Sitting of 17 May 1870

INDIA—INCOME TAX.—QUESTION.
MR. DENISONsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will place upon the Table of the House the whole of the Minutes of the Governor General's Council on the occasion of imposing an additional Income Tax upon the people?
MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply to my hon. Friend I have to say that he is possibly not aware that nearly the whole discussion on the Budget is always carried on orally, as well in the Executive Council as in the Legislative Council of the Governor General. The only Minutes at all answering the description given in my hon. Friend's Question, which we have, are extremely fragmentary and would give to the public, if printed, quite a wrong impression as to the real course of the discussion about the increased income tax. I shall be happy to show my hon. Friend the Papers; but I think he will agree with me that their publication would be undesirable.

CHINA—CONSULAR ETIQUETTE.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is to understand by his reply to the Question put to him on Friday the 13th May, that if the report alluded to be confirmed or authenticated, he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances stated in the Shanghae Consular Gazette of the 15th March 1870?
  MR. OTWAY, in reply, said, if the report were confirmed inquiry would unquestionably be made into the treatment of the English Consuls in China. But he found that the newspaper mentioned did not give the statement authoritatively, but merely published it as a rumour from Macao. It was obviously impossible for the staff of a public Office to occupy itself with inquiries into every statement which appeared in every foreign newspaper.

RELATIONS WITH NEW ZEALAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have considered fully the representations made to them by the Commissioners from the Colony of Now Zealand, and have come to a final decision in regard to the reply to be given?
  MR. MONSELL: Sir, my hon. Friend is doubtless aware that Her Majesty's Government, under a strong sense of duty, declined to accede to the request convoyed to them by the Commissioners named, by the Government and Legislature of New Zealand to cancel the orders which had been given for the withdrawal of the troops from the Colony, or to consent to any arrangement for keeping a regiment there. Accordingly, the regiment that was there has been withdrawn, and the question of military assistance in time of peace has been finally settled. My hon. Friend, who was anxious to assist the Colony in its efforts to meet the difficulties which it has to overcome now for the first time, without any external aid, made a proposal for introducing a large number of settlers. I think his calculations were made for 50,000. The expenditure necessary would have involved annual ad-

  811
  vances from the Imperial Government varying from £60,000 to £96,000 a year. The sum of £426,600 was to be the largest amount that at any time the Imperial Government was to be responsible for, and the repayments would have extended over 13½ years. Last Saturday week my noble Friend, Lord Granville, after submitting the scheme to the Cabinet, who thought it unusual in its character and liable to cause future misunderstandings, informed my hon. Friend that Her Majesty's Government were agreed, from a strong wish to prove their goodwill towards New Zealand, to adopt the principle of affording the aid of the Imperial credit to the Colonial Government in raising, during a period of five years, a sum of £100,000 a year if an application to that effect were made to them by the delegates for the promotion of emigration and for the making of roads. The details of the arrangement, it was added, would have to be carefully considered. At the beginning of last week the Commissioners made another proposal, in these words—
  "That the Imperial Government should give the New Zealand Government their credit in order to take up money from time to time, in such sums as it might be able to apply prudently to the above purposes; that the New Zealand Government should issue Treasury bills for the amounts so taken up, bearing interest not exceeding 3½ per cent; and that when the £1,000,000 should have been so taken up—that is to say, at some period not later than 10 years, the Government of New Zealand should place a loan to that amount on the market upon its own account, to withdraw the Treasury bills, and relieve the Imperial Treasury from further engagement on behalf of the Colony."
  To this proposal Lord Granville answered that—
  "There are, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, objections in principle to giving this assistance in the shape of direct State aid to emigration; and they do but repeat the settled judgment of Parliament in stating their opinion that, except on the most special reasons, the practice of guaranteeing the loans of self-governing Colonies is generally injurious to them and to the parent State. That Her Majesty's Government treated your request as an exceptional one, coming at the close of long financial relations between the Imperial Government and the Colony, and at a period when for the first time New Zealand has on its own resources alone made a gallant and successful effort to meet the difficulties to which it is exposed. And while giving effect, as they are bound to do, to their general policy, they are anxious to adopt any collateral measure which will mitigate its consequences in the peculiar case of New Zealand, and be an evidence to the colonists of the interest which is felt by the Crown and Parliament of this country in the re-establishment
  812
  and advancement of their prosperity. With this view they are prepared, on your assurance that the sum will be expended as it is raised for the purposes indicated in your letter, to submit to Parliament a proposal that, under proper conditions as to repayment, which will, of course, be a subject of further arrangement, the Imperial Treasury should be authorized to guarantee a loan of £500,000, to be raised at such rates and in such proportions as may be agreed upon."
  After some discussion with the Commissioners, who urged the importance of a larger sum, my noble Friend brought the matter again before the Cabinet last Saturday. Her Majesty's Government thought that the difference of amount was of less importance than the terms of the guarantee and the conditions of repayment. The Commissioners have declared that they were ready to agree to any fair conditions which might be required if a guarantee was given for £1,000,000. I trust and believe that the House will agree to this proposal, intended as a proof of goodwill from this country to New Zealand, at a time when, not without difficulty, an important principle as to the military defence of self-governing Colonies in time of peace has been finally established.

NAVY—THE WHITWORTH GUN.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is still his intention to demand of the War Office a thirty-five ton Whitworth Gun for the use of the Navy, or whether the War Office has satisfied him of the inexpediency of incurring this expenditure?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the state of the case is as follows:—My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and I agreed, after consulting our responsible advisers, that Messrs. Whitworth should be called upon to tender for a 35-ton naval gun, and this tender has been under the consideration of the Ordnance Council. I have not yet received full official information of the proceedings of the Council, portions of which are not yet printed; but I am aware of the general view they have taken, and when the Papers are complete my right hon. Friend and I will consider with our advisers what course in the matter we shall adopt.

IRELAND—MR. D'ARCY IRVINE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SAUNDERSONsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to outrages said to have taken place in the county Fermanagh, against Mr. D'Arcy Irvine; whether, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government those alleged outrages ever took place, or are not imaginary; and, whether it is true, as reported, that Mr. D'Arcy Irvine appeared at the fair of Irvinestown, on the 9th of this month, at the head of one hundred men armed with Snider rifles; and, if this report be found correct, whether it is not necessary to put an immediate stop to such proceedings? He begged further to ask, Whether, as Mr. D'Arcy Irvine, who now always carries firearms in his carriage, was proceeding through Enniskillen, he discharged two shots in the air before the house of Captain Butler, the Stipendiary Magistrate, which collected a large crowd, who, to show their sympathy, followed him through the town, cheering vociferously? Also, whether Mr. D'Arcy Irvine had called a meeting for Friday next to censure the conduct of Captain Butler, the Stipendiary Magistrate, by the following placard:—
  "Rise, sons of civil and religious liberty, Orange and Green! Meet me in Enniskillen on Friday next, in Fair Green, in defence of The Queen and Her Throne, in defence of your lives and rights, in defiance of all party government, in defiance of ascendancy and police magistrates who write in the Press that peaceable inhabitants are shocked to see loyal men carrying arms to defend themselves against assassination. United we stand, divided we fall.—Yours sincerely,
  "D'ARCY IRVINE."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the outrages or outrage alleged to have been committed, not upon Mr. D'Arcy Irvine personally, but upon his servant. The story was, that a gun had been snapped at the servant in the darkness of the night, as he was standing outside Mr. D'Arcy Irvine's hall door. He confessed, from all the information he had obtained, he agreed with his hon. Friend that the outrage was purely imaginary. It was not for him to explain how the mistake arose. With respect to the latter part of the Question, he had no official information. He should be inclined to believe that there was a good deal of imagination about
  814
  these stories also. It was difficult to believe that Mr. D'Arcy Irvine should have appeared at the head of 100 rifles; but if there was any truth in the story, it would be highly desirable that some influence should be used with Mr. D'Arcy Irvine to moderate the state of excitement which such an act would indicate. He should be afraid to employ any influence, as he believed no one connected with the Government of the country would be a fit person to approach Mr. D'Arcy Irvine; but if there were other gentlemen who could bring their influence to bear on him, they would do a great deal of good to that part of the country.

THE MASSACRE IN GREECE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, as it appears from the Papers laid before the House, that the release of the captives in Greece was opposed by a political party in Athens, and as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has pressed on the Government of Greece the urgent duty of tracing out this conspiracy, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the presence of the Mediterranean Fleet at the Piræus would strengthen the hands of the Greek Authorities in pursuing an investigation involving many persons of high political and social position at Athens?
  MR. OTWAY: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have required of the Government of Greece that the investigation into all the circumstances of the recent murders of their countrymen there shall be searching and complete. Her Majesty's Minister at Athens has informed us that the judicial inquiry is being conducted with all practicable speed, and, as I mentioned to the House a few days ago, Mr. Erskine will have the assistance during this inquiry of able counsel. We desire that the truth may be made manifest and justice done in this matter; but we do not consider the presence of the Mediterranean Fleet at the Piræus as necessary to this end; while it might have the effect of leading the people, of whose sympathy and right feeling on this subject we have no reason to doubt, to think that the investigation was being pursued and that justice would be administered under the

  815
  pressure of a foreign armed force. He might take that opportunity of telling the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Peek), who had asked a Question on the subject on the previous day, that there would be no difficulty in completing the series of translated Papers.

