage of the proceedings; because when the Appropriation Act came up to him, that grant to the former Governor would be only a single item in it, and therefore the Governor would only have the option of either rejecting the whole of the Supplies of the year or of allowing the Vote to the ex-Governor to pass. And if he attempted to do that he would meet with precisely the same difficulty from his Ministers as if he had at first declined to authorize their recommending the grant. If he refused his assent to the Appropriation Bill his Ministry would resign; and therefore the coercion put upon the Governor would come at a different time, but even more certainly than by the other course. If the Governor in the present case had had plain and distinct instructions from the first from the Secretary of State, informing him that Her Majesty could not be advised to sanction such a proposal so contrary to the established rule there would have been no risk of that kind. His Ministers would have felt that if they resigned they would only throw their power into the hands of their political adversaries, and therefore an Instruction from home to the effect just indicated would have been an effectual protection against all the mischief that had arisen. It had been clearly shown that a great mistake had been committed in this case, and that owing to the want of proper firmness the colony of Victoria had been brought into a most unfortunate situation. Before sitting down he wished to say he thought it the duty of Her Majesty's Government to consider the position of extreme hardship in which the public servants of the colony were placed through the continued non-receipt of their salaries. One case in particular had been accidentally brought under his notice, in which a public servant who had faithfully served in the colony for ten years, under the promise of promotion and ultimately of a pension, was at present, owing to the failure of Supplies, left actually without the means of subsistence. That was only one instance out of many, for the entire body of public servants in the colony had long been deprived of their incomes, the public works had been stopped, and the whole affairs of the colony thrown into a state of deplorable confusion. It seemed to him it would be a useful func-
  1998
  tion which the Home Government migh exercise for the benefit of the colonists, when party spirit ran so high and produced such evils as now prevailed in Victoria, to step in as a moderating power and suggest some mode of accommodation that both parties could fairly accept. In this case there was a mode of accommodation which he thought might be proposed and accepted. He did not hesitate to express his opinion that under no circumstances ought Her Majesty's Government to admit the proposed grant to be given to Sir Charles Darling. He did not think it ought to be allowed that the recall of a Governor under such circumstances should be converted into a reward. At the same time he felt that the consequences of his recall fell with the greatest severity on Sir Charles Darling, who, after all, had committed an error of judgment only. Instead of giving that large grant to Lady Darling, he would suggest that the colonial Legislature might consent to settle on Sir Charles Darling the pension which under the Act giving pensions to colonial Governors he might have been entitled to if he had served a few years longer—the value of such a pension would be far less than the proposed grant, and would still leave the Governor under what would be a substantial punishment for the fault he had committed, while it would diminish its extreme severity. In that manner he might be greatly relieved from the severe consequences which had fallen upon him. There was another point that he wished to notice. People seemed to think that because in this country the refusal of the Supplies by the House of Commons necessarily compelled, sooner or later, the Government to give way, the same thing was the case in the colonies. Nothing could be more entirely erroneous. In their relations with the Imperial Government the colonial Legislatures stood in a different position from the House of Commons. He could speak from experience on that point. He knew that the refusal of the Supplies in a colony had not had the effect which was apprehended. The case of the colony of British Guiana illustrated and confirmed his assertion in that respect. In the case of Demerara where the colonial Legislature threatened to withhold a part of the accustomed grants in the hope of coercing the Home Government to a change in its commercial policy, instructions were sent out that the services for which grants were not voted should cease. Instructions were given to the Governor that if the grants

  1999
  necessary for maintaining the criminals in the prisons should be refused, they should be let out; that if the usual colonial allowances for the troops were not provided for, they were to be sent to Barbadoes, and that it must be for the colony to consider whether they would incur these consequences. The result was that the threat to refuse the Supplies proved to be an utter failure. If the noble Duke (the Colonial Secretary) had instructed the Governor in the present case not to include this grant in the Estimates, and if thereupon, the Ministers had resigned and no others had been found, it would have been the colony that would have suffered. He had no doubt, however, that other Ministers would have been found. No one would say that if the colony refused to adopt the course pointed out by the Home Government any attempt to compel them by force should be resorted to; but the colony enjoyed, by virtue of the connection with the mother country, protection and support that were of the utmost value, but which were only to be given under certain conditions; and the colonists ought to understand that if those conditions were not fulfilled that support and protection would cease. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack argued that such a policy would destroy the ties between this country and colonies enjoying free institutions; but there was not the smallest ground for that assertion. The cases would not be numerous, and of course the power of the Crown should be exercised with discretion. In cases, however, where the honour of the Crown and of the Empire at large was concerned it was the duty of the Ministers of the Crown in this country to make it distinctly understood that they would firmly exercise the powers intrusted to the Crown by the Constitution, and then it would be for the colonies to decide. The moment he saw the alterations which the Victoria Legislature had not only been permitted but encouraged to make in the Constitutions established in that colony by the Act of 1850, he felt convinced that, sooner or later, there must come a collision between the two branches of the Legislature; for, while the one branch was made to consist of a limited number of members elected for life, the other was elected by the widest possible suffrage, and in the event of a difference of opinion arising between them, as was to be expected, no means were provided by the Constitution for extricating the colony from that difficulty. He could not but urge
  2000
  upon the colony to consider whether even now it would not be advisable to repeal or amend the Acts by which the Constitution, as settled by Parliament in 1850, had been so injudiciously altered. By the Act of 1850, by which the colony of Victoria was separated from New South Wales, a Constitution was given to it precisely the same with that which had for several years been in successful operation in New South Wales. Under this Constitution, the Legislature consisted of a single Chamber, two-thirds of the members being elected, and the others nominated for the duration of the Parliament by the Governor. To return to this system need not involve any abandonment of what is called responsible Government, on the contrary, it would, he thought, enable responsible Government to work much more satisfactorily and easily than it had done under the present system. Such was the equal division of parties in some of the colonies that there were changes of Ministry every two or three months, and sometimes oftener, and no one fixed or settled line of policy could be pursued. If the old form of Constitution were reverted to, and if a single Chamber were established, containing two-thirds of elected members and one-third nominated by the Crown, but really by the Minister of the day, the nominated Members would add weight to the scale and render Government more permanent. In his opinion these colonies had not the proper materials for constituting two different Chambers.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he desired to correct a misunderstanding as to what he had stated. He was very far from saying that circumstances might not arise of such transcendent importance as would justify the Home Government in issuing positive Instructions to the Governor of a colony as to the course which his Ministry should take. What he had said was that if the Ministry of a colony, supported by the full approbation of the Legislative Assembly and of the Home Government, recommended the introduction of a particular measure, and if the Home Government undertook to require the Governor to refuse his assent to the introduction of that measure, they would undertake the responsibility of bringing about that which was the natural consequence—a change of Ministry; and would thereby cause a deadlock in the colony in another form. With regard to the suggestion of the noble Earl (Earl Grey) that a pension should be voted

  2001
  by the colony to Sir Charles Darling, in stead of the sum of £20,000 being given to Lady Darling, it would, no doubt, be locked upon with great favour in the colony, but it would accomplish the object they desired by an annual payment instead of a capital sum.
  LORD KINGSTONquite agreed that some compensation should be provided for Sir Charles Darling; for no doubt he supposed that on resigning his office he would be entitled to compensation.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.