CHANNEL PASSAGE BETWEEN ENGLAND AND FRANCE.—RESOLUTION.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYrose, according to Notice, to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should invite the co-operation of the French Government for the purpose of improving the Channel Passage between the two Countries."
He was sorry to say he found it very difficult to convince anyone of the importance of that subject, and he feared that neither the House nor the public would give to it the attention it deserved until some terrible catastrophe occurred, either from the great difficulty now experienced in entering the Channel ports, or from the insufficiency of the boats which the present Channel packets were enabled to convey, with a view to the safety of their passengers in the event of accidents. The physical consequences of the improvements he would advocate were that by means of larger vessels they would gain greater speed and more certainty, together with much additional safety in making the passage. He need not say that the moral effects of these improvements would also be very great. He was told, on the best authority, that the number of passengers who would cross the Channel, if they were not deterred by the insufficient size of the packets, would be very large indeed, and that the value of the traffic now passing that way from England into the port of Boulogne was £19,000,000, while the traffic entering all the ports generally on the English side amounted only to about £12,000,000. By improved arrangements that traffic in passengers and in goods might be very largely increased, the result of which would be that both countries would obtain a better knowledge of each other, would learn how they could become more useful to each other, and thus their relations of mutual friendship and goodwill would be placed even on a firmer basis than that on which they now stood. Last Session he brought forward a similar Motion to the present; but by a mishap the discussion upon it came to
816
an untimely end. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) disclaimed having been the cause of that misfortune; and, although the evidence against him was strong enough to sink one of the iron-clads of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) who sat next him, yet he placed perfect confidence in his disclaimer. After the failure of that Motion all that he could do was to ask a question or two on the subject, which, of course, could not be followed by discussion. Still, the public began to reflect with some uneasiness upon the smallness of the vessels in which they had to cross the Channel, and which, were to be exchanged for still smaller vessels in winter, the very season in which vessels of more power and greater size were most required. The public also began to feel some indignation at the persecution which, owing to the supineness of the Board of Trade and the South Eastern Railway Company, passengers had suffered for so many years on arriving at the port of Boulogne. He had asked the hon. Gentleman opposite whether he was aware that those Channel packets, which sometimes carried 200 or 300 passengers, did not carry more than sufficient boats to save 30 or 40 persons besides the crew in case of accident? The answer he received was "Yes." He also asked whether paddle boats could not be fitted on the paddle-wheels of steam packets? a question to which he got no answer at all. Now, he had been informed by a gallant and most skilful officer, who had for many years commanded a paddle-box man-of-war, that during the term of his command his vessel was fitted with large paddle-box boats, and that by means of "hinge davits" those boats could be safely launched in all seas without difficulty. That was a point which he thought the Board of Trade ought to consider, with a view to requiring the Channel packets to adopt some such expedient. Travellers generally were very ignorant of all matters concerning the passage across the Channel, and contented themselves in stormy weather with anathematizing the Board of Trade, the boats, and everything connected with them; and, therefore, it would be impossible for them to judge of the advantages that would be derived from bringing the Folkestone and Boulogne boats to Dover, without waiting for those more important im-

817
provements which he trusted before long would be carried into effect. With the exception of a little occasional grumbling, the public did not do much in the way of stimulating the action necessary to be taken for the improvement of the ports on either side of the Channel. Before putting his Motion he would make one or two remarks relative to the four ports on the English and French coasts used as arrival and departure stations for the two different services. The packet service between Dover and Calais was partly French and partly English, and it was called, although, its name was somewhat of a delusion, a fixed packet service. The tidal service, as it was called, between Folkestone and Boulogne was a purely English service, and the time of the starting of it was regulated, as its name implied, by the state of the tide. Although Folkestone Harbour represented an area of 14 or 16 acres, a large portion of that consisted of mud banks, and the vessels employed in the service, being frequently unable to swing, were obliged, like Black Rod, after delivering a message to the Speaker, to back out, in a not very graceful manner, stern foremost. It was somewhat surprising that, although the Folkestone boats started for Boulogne from that harbour, the passage from Dover to Boulogne was considerably shorter, besides being better and safer, in consequence of the dangerous shoals which lay directly between Folkestone and Boulogne, the edge of which was almost scraped by the vessels running between those ports in their passage across the Channel. Vessels starting from Folkestone for Boulogne lost from an hour and a-half to two hours of the tide, a disadvantage that would not be encountered if the port of Dover were substituted for that of Folkestone. The next point to which he would refer was one which concerned the shareholders in the Folkestone Company rather than that House. It was most unnecessary that the South Eastern Company should keep up at Folkestone a very large staff and building at an enormous expense almost within sight of a similar establishment at Dover. It would be unjust were he to leave the question of this port without fully admitting that the company had carried out their tidal service with the greatest excellence, speed, and safety, while their captains had always shown themselves
818
anxiously zealous in the discharge of their duties, which in heavy weather were exceedingly arduous and responsible. He might also testify to the excellence of their boats, which were far superior to those which ran between Dover and Calais. He did not believe, considering the shallow entrance of the ports they started from, that human skill could produce vessels either of greater speed or possessing finer sea-going qualities. Still, the motto of the company should be "Excelsior," which he would translate as meaning—"Let the Folkestone Company, for the advantage of the public, move bag and baggage to Dover as soon as they possibly can." It was unnecessary for him to give the House any lengthened description of Dover. The pier at that port was a great national work, and he might say that it was one of the few great national works of which they, as Englishmen, might well feel proud. The Dover Pier had fully answered the purposes for which it had been built; it extended some 2,200 feet into the Channel; and he did not believe there had been one single day during the last 18 months when the packets were not able to start, or when they could not disembark their passengers conveniently. The same praise, however, could not be awarded to the service between that port and Boulogne. He must protest against the assumption that the Dover Company carried out their professions. Since he had undertaken to bring this matter forward he had seen endless letters from passengers who had been deluded into going down to the pier at Dover in the belief that the boats would start at a fixed hour. After considerable delay the boats proceeded across the Channel at half-speed, so as not to arrive too early outside the port of Calais. He had known the boats of this service, in the months of March and April, frequently remain under the shelter of the pier at Dover for hours, in berths which, they occupied with a fixity of tenure that would have almost satisfied an Irish tenant. He knew very well what was the cause of this delay—it was occasioned by the prevalence of a strong easterly wind, and, doubtless, if the packet boat had sense and feeling it would prefer to remain under shelter rather than to venture out in an easterly gale, and to cross the Channel at half-speed in order to knock about outside of

819
Calais Harbour. It would tend greatly to the convenience and to the comfort of passengers, and to the speed and security of the mails, if the Post Office would authorize the mail boats to go to Boulogne at the times when the easterly wind was so strong as to render it necessary for the boats to remain at Dover Pier. He had himself seen pleasure boats disporting themselves outside Boulogne Harbour at a time when the easterly winds were so strong as to prevent the packet boats leaving Dover, in consequence of the sea off Calais being more than they could deal with. He had brought this proposal before the Post Office authorities last year without result, although at that time they were about entering into fresh contracts for the conveyance of the mails. The officials of the Post Office had received the proposal with every courtesy; but they had entirely contradicted what he had seen occur at Dover with his own eyes. He had heard it stated that we had almost completed a work at Dover which would fulfil all that was required for an improved service on the English side of the Channel—that, therefore, we could not be justly called upon to do more, and that the French must perform their part of the obligation by executing similar works at Calais. He wished, however, to point out to the House the difference between the importance of the Channel communication to France and to this country. From the French point of view the passage across the Channel was simply the road to one of the out-of-the way islands of Europe; to a foggy land which Frenchmen told us but few of their countrymen visited except from matters of duty or of business; to a country still deserving the description given of it by a French Ambassador in the time of Louis XV., that it was a land with 100 religions and only one sauce, and that was melted butter. The passage across the Channel, from an English point of view, was an entirely different matter. It was our sole road to France, to Europe, to Africa, and the Mediterranean, and to our Indian do minions, and, therefore, it was of the first importance to us that the ports on both sides of the Channel should be rendered as convenient as possible. He did not mean by his Motion that the Government should say to the French Government that if they would make a
820
port we would pay for it; but he thought that our Government should be prepared to give a guarantee to any private company which should be inclined to accomplish the work. The matter should be looked at as though the ports on both sides of the Channel were the joint property of the two countries, and either country should be at liberty to express its opinions respecting the capabilities and the deficiencies of its neighbour's ports without fear of giving offence. As to Calais, he regretted to say that it was really a very bad port, and was almost beyond improvement. Not only was there a shoal two or three miles off the land, but there was also a sand quite close to the mouth of the port which rose until it was not more than 2½ feet under the surface of the sea, and an easterly wind made it shift many feet to the east or west. He spoke against the port of Calais with very much regret, because everything was done that Calais itself could, do for the speed and convenience of the passage and for the protection of the passengers from hardship. Now this formed a strong contrast to Boulogne, where, from greediness on the part of the town and supineness on the part of the South Eastern Company at their head-quarters in London, great inconvenience was suffered by passengers. He would now touch upon the improvements which it was presumed were about to be made in the French ports, and he had no doubt that the House would receive full information upon this point that night from Her Majesty's Government. The only projected improvement of which he had heard was, that the water in Calais Harbour was to be impounded and that the piers were to be lengthened. The only effect of using the water would be to drive silt out of the harbour; and as to the landing piers, it would be of no use to do the work unless they were prepared to carry them so far that they would extend beyond the harbour tide and into the true Channel tide. It would even then be doubtful whether the piers could be so constructed as to give efficient protection to boats when passengers were going on board or leaving. His only object in bringing forward this Motion was to obtain an affirmation of his opinion that at present the packet service was in a most unsatisfactory state. He believed unless there were such an affirmation of opinion

821
that this time next year this important question would not be at all advanced towards completion. This being so, he appealed to the hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade to do all in his power to inquire into the whole of this question of international communication between the two countries, which, he repeated, was in a most dangerous and unsatisfactory condition. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Resolution.
MAJOR WALKERseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should invite the co-operation of the French Government for the purpose of improving the Channel Passage between the two Countries."—(Sir William Gallwey.)
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that he would not detain the House at any length; but he would say that he was quite prepared to admit the main facts upon which the hon. Baronet had relied to show the extreme imperfection of the means of communication between this country and Franco, and the great inconvenience that consequently arose to this country. He should, however, be able to show that the Government had, during the past year, done everything in its power to remedy these defects, and had hopes of ultimate success, at least in respect of the chief bar to improvement, the want of sufficient harbour accommodation on the other side of the Channel. This time last year, as the House would probably recollect, the Board of Trade instructed one of its Inspectors, Captain Tyler, to report upon the subject; and the result of his inspection had been laid on the Table. It fully confirmed the hon. Baronet's statement, and showed that at least half of the passengers across the Channel suffered extreme discomfort from the want of accommodation. Captain Tyler showed the difficulty of the case by the statement that only 90 days in the year could, on the average, be regarded as fine, 29 were stormy, and 102 he described as characterized by good round seas and breezes. Much of the inconvenience resulted from the smallness of the vessels; they were not more than 230 feet long, and drew only about six feet of water; but the want of harbour accommodation necessitated the use of small vessels, and it was impossible to
822
use a better class of vessels until the harbour accommodation was improved. He could not, however, admit that these vessels were unsafe, for they had for many years performed the duty, not only with admirable certainty, but with such great safety that the peril to life was almost inappreciable. Captain Tyler had reported minutely as to the accommodation on both sides of the Channel. On our side, the pier at Dover was very nearly completed, and its completion would remedy, to a great extent, all defects on this side; for then, vessels of 400 feet long, and drawing 10 or 12 feet of water, might very well use Dover. But neither Calais nor Boulogne was at all suited for vessels of this kind; for there were sands that restricted us to vessels of the size of those now running. Captain Tyler investigated the schemes that had been proposed to remedy the present state of things on the other side, such as the enlargement of the harbour, and the forming of a harbour at Andre-selles, to the westward of Point Grisnez. He thought that it would be better to lengthen the pier at Boulogne than build a new harbour, and he considered that for £500,000 the western pier of Boulogne might be extended into deep water, so that vessels of 400 feet in length, and 10 or 12 feet draught, might easily enter the harbour. What, in his opinion, was chiefly wanted was improvement on the other side of the Channel. This Report was communicated to the French Government by Lord Lyons, and he said that he had on all occasions met with sympathy from the French Government. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) could not do better than read two extracts from letters addressed by Lord Lyons to Lord Clarendon on the subject. On the 15th of February last Lord Lyons wrote—
"On the 25th of July last, in obedience to the instructions contained in your Lordship's despatch of the 24th of that month, marked 'Commercial, No. 73,' I communicated to the French Government Captain Tyler's Report of the 29th of June, 1869, and the improvement of the means of communication between England and France. I have since taken every opportunity to urge the importance of the subject upon the attention of the French authorities, and to solicit their earnest attention to the various plans for improving this communication which have been laid before them. I have always obtained a willing hearing, and in particular I have found both the late Minister of Public Works, M. Greasier, and the present Minister, the Marquis de Talhouet, fully alive to the

823
advantage of facilitating and accelerating the communication. The difficulty of taking any practical measures on the subject appears to be greatly enhanced by the rival claims of Calais and Boulogne, and by the strenuous opposition of both to all plans for forming a new harbour."
In a later communication, dated the 29th of March, 1870, Lord Lyons wrote—
"I have not failed to pursue the subject with the French Ministers, and to urge them to hasten the labours of the various Boards and Councils to which schemes of this kind are referred in Trance. Yesterday I had some conversation with Count Daru respecting this matter. He assured me that the Government of the Emperor was fully alive to the importance of improving the communication between the two countries, and most anxious to do all in its power to assist in effecting so desirable an object. It appears that the scheme which has been specially examined by the French authorities, is that put forward by Messrs. Waring, who asked permission to construct a port at Andreselles. This scheme was, it Seems, made the subject of a conference between different Departments of the French Government, which resulted in a discussion in favour of its being taken into consideration. This preliminary formality having been accomplished, the scheme Was, it appears, referred to a commission of inspectors. Here, however, the Minister of Marine intervened, and required that before going any further the Department of Public Works should consult a naval commission. The naval commission reported favourably, and the affair was sent back on the 22nd instant to the commission of inspectors. The Marquess de Talhouet promises to examine the scheme with all the interest it merits as soon as the report of this last commission shall have been presented to him."
The two countries were, in fact, anxious to do all in their power to facilitate the achievement of so important an object, and the House would, therefore, see that there was some prospect of a great improvement taking place. He believed that, at that very moment, there was a scheme to improve Dover Harbour, and it was based upon the supposition that something would be done for the formation of a harbour on the other side. A small sum would do all that was necessary on this side, whilst on the other side very extensive works were necessary. There appeared to be no difficulty in the way as regards money, because there was no want of enterprizing English capitalists ready at any time to back all manner of schemes if the French Government was indisposed to undertake the work itself. The only difficulty seemed was for the French Government to choose between the many rival schemes presented for its acceptance. But whatever more extensive scheme was resolved on in the fu-
824
ture, he hoped that before long the simple remedy for improving the harbours on the French coast would be adopted, and an end be thus put to the present pressing inconvenience of small boats and generally imperfect accommodation. He trusted that, under these circumstances, the hon. Baronet would rest satisfied with having called attention to the subject, and withdraw his Motion.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYsaid, he could perfectly well understand that the opposition of the ports of Boulogne, Calais, and Dunkirk might throw difficulties in the way of the French Government in supporting the formation of a new harbour. He should, accordingly, withdraw his Motion; but he did not believe that the time spent in its discussion had been wasted, for much interesting information had been elicited, which he hoped, as time progressed, would be deemed more important by the House and the country.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDER—IRREGULARITY OF MOTION.
  RULES AND ORDERS No. 130.

    EMIGRATION.
    MR. W. M. TORRENS, having a Motion on the Paper—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She may direct measures to be taken to provide passages to the Colonies for intending Emigrants, who shall be approved by competent authority, at cheap and uniform rates of charge,"
    said, that a difficulty having been suggested in regard to the irregularity of his Motion, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker, whether he was of opinion that his Motion was substantially identical with one which had been disposed of in the early part of the Session. If so, he (Mr. Torrens) would have no choice but to ask leave either to withdraw or postpone his Motion.
    MR. SPEAKER: I shall be glad to explain to the House the ground on which I informed the hon. Member of the objections which exist to his Motion. There is a rule of the House that no Question may be proposed which is the same in substance as has been resolved in the affirmative or negative in the same Session. On the 1st of March of this year this Resolution was proposed—

    825
    "That, in order to arrest the increase of Pauperism, and to relieve the distressed condition of the working classes, it is expedient that measures be adopted for facilitating the Emigration of poor families to British Colonies."
    The Motion to-day is—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She may direct measures to be taken to provide passages to the Colonies for intending Emigrants, who shall be approved by competent authority, at cheap and uniform rates of charge."
    Now, that is facilitating the emigration of poor families to the British Colonies. The vote of the House has decided against it; and, certainly, in obedience to the rules of the House, I must say most distinctly that, in my opinion, it would conflict with the rule which I have quoted.

EAST INDIA (COUNCIL OF STATE).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. GRAVES, in rising to call attention to the constitution of the Council of State for India, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Council of State for India should embrace among its members persons practically conversant with the trade and commerce of India,"
  said, that towards the close of last Session a Bill was introduced into that House by Her Majesty's Government for the purpose of transferring the selection of members of the Council for India to the Secretary of State, and also for limiting the term of years to 10. He took the opportunity then of bringing forward an Amendment, with a view of raising a question, which was regarded by the country with some considerable interest, whether it would not be possible to throw into the Council an infusion of the mercantile mind? Unfortunately, that Bill was brought forward—like all measures relating to Indian affairs—towards the very close of the Session, when the House was remarkable only for empty Benches; and he accordingly determined not to bring forward his Motion under such circumstances, but to postpone it to the present Session. He knew what difficulties lay in the path of private Members in bringing forward Motions of this kind, and was also conscious that the House greatly disliked proposals which had the appearance of being vague; but he hoped to make it clear that his Motion
  826
  had a definite object, and also to exhibit clearly the point at which he aimed. The question was one of that class which could best be dealt with when there was no pressure of absolute necessity, and when the discussion could be divested of anything like personal considerations. He would abstain from throwing the slightest discredit upon the Government of India. He would endeavour to prove his case rather on the merits of his proposal than by attacking the prestige of the Government. There were, however, some persons who thought the policy of that Government had been feeble, weak, and over cautious; but it must not be forgotten that it had produced great results, and, judged by those results, he for one was willing to admit the Government of the Empire of India to have been successful. Looking at the constitution of the Council itself, he had still less reason for any personal remarks, for no one could appreciate more highly than he did the zeal and ability with which the members of the Council had fulfilled their trust. They were, however, drawn from too limited and too professional a class, for he found that of their number nine had served, and with distinction, in the civil service, three upon the Bench, and three in the military service. No doubt, they were all rich in Indian departmental experience, though some possibly would say that it was of rather antiquated date; but they all were lacking in that which he considered essential to a good Council of India—a thorough practical knowledge of trade and its requirements, both as regarded India and England. Those who knew India best would agree with him in the assertion that trade was the genius of India; that on its development depended mainly her prosperity; and that there was no better way of winning the confidence of the people in that portion of our Empire than by introducing into the constitution of the Council those who, by their habits of life, training, and avocations would be considered as representatives of that trade which occupied their thoughts, and was the aim and object of their very existence. No one who knew India could fail to be struck with the remarkable aptitude shown by the intelligent portion of that Empire for trade; the highest aim of every Brahmin boy was to acquire that aptitude, and we all knew

  827
  what keen competitors the Parsees were in the highest walks of commerce with our mercantile houses. Was it, then, wise; was it even politic to ignore so completely as we had done the existence of this trade in the constitution of the Council? He could conceive no higher or better policy than that of showing to those persons, whose daily thoughts were filled, with trade, that we sympathized with them in their exertions, and felt desirous of promoting the commercial and industrial interests of India by every means in our power. He was far from entertaining the opinion that, in the administration of India, the interests of commerce or trade had been entirely neglected. He did not believe they had; but he felt he was justified in stating that they had not received that attention which their vast importance demanded. The inner life of the Council of India appeared to be divided into six departments—politics, military administration, the judicial system, finance, revenue, and public works—each worked under a separate and distinct Committee; but he could find no department for commerce, and which of those departments were charged with the direction of trade and commerce he was unable to ascertain. He was afraid that the old adage—"What's everybody's business is nobody's" came true in reference to the interest taken in trade and its requirements by the members of the Council, and that, though all felt an interest in it, there were none directly responsible to the Secretary of State for originating or controlling schemes for the development of trade. The policy which he was then advocating was not a new one. It was brought under the consideration of the House in 1857 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), when he introduced a Bill for giving a new constitution to the India Board. That right hon. Gentleman proposed that there should be five members representing the five great centres of industry in this country. That proposition was met by various objections, and it was ultimately abandoned, partly, he believed, in consequence of the difficulty of finding a suitable franchise. But it was more especially objected to because it was said to be inconsistent with our policy to sanction popular election for executive offices. More recently the noble Lord (the Marquess of Salisbury),
  828
  who was removed last year to the Upper House, and who had presided with, so much ability over the Council of India as to ensure for his opinions on the subject the greatest consideration, thus explained his views to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce—
  "To fulfil the part which devolves on you to protect the interest of India, it seems to me that you ought to have something more than merely a representation in the House of Commons. …. I am not questioning—for the present at least—the wisdom of that arrangement which was deliberately adopted some ten years ago; still less am I venturing to throw the slightest doubt upon the earnestness and diligence and patriotism of the gentlemen who constitute the Indian Council. They are very eminent, they are very able, they are very hard-working men, and I am sure they do their duty as earnestly as any servants of Her Majesty; but I think that, considering the enormous powers that Council possesses, it is a pity that its constitution is not more largely tinged with the mercantile element than it is. Do not understand me to say that the Council, as at present constituted, wilfully or consciously neglects the interests of merchants, but you know perfectly well that nobody can look after interests of which he, by his own training, knows nothing. The eminent lawyer, the eminent engineer, the brave general, the distinguished statesmen who constitute that Council—for all those characters are fully represented—have not that minute and detailed knowledge of the wants of the commercial community which nothing but a mercantile training can afford."
  Here they had the experience of the highest authority—one who had himself felt the want of that special assistance at the Council which mercantile training alone could give; and it was not to be wondered at that those views had been adopted by nearly all the Chambers of Commerce throughout the country, and the Petitions which had been presented to the House abundantly proved how strong was the conviction in the public mind that a reform was necessary. The Hudders-field Chamber prayed that one-third of the Council should consist of gentlemen who were fully conversant with the requirements of British trade, and able to advise the Government upon all questions relating to the development of commerce with India and the East. The Wakefield Chamber asked that one-third of the Council might be men unconnected with the services of India, and having a practical knowledge of the manufacturing and commercial affairs of the United Kingdom. The Leeds Chamber desired that one-third of the Council should be men of mercantile knowledge and experience; and the

  829
  Bristol Chamber petitioned for the appointment of a Committee or Department of Commerce and Agriculture, with a view to improve the commercial relations between India and this country. The Glasgow Chamber submitted that there should be in the Council persons of experience in trade, who could aid the deliberation of questions affecting the commerce of England and India; and the Liverpool Chamber suggested that a portion of the Council should be men who were capable of advising on all matters connected with the industry of the United Kingdom and the Asiatic portion of the Empire. He might add Manchester to the list, for a Petition in favour of his views had that night been presented to the House; but he hoped that the hon. Members for that great city would tell the House themselves what the opinions of their constituents were upon the subject. In reply to these representations the hon. Gentleman who now so well represented in this House the Government of India (Mr. Grant Duff) would probably remind the House that the progress of that country had been great; and he would, perhaps, point to the fact that it amounted to £100,000,000, and suggest that that ought to satisfy the country. He (Mr. Graves) admitted the increase, but he was not satisfied. England had not been content many years ago with a trade of £200,000,000, and was not now with one of £500,000,000; in addition to which, he was persuaded that the trade of India was only in its infancy, and that if her energy and vigour were properly directed by judicious public works, increased railways and railway facilities, greater encouragement to the growth of cotton, the production of silk, and the improved cultivation of the land, we should see an amount of trade spring up in India which we had little idea of at that moment. The exports of India might be almost as unlimited as were the requirements not only of England, but also of Europe; for that communication with the East which had been recently given by the opening of the Suez Canal could not fail to send European traders and their capital to the East. Whatever might be the effect of that canal on the trade of England, however it might divert the stream of commerce from existing channels into new and competing ones through Southern Europe, he had
  830
  no doubt but that the effect upon the trade of India would be to stimulate and increase it to an enormous extent, provided that there were minds in the Council capable of directing this new stream of commerce into new and profitable channels. Look at the imports of India; they were in their infancy. The cotton goods used only amounted to 2s. 2d. per head of a cotton-wearing population; whereas in a neighbouring Colony, peopled by a very similar race, they amounted to a sum equal to an average of 10 s. per head. There was no other Colony in which the amount was under £2, while France—a country which overflowed with all the necessaries of life—took from England an amount of goods equal to 15 s. per head of her whole population. He therefore thought himself justified in stating that looking to the extent of India, to its cheap labour, its soil, its climate, and the aptitude of its people for trade, if fair encouragement were given to its promotion, a commerce would spring up which would be of the utmost value not only to India, but England. It would probably be urged that there was no statutory objection to the selection of a mercantile man, so long as he had resided in India, and that the Government had now the power he sought to compel them to exercise. That, he believed, was so, and it was because it was so completely ignored he desired to bring the opinion of this House to bear. He did not himself place much stress on the necessity for possessing Indian experience. He wished for general mercantile knowledge wherever gained, and it was a curious fact that the ablest rulers they had sent to India were men of no previous Indian experience. Look at Lord Canning, Lord Dalhousie, and he might add the present Governor General. Had they not distinguished their rule, and yet they never had been in India till entrusted with the reins of power? It was just possible they might go too far in one groove; and he thought that it was desirable to look on Indian affairs not in a military, or civil-servant, or judicial point of view, but from the more comprehensive view of every-day life, and experience of the present day rather than that of past years. He could not believe it was supposed by Her Majesty's Government there was anything in trade or the pursuit of trade which deadened

  831
  the intellect or prevented men from taking part in the administration of even the largest affairs of government, and if such arguments were used by any Member of the present Administration he felt certain they would not be shared in by the Prime Minister; because he had selected for the Cabinet, and in other Departments of the Government, gentlemen connected with the pursuits of trade, whose appointments would not be questioned on either side of the House. He therefore simply asked for the extension to India of that policy which had been found to work so beneficially for this country. The strongest objection which could be urged to the appointment of commercial men was, in his opinion, the difficulty there might be in obtaining men possessing the high qualifications necessary for the discharge of the duties. He did not think an income of £1,200 per annum sufficient to tempt men to leave their counting-houses or their ease to undertake the important and onerous duties of such an office; but if the office were made a more distinctive and honorary one, he believed men would be found who had resided in India and were perfectly conversant with trade, willing to undertake a work which, in his opinion, was superior in usefulness to any that could be offered to the ambition of man. The noble Duke who now so ably presided over the Department (the Duke of Argyll) was not likely to question the suitability of men engaged in trade for a seat in the Indian Council; he had given strong personal proofs of his appreciation of trade, and he believed it would be found that no future Secretary of State for India would hesitate to avail himself of the services of men who, by their energy of character, their trained business habits, and their sound practical knowledge—one of the highest qualifications for any office—had won a reputation in the world of commerce, and had shown themselves able to do justice to any interests, whether Indian or European. In conclusion, he hoped that his Motion would not be met by the Government in any spirit of hostility; but that it would be received in the spirit in which it was offered. He had carefully and studiously worded it, so that by its moderation it might disarm hostility. All he asked was for the House to affirm the principle that it was desirable that some members of the Indian
  832
  Council should be persons conversant with trade, and he trusted that such a Motion would not be regarded by the Government as in any way dictating to them, or fettering their discretion in the selection of the Council. The Resolution affirmed a principle which he hoped would be acceptable to Members on both sides of the House, especially those representing commercial constituencies. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Council of State for India should embrace amongst its members persons practically conversant with the trade and commerce of India."—(Mr. Graves.)
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he entirely concurred with the hon. Member for Liverpool in the importance which he had assigned to the commercial connection of this country with India, and that those who were interested in the government of India should on all occasions recognize that importance; but to adopt the Motion of the hon. Member would render it necessary to alter the construction of the Council in many particulars. At present, no one could be a Member of the Council without he had first resided in India, and possessed a practical knowledge of that country; and in fact the Motion, at first sight, would point to the introduction into the Council of men only who had acquired a mercantile experience in India. There were many reasons why that could not be carried out. Of those who went to India for commercial purposes, those who did not succeed would not probably be good representatives of commerce, and those who returned home with fortunes would prefer, if they desired to take part in public affairs, to enter this House. There was not, in the position of a member of the Indian Council, the attraction which would induce persons to dedicate themselves to the service of India there. His hon. Friend would, perhaps, seek to enlarge the field of selection, and no doubt the Indian Council would be better if it comprised men of commercial experience. There was no indifference in the Council to the representations made on commercial subjects. What was wanted were originating minds—men who would

  833
  enforce on the attention of others those subjects in connection with India to which the people of England attached so much importance. He had no wish to place the slightest difficulty in the way of the hon. Member's Motion; but, looking at it from the point of view that the Motion was inconsistent with the present state of the law, he hoped his hon. Friend would consider he had done good service in having ventilated the question, and not press the House to a Division upon the subject. If the law were so altered as to admit of the admission to the Council of gentlemen of commercial experience in this country, he was sure that there were men who might gain great distinction and confer great benefit upon India if they were members of the Council. But it was within his knowledge that these offices had been offered to and declined by more than one gentleman among his acquaintance. The duties of a member of the Indian Council were not light; and so jealous was Parliament of the manner in which they might be exercised, that it did not allow anyone who filled the office to sit in that House. He was one of those who thought that provision unwise, and he would wish to see it altered; for, if that were done, there might be opened a wider field of selection. He should be glad to see the object which the Resolution of his hon. Friend had in view carried into effect.
  MR. EASTWICKsaid, there were strong reasons for bringing before the House the Resolution which the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had moved. Our Empire in India had been founded by a commercial community, and our interest in that country had been for two centuries purely commercial. But at the end of nearly two centuries there supervened a time when that interest was subordinated to our political necessities. But when that period terminated and the great Indian Mutiny was ended, there was a general recognition of opinion that our Indian Empire had reached its limits, and that the time had come when we should adjust the finances of India, and employ them in such a way as to develop its resources and commerce. Our political anxieties being at an end, our commercial interests came again to the front. At that period the principle was recognized that the commercial element should be introduced
  834
  into the Government of India, not only in India itself, but in this country. In India that principle had been carried out in practice, and there were men of commercial eminence now sitting in the Council at Calcutta. In this country the principle was recognized in the Bill which transferred the government of India from the Court of Directors to the Crown, but it was not carried out. Successive Secretaries of State had recognized the principle, and Lord Halifax looked about some time in the anxious hope that he would be able to replace Sir Charles Mills with a commercial man of eminence, and since then he had no doubt the present Government had been anxious to recognize the principle. The principle being conceded they were met, however, with serious difficulties, and the first was to find gentlemen with proper qualifications. When the East India Company was in existence the fact that some of the directors were connected with commercial firms had led to great scandals and sometimes to postponement of the public to private interests. But then they must look for men not only of great commercial experience, but also of statesmanlike views; and such men, when found, would probably be unwilling to accept the respectable, but not very distinguished, post of a member of the Council of India. No doubt many valuable men might be found in that House; but they were precluded from the office by the India Act. There were strong reasons alleged for the exclusion when the Act passed; but he was one of those who thought it was an unfortunate circumstance. It was said that party conflicts might arise in that House between the Councillors and the Secretary of State for India, which would perhaps more than counterbalance the advantages to be derived from the light they could throw on Indian matters. It was also a mistake to insert the provision that the members of the Council should be appointed for life, because by so doing the vacancies were considerably reduced, thereby shutting out the very important object Lord Palmerston had in view, when he endeavoured to restrict the period to eight years, in order that successive Administrations might have the means of renewing the Council from time to time with persons returned from India with fresh knowledge and Of the 15 members of the Coun-

  835
  cil there was only one who possessed recent Indian experience. On the other hand, there were gentlemen, no doubt very eminent in their time, but who retired from the service 20, 30, or 40 years ago. There was great difficulty in getting a vacancy, and when it did occur they could not fill it up with a commercial man. For instance, there was a financial department, but there was only one solitary financial member. If there should be a vacancy in that department, it must be filled by another financial man. Then, in the Department of Public Works they had only got one member, whereas two were manifestly required—one with a knowledge of canals, and the other with a knowledge of railways and other public works. The military department was now represented by a military man, but two were required—one with experience of the European, the other of the Native Army. If a vacancy occurred there it would have again to be filled up by the appointment of a military man. The judicial department required two representatives—one with a knowledge of English law; the other educated in the Civil Service of India, with some acquaintance with the practice of Indian Courts. In the revenue department there ought to be at least four members—one for Bengal, another for Bombay, another for Madras, and a fourth for the Panjáb. The financial knowledge of any one man ought not to be required to extend beyond one of these great provinces. In the political department two persons were wanted—one with a knowledge of Persia and Affghanistan, another acquainted with the Native States on the Eastern frontier; but they had only one. In the sanitary department there ought to be a medical man, who should be able to advise the Council on the location and health of the troops, on drainage, and all that related to that department. Even if vacancies were to occur, in 14 cases they could not fill them up with commercial men. There was but one place left, and in that no doubt they could put a commercial man, if they could get a gentleman of eminence to accept the post; but the chances were very much against it. Having got over the difficulties of finding proper men, and creating vacancies, another difficulty presented itself, as to what functions the commercial men should discharge. They would be able
  836
  to give useful advice on matters of commerce and trade; but in order to solve the great question of Indian finance they must have a practised financier. The accounts must be divided into two great branches—the home and the Indian accounts, and the Indian accounts must be managed in India. There remained the home accounts, and here such a member might be of use; but the greatest part of these accounts were stereotyped, and there was not more than £250,000 in which a change could be effected. No doubt commercial members of Council would be able to make many valuable suggestions as regards trade; but in order to see what could be effected in this direction, it would be as well to see what had already been done. Since 1857 the commerce of India had risen from £54,000,000 to £103,813,000, which was an increase enough to satisfy the most inordinate craving. With regard to cotton, in 1857 the commerce of India amounted to only £1,500,000; in 1866, it had risen to £35,500,000. He recollected when he was in India the ryots in Bombay were in the greatest distress; but, owing to the flourishing state of the cotton cultivation, these people were now in the most comfortable position possible. Then as to opium. There was a revenue of between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000 derived from that source; and not only that, but the cultivation of opium placed about 1,000,000 of the inhabitants in India in a far more comfortable position than any other portion of the inhabitants of that great country. In the first place, it had been observed that those who were engaged in the manufacture of opium were less exposed to disease than other persons. In the next place, the cultivators could never experience the distress from which others of the working classes suffered. They could never want funds for their industry, because money was always advanced to them by the Government; and they could never be sold up, because in case of any loss arising from weather or other causes the advances were wiped off at once as bad debts. The trade in opium was created entirely by our Government, and so was that in indigo; but the cultivation of indigo, unlike that of opium, was not popular with the ryots. There was also the China grass, the fibre of which was sent to this country for manufacture, and the Indian Go-

  837
  vernment had offered £5,000 to any person who would invent a machine for removing the fibre, an operation which had as yet to be performed by the hand. When this invention was discovered, the commerce in China grass would doubtless considerably increase, and so benefit the finances of India. In reply to the objection that the extension of our trade with India might imply attention to English rather than Indian interests, he contended that, if India suffered in any one direction, she would be sure to gain a compensatory advantage in another. Thus if England had destroyed the muslins of Dacca, she had in return given India the Cinchona tree and the Tea tree, and had developed a commerce in jute the value of which already amounted to more than £1,000,000. A Minister of Commerce should be appointed in order to promote the full operation of these benefits, and to take a general survey over all the commercial interests of the country. Nothing could at present exceed the zeal shown by the Indian Government in encouraging all useful manufactures; and in proof of that he referred to the beautifully arranged museum at the India Office, and the 700 specimens of Indian fabrics prepared and distributed in this country under the superintendence of Mr. Forbes Watson. Whatever zeal could do had been done by the Government of India. At the same time, there was a lack in the constitution of the Council, which required a member who could bring his experience of the commerce of this country into useful operation for the benefit of the whole British Empire. He cordially supported the Motion, and hoped the Government would offer no opposition to it.
  SIR THOMAS BAZLEYconcurred in the belief that a change was needed in the Indian Council, and largely agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves); but he took a different view of the question from that which the hon. Member had placed before the House. The hon. Member regarded the London Council as the governing power of India; but many eminent statesmen had placed upon record their opinion that India must be governed in India. It was not possible for any men, however able and eminent, to govern India in England. When Lord Stanley, the present Earl of Derby, carried his measure for the sup-
  838
  pression of the East India Company, and established an Imperial Government, he put forward a proclamation which did honour to his statesmanship, and since that time there had been a marvelous development of enlightened principles in the government of India. The Indian Council, as the hon. Member for Liverpool had shown, consisted of men of eminence and ability, who were faithfully performing their duties; and, for his part, he might add that, having occasion frequently to visit the India House in this city, he had always found every one connected with the Department quite ready to receive any suggestions which were calculated to promote the prosperity of commerce in India and in Great Britain; and the late Government sent out a Governor General, who proclaimed the most enlightened principles, and had laboured manfully to carry them out. In all these things he saw the promise of a great future for India. Although he approved of the object of the Motion, he thought it ought not to be brought forward at this moment, when Her Majesty's Government were engaged in considering matters urgently connected with the immediate prosperity of the Empire. Very great changes were needed in India. There had been a degree of supineness in past times which should be removed. He must express his regret that there were so many military officers employed in civil duties in India, and if commercial men could be substituted the change would give a great impulse to beneficial government. We further required a Minister of Commerce and Agriculture in India; and he was glad to believe that such a Minister would be immediately called into existence in India, for the resources of India must be developed in India. Looking back to what had taken place during the time the Imperial Government had ruled, he found that India had made great progress. The length of the railways had risen from 300 miles in 1858 to 4,000 miles in 1868; but if it were remembered that there were 40,000 miles of railway in the United States, it would be seen how much remained to be done in India. With improved agriculture, he believed there would be an immense increase in the yield of the soil of India; and to show its capacity in this respect, he referred to its export of cotton to England, which rose from 132,000,000 pounds weight in 1858 to

  839
  434,000,000 pounds in 1868; but again, to show that it did not maintain its hold upon this country against America, he cited our imports from the United States, which in 1858 were 833,000,000 pounds (against 132,000,000 pounds from India), which fell very low during the American War—the quantity being only about 61,000,000 pounds—and which, in 1868, had risen again to 574,000,000 pounds (against 434,000,000 pounds from India). He was anxious that the great industry of this country should not depend entirely upon one source of supply, and that the great British territory of India should have the lion's share. In 1858 the imported products of India amounted to £15,000,000, while in 1868 the value had increased to £30,000,000. Railways were still needed, and irrigation, and, above all, agricultural improvements. He begged to express a hope that at no distant day commercial men would be taken into the Indian Council in such a proportion as would make their commercial knowlege practically useful. He was sure they would be found as honourable as any men who could be chosen for the position from any other class. He trusted that the speech of the Under Secretary would make it unnecessary for his hon. Friend (Mr. Graves) to divide on this Motion.
  MR. GRANT DUFFagreed to a great extent with what had been said by the hon. Gentleman and others who had supported this Motion. He thought it most desirable that in the Council of specialists which assisted the Secretary of State for India in governing that vast country, full of diverse and even opposing interests, there should be one or more persons whose first duty it should be to keep his or their eyes always fixed on the bearing of every proposal upon the commercial development of India. And he thought it extremely important that this commercial member, or these commercial members of Council should be men quite as efficient for their own particular work as the best of their colleagues were for theirs. They should be, if possible, men who were thoroughly acquainted both with the capitalists and the wants of India, and if that was impossible they should at least be men having a good general acquaintance with the commercial movement of the world, as well as a grasp of economic science. They should, in fact, be not only mer-
  840
  chants but statesmen. No one could, he was sure, be more impressed than his noble Friend the present Secretary of State for India with the great advantage he would derive from the assistance of one or more such men. The development of Indian commerce was a matter of interest not only to India, not only to Great Britain, but to the world. It must not be forgotten, however, that the first condition of the development of Indian commerce was the continued maintenance there of British power, and the first condition of the maintenance of British power was good government. It followed from this that the primary duty of the Secretary of State in framing his Council was to look out for men who could assist him in so governing our Eastern Empire that we might keep it for the advantage of its people, of our people, and of mankind. Let the House forget for the moment that the Indian Council was an existing institution, dating from the year 1858, in which all the Members now sitting held their seats for life, and in which vacancies very rarely occurred; let them suppose that the Secretary of State were framing his Council de novo, had not to consider by whom the vacancy he had to fill up was made—what were the sort of men that he would have to choose? First, he supposed the Minister would remember that he ruled a great Empire in another quarter of the globe which had relations with many principalities and powers outside its own borders, the mismanagement of which might at any time cause vast expense not only to India but to England, and he would secure the assistance of statesmen who had a good general acquaintance with the affairs of Asia. Next, he would recollect that scattered through our own territories were an immense number of feudatory princes, many of whom had very little power, but of whom one ruled a territory larger than Great Britain, a second a territory larger than England, a third a territory as large as Scotland; and with all of whom we had treaties and more or less complicated relations. He would, then, certainly look out for one or more men versed in the diplomatic lore of India. Next, he supposed the Minister would reflect that even the wisest counsel could not always maintain peace, either without the frontier or within it, in a region of the Earth inhabited by so

  841
  many warlike races, and he would take good care to have well represented on his Council both the men who understood the Native troops and the men who understood those European troops, who, in hours of appeal, must ever be our ultima ratio. Next, he would reflect on the enormous diversity of race and circumstance in different parts of India, and take care that he had some one to advise him as to the special local circumstances of at least the more difficult provinces. Next, he would remember that the past of our own rule in India had created centrifugal as well as centripetal forces in that country, and that the Government of India and the great subordinate Governments of Madras and Bombay did not invariably work together quite as smoothly as might be desired. Without giving too much weight to this fact, he would not, if he were wise, entirely ignore it. Then he would remember that the Indian Budget was the fifth greatest in the world, and that the financial department in India required closer superintendence from home than any other. It would not escape his recollection that we were carrying on public works to an extent to which no Government ever carried them on before, and he would not allow himself to be entirely without good engineering advice. Then he would remember that our collectors managed the largest property in the universe, property which brought in a land revenue of £20,000,000 a year, and he would arrange to have by his side some persons to whom he might turn for assistance on questions of land tenure, agriculture, forests, fisheries, and the like. Next, he would reflect that we were trying and partially succeeding in our endeavour to make India as law-abiding as England, and he would certainly not omit to place on his Council some representatives of that vast judicial network which now covered the whole peninsula. He passed over a number of minor interests which should be more or less represented on the Indian Council, if there was to be an Indian Council at all. He cared only to put forward the great paramount interests which he had enumerated, and he asserted that the mere enumeration of these great paramount interests was quite sufficient to dispose of the exaggerated demands that were made by some persons out-of-doors
  842
  for commercial representatives among the 15 members of the Indian Council. Commerce had just claims to a representation on the Indian Council, but they might be easily overstated; for, after all, was not the best thing that the Indian Government, or any other Government, could do for commerce, first to set it free, and then to leave it alone; and did we want commercial men on the Council to keep that elementary truth before the mind of the Secretary of State? The fluctuations of opinion upon the subject of the commercial element in Indian government had been extremely curious. For many a long day the cry—partly just and partly unjust—was that India was governed on selfish mercantile principles by an association of London traders. That cry eventually prevailed—rightly prevailed—and the great company ceased to exist as a political institution. But now the wheel had come full circle, and if we were to follow the advice, he did not say of his hon. Friend opposite, but of the extreme advocates of the view winch he supported, India was once more to be governed in the interests not of its inhabitants, but of English trade. The only difference was to be that the interests of Lancashire wore to take the place of those of the City. But to return to the suggested mercantile Councillors. To be of the smallest use our mercantile Councillors must be men of real mark and ability; and in this country, where all commercial aptitude brought such golden returns, he did not quite see how it would pay a commercial man to leave his sweetness and his good fruit and go to be promoted over the trees at £1,200 per annum; more especially as he would find that being promoted over the trees meant one of two things—either throwing a disproportionate amount of work on his colleagues, or doing a great deal himself; and of this work nine-tenths would have nothing in the world to do with commerce. It could not be too often repeated that the Indian Council was not an initiating body—it was a revising body; and the mercantile Councillor would find exercise for his special gifts and graces only when the Secretary of State or the authorities in India put forward some mercantile question. The Indian Council did not make work for itself; it did the work that was made for it. Further, he ought to

  843
  remind the House that our mercantile Councillors, if they were men who had had some experience of Indian trade, must have absolutely severed their connection with it; because, if not, though they might unite the virtues of Noah, Daniel, and Job, their motives would, most assuredly be misrepresented in India; and their presence would be a source not of strength, but of weakness to the controlling Government. He pointed out those things not in the least as opposing the admission of mercantile members. Who would be so absurd as to say that several men of the stamp of Mr. Cobden would not be a most valuable addition to the Indian Council? He only pointed them out for the purpose of showing that the difficulties of the question did not end, but only began, when it was agreed that the presence of one or more mercantile members in the Indian Council would be highly desirable. He came now to the question whether, since all parties were agreed as to the advantage that would accrue from the presence of one or two commercial statesmen among the advisers of the Secretary of State, if only they could be got, it was desirable that a Resolution to that effect should be put upon the Journals of the House. He very much doubted it. A Resolution of that House was a serious matter. It should not embody a mere truism. It should be the end of strife, the close of a long discussion—not a proposition to which every reasonable man might say—"Of course, and what then?" He objected—if there was not a very good reason for it, to do anything to relieve the Secretary of State for India of any responsibility which he now had. The whole course of our legislation since the beginning of the Session of 1858 had been to increase the responsibility of the Secretary of State. There were some who thought that he had still too little responsibility, and only last year the House decided to increase his responsibility by taking away from the Indian Council the right to elect a portion of its own body. Surely, then, it would be very inconsistent now to pass a solemn Resolution that the Secretary of State should exercise his power in a particular way. If that were done, might not a Secretary of State, instead of making the appointment which he in his conscience believed to be best for his coun-
  844
  try, turn round and say—"'I know that I ought to have appointed such an one, for it is precisely the kind of knowledge which he possesses that is most needed in my Council at this moment; but I am bound to respect the Resolution of the House of Commons, and I must appoint a commercial man." It seemed to him that it would be wise to be satisfied with the general expression of opinion which they had had; for, after all, it must not be forgotten that, even if there were as many commercial members in the Indian Council as anyone had ever proposed, it was to Parliament—and above all to that House—that the commercial interests of this country would look to see that they were properly kept in view by Her Majesty's Indian Government. On the Indian Council the commercial interests could exert no pressure whatever; but on the Secretary of State they could exert the greatest possible pressure. The representatives of those interests had only to come down to that House and put the India Office on its defence for any act of omission or commission, and they might depend upon it they would have incomparably more influence than by having any number of persons supposed specially to sympathize with them in the Indian Council. If anything was done that should not be done, or not done which should be done, the House of Commons was the place to point it out. If the India Office was right the House would agree with it, and if its assailants were right it would agree with them. In this commercial age, and in this commercial country, the Secretary of State should have the interest of commerce at heart—as much at heart as any commercial member of Council could possibly have. Had he not got those interests at heart? Enough had transpired in the debate to show that the well-informed commercial interests of this country knew perfectly well that there was no one reasonable thing which they had recently asked, or could ask, from the India Office, under either a Conservative or a Liberal Government, which had not, or would not be, immediately granted. There was no shadow of difference in that respect between the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote)—whose absence he much regretted—and the policy of his noble Friend the present Secretary of

  845
  State. He had only to add the expression of a hope that, after having heard the views of the Government on the subject, his hon. Friend opposite would not think it necessary to press his Motion to a Division.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he had been in hopes that after the lucid speech and the able arguments of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves), Government would have thrown no obstacles in the way of the Resolution being passed. If, indeed, he had any doubt as to the expediency of going to a Division on the question, the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would have convinced him that it was right to do so. He had stated that the Indian Council was composed of the ablest men, and that, no doubt, was the fact; but it nevertheless remained true that it was desirable there should be among its members a representative of the interests of commerce. The Government of India naturally divided itself into two aspects—the commercial and the political; and it was extremely difficult to separate them. It was, at all events, quite clear that we could not continue to hold our Indian Empire for another quarter of a century entirely by the sword. Had we attended to irrigation and to the great land question, or, in short, had we done anything to ameliorate the condition of the Indian people? On the contrary, we had increased the duty on the essential commodity of salt, and added 3 per cent to the income tax, which was regarded with the greatest horror, not only by the Natives, but also by the British population of India, and the result of it all was that the Army had to be reduced to 61,000, which was insufficient for the defence and good government of that dependency. All this surely tended to show that some new element was necessary in the Indian Council. Even if, as the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary had stated, the Council was merely a controlling power, an infusion of new blood into it would be of the utmost importance. India contained 195,000,000 of people who were apt, clever, highly gifted, and not specially lazy, and yet they were about the poorest people on the face of the earth, and that too in the face of the fact that their soil was one of the richest and most productive in the world. There must be some reason for this, and in his opinion it was to be
  846
  found in the fact of our bad commercial relations with that country. If the land were improved by irrigation and otherwise, we might double or treble our imports from India. Not long ago an American gentleman and a Parsee, wishing to reclaim a large district of uncultivated country, applied to the Indian Government for permission to repair a tank which was within 200 yards of the land, but no answer had been returned to the application. That was the paternal conduct of the Government in such matters. He was sorry to hear the Under Secretary sneer at Lancashire for having made this a local question. In reality, however, it was not a Lancashire, but a British question, as it interested everyone who was anxious for the welfare of Great Britain.
  MR. GRANT DUFFexplained that he did not sneer at Lancashire. What he said was that some foolish persons acted in a manner which would lead one to suppose they thought the Government of India ought to be carried on for the benefit of Lancashire.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, and proceeded to point out that by the development of industry in India, and particularly by encouraging the growth of cotton, we might create such a demand for our manufactures as would meet the requirements of the times. The vast population of India were able and willing to produce almost everything which the climate would allow if we would only assist them, and they would be thankful to take our manufactured goods in exchange. An infusion of the commercial element into the Indian Council would, in his judgment, be productive of very great advantages, and therefore he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Liverpool, who, he hoped, would take the opinion of the House upon it.
  Mr. GRAHAMsympathized with his hon. Friend's Motion, and had anticipated that it would have been met in a more friendly spirit by the Under Secretary of State for India. Indeed, he had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would respond in such a manner as to render it unnecessary to press the Motion further. Speaking from an extensive experience of India, he declared his belief that nothing would so much strengthen the confidence of the Natives in the

  847
  Council as the introduction into it of the commercial element. Those with whom the Natives had most sympathy were the mercantile classes, and the more broad our commercial relationships were made, the more firmly would our Empire in that country be established. The increase in the cotton cultivation of India had been effected chiefly through the agency of commercial men, and not through the instrumentality of the Indian Government. These were reasons for accepting the Resolution. It had, however, been alleged that fit men could not be found among the retired merchants who were prepared to occupy seats at the Council; but surely our duty was to mate the office sufficiently important to attract men of the very highest stamp. Further, it was urged that the Council was already too full, owing to its containing a number of men who had a life interest in the appointment. For the sake of so important an object as they had in view, it ought not to be very difficult to provide a sufficient inducement to some of the older members of the Indian Council to retire. As to the objection that there would be nothing in particular for commercial members to do when admitted to the Council, there was not a single question of Indian commerce that was not of most vital importance in connection with all the other departments, whether of finance, of public works, or even the military branch itself, because as long as the commercial affairs of India were in a satisfactory state, their military power was not likely to be called into action. He should like to see a Secretary of State for Education in India; and at any rate men who had a knowledge of business would afford valuable assistance to the Council. He regretted that the proposal had not been more cordially met by the Government. In conclusion, if the hon. Member for Liverpool insisted on dividing, he would go into the Lobby with him; but he would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should for the present be content with the amount of sympathy which his Motion had elicited.
  SIR CHARLES WINGFIELDsaid, he was glad to find the attention of the commercial community was being directed to the affairs of India in the manner which had been illustrated by the debate, for that country could not but benefit by consideration of this kind. He
  848
  thought the introduction into the Indian Council of gentlemen unconnected with the public services would dispel the erroneous impression which had taken possession of many minds that either the Home or the Indian Government had always been opposed to or had neglected the development of, the resources of India, and had discouraged the efforts of European enterprize when directed to that end. There was not a single undertaking now flourishing in India of which the Government of that country had not been the pioneer. For instance—steam navigation, postal travelling, transport of goods, and tea cultivation, had all been promoted by the Government, which had retired when private enterprize appeared in the field; and even the railways were not to be excluded from the list, because the Government 5 per cent guarantee found the money for their construction. The presence of commercial men in the Indian Council, and the responsibility they would thus incur for the due management of the Indian revenues, would strengthen the hands of the Secretary of State and make it more easy for him to resist the pressure sometimes brought to bear upon him by bodies in this country to sanction chimerical projects, such as the railway to Rangoon and Western China, or inconsiderate and hasty outlays upon public works. If, however, the commercial element were to be largely infused into the Council, it would be necessary to increase the number of the members, for the duties connected with controlling the government of 150,000,000 of people, and the conduct of our relations with the Native rulers of 50,000,000 more, were enormous; and he doubted whether commercial gentlemen of the qualifications and standing which it was desirable to secure would be found ready to give up their own lucrative pursuits in order to accept an office the remuneration attached to which was so paltry. The proposal to attach some honorary rank or distinction to the office was open to various objections, one of the most obvious of which was that the value of the honours would be diminished by making them follow from the mere tenure of office instead of being treated as the rewards of distinguished service in office—the principle on which they had hitherto been bestowed. The results he anticipated from the adoption of the hon. Member for Liverpool's Motion were rather of a ne-

  849
  gative character. He did not believe it would alter the principles on which the Government of India was conducted, nor did he think any alteration of those principles was required; but it would satisfy the wish expressed by an important class and tend to a better appreciation of the value of the Council. He thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for Manchester (Sir Thomas Bazley) for the creation of a special department in the Government of India of Trade, Commerce, and Agriculture, presided over by a gentleman appointed in England, was far better than the proposal of the hon. Member for Liverpool; and the experience of the working of the special departments of legislation and finance in India had been satisfactory.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I would presume to say, with reference to some remarks which have been made upon the speech of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India, that I think these comments were made upon an insufficient recollection of one of the most important sentences in that speech. My hon. Friend began by expressing his concurrence, to a very great extent, with the general tenour of the opinions advanced by previous speakers, and then went on to state the qualifications which he attached to that concurrence. It seems to me the effect of that has been that the qualifications were remembered while the very considerable amount of concurrence, expressed by my hon. Friend in the first instance, was forgotten by some of those who had heard him. I do not think that such a discouraging view should be taken of the manner in which my hon. Friend took up the question, and I cannot but think that the real object of the Motion has been attained. I do not care to judge of a Motion of this kind by an exact criticism of its terms, or by endeavouring to hold the Mover bound to everything it expresses. But I think the circumstance that a Motion of this kind must be interpreted rather with reference to its general object than to all its precise expressions, constitutes a strong reason for that which I will urge upon the House—namely, that it is not very desirable to adopt it as a vote binding upon the House, but that it should be regarded as affording an opportunity for the expression of opinions which, proceeding from Gentlemen of great experience and capacity, must have an influ-
  850
  ence upon the conduct of the Government. There is no doubt with regard to the Motion itself; but it does not dispose of the whole subject with which it deals. It is evident that several hon. Gentlemen are not disposed to consider that the entire subject would be satisfactorily treated by the mere assertion that certain members conversant with trade and commerce ought to be introduced in the Council of India. My hon. Friend behind me has just said that the members of the Council ought rather to be enlarged; others had said that the restriction which prevents their sitting in Parliament ought to be removed. Each of these opinions relates to a very important subject which is not included in the Resolution; and each of them is directly connected with the purpose of the Resolution, which I take to be somewhat wider than is indicated by its exact terms. The hon. Member asks the House to vote that it is desirable that the Council of India should embrace amongst its members persons practically conversant with the trade and commerce of India; and my lion. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) has pointed out several shortcomings or positive errors of administration, which he thinks prove manifest deficiencies in the present Government. But these errors or defects may be removed by other means than the introduction of persons practically conversant with the trade and commerce of India. If we adopt the Resolution, we bind ourselves to choose from a very narrow field. I conceive that those who are connected with the trade of India are not a very numerous class, and of that class a very large proportion are entirely beyond our reach, and it would be out of our power to bring them into the Indian Council. Many are actively engaged in their own pursuits; some having been unsuccessful with their own affairs do not give promise of administrative capacity. There are others, again, who having been most successful, have passed the time at which they can any longer exercise their faculties in a manner requiring continuous strain; and others again, because of their ripe experience and ripe age, would not submit to the amount of labour, involving something like drudgery, which the Council of India requires. Do not let the hon. Member think I am urging these things as against the spirit of his

  851
  Motion; it is quite otherwise. If I understand his view, it is that there ought to be in the Council of India a less unvarying predominance of the element of the old official service of India, and a greater variety of type, a freer atmosphere, and more of that contact of various elements of mental power, ability, and experience, out of which all true excellence proceeds. But I do not gather that there is any desire to tie down the Government to one particular kind of remedy. I quite admit that, for the purpose of remedying in the Council the defect which has been described, if such a defect exists, the selection of persons conversant with the trade and commerce of India would be a subject well deserving of consideration. At the same time, the choice of the Secretary of State would be unduly fettered if, instead of looking for that capacity which a general experience in trade and commerce gave, he were restricted exclusively to those whose experience had been acquired in India. If you wanted a capable administration, you should look not so much to the positive knowledge of a man as his general training and mental aptitude; a man who was gifted with elasticity of thought and robustness of mind would be more useful than one who merely possessed a greater stock of positive knowledge. The general effect of this debate has been to signify the sense of the House of Commons, as represented by a number of Gentlemen very well qualified to express its sentiments, that it is desirable to modify, and, if possible, to enlarge the circle of those elements of which the Indian Council is composed. If that be so, I earnestly hope that the hon. Gentleman, and those who sympathize with him, will be satisfied to allow that expression of opinion to have due weight where it ought to be carefully considered. I hope he will not be disposed to ask us to bind ourselves to the adoption of the particular terms of a Resolution which, on the one hand, is embarrassing, because it conveys that sort of vague direction which it is very difficult to obey, and because it would diminish the responsibility of the Government rather than enhance it; and, on the other, is open to exception, inasmuch as the nature of the remedy it proposes is somewhat less broad and extended in its scope than the defect, if it existed, would require. I cannot
  852
  think of resorting to that method of moving the Previous Question, which is sometimes useful; but I am sure I may rely upon the hon. Member, and those who support him, to take the course which circumstances suggest, and allow the Government, and my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India (the Duke of Argyll), an opportunity of considering the general tenor and purport of the sentiments expressed in this debate. I am quite sure that, on his part, I may say, as has been intimated already, that no one would approach the consideration of a question of this kind less encumbered with prejudices than the noble Duke, or with a greater inclination to give effect to every reasonable expectation.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, his reference to distinctions had been misunderstood by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Charles Wingfield). What he had suggested was, that if in administering the affairs of India as a member of the Council, any commercial man displayed energy, zeal, and power, he was just as much entitled to receive the favour of his Sovereign as anyone who had served in a military or civil capacity; and such an honour might induce commercial men to accept office in the Council, though the mere remuneration would prove unavailing. The hon. Member for Manchester (Sir Thomas Bazley) was mistaken in supposing that he had no case because he had put forward no grievances—he had studiously avoided making complaints. He had no wish to weaken the power and prestige of our Indian Government—his wish was to strengthen and raise it; he sought rather to show that the desire to deal with its administration sprang from a sense of our responsibility, and a wish to make more perfect the Government on which depended the welfare of some 200,000,000 of the people of India. It was objected by the hon. Member for Manchester that the time was inopportune for the consideration of this question; but surely it was better to discuss a question of this kind when no pressing necessity had arisen, when there was no vacancy to fill up; when, therefore, the subject might be discussed without suspicion of motives, and without any question as to interference with the province of the Government. Until he heard the objections raised by the

  853
  hon. Member he was under the impression that, in the course he had taken, he had the entire approval of the commercial interest of Manchester. One of the Members for that great centre of industry had seconded his Motion, and he was not a little surprised at the objections raised to his proposal by the senior Member. The Under Secretary of State for India had favoured the House with his views, and if the case had rested on his statement, he could not have avoided dividing the House; for although the hon. Gentleman might have been sincere in desiring that there should be an infusion of the commercial element in the Council of India, yet he threw so many difficulties in the way of the scheme that the House must have concluded that he would not assist to carry out the object of the Resolution. The statement of the Prime Minister, however, made his course easy. The right hon. Gentleman said that the adoption of the Resolution might place difficulties in the way of the Government, and retard the object which those who agreed in the principle of the Motion wished to see achieved. That was enough for him; he had no wish to place difficulties in the way of the Government—he wanted rather to remove them. Besides, in the present state of the House, a mere assertion of the wish of the majority would scarcely be satisfactory. He accepted the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman in good faith. He was sure it was uttered in good faith; and he was perfectly satisfied with the unanimous expression of opinion which the Motion had drawn forth from both sides of the House. He believed that the subject would not have to be again brought before the House, because the Government would carry out what evidently appeared to be the wishes of the House in this matter; but if it should, he would not shrink from asking the House to record its conviction that the time had come when an infusion of the great mercantile mind of England was both desirable and necessary in the Council of State for India.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN AGRICULTURE. —OBSERVATIONS.
MR. FAWCETTrose to call attention to the Report of the Commission ap-
854
pointed to inquire into the condition of Children Employed in Agriculture, and to move a Resolution, when—
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Sequestration (81).
Third Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No. 2)* (82), and passed.
Withdrawn—Creditors Sequestrations* (91).

SEQUESTRATION BILL—(No. 81.)
(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
SEQUESTRATION BILL—(No. 81.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to read this Bill a second, time, I wish first to state why I think some measure on the subject is desirable. The existing state of the law is, in my opinion, exceedingly injurious to the Church in the highest sense of that word—that is, to the whole body of the people, with whose spiritual concerns the Church of England is charged. Benefices in the Church of England with cure of souls are provisions or endowments held by certain persons chargeable with important spiritual duties. The endowments are not their private property, but are a trust held upon the continued discharge of the duties for which the endowments are designed. They are not endowments for the clergyman, but for the parish; and it is contrary to the first principles of right that a temporary holder of them, if through his own carelessness he becomes unable to discharge the duties, should be able to divert the endowment from the parish, and thus prevent the possibility of another and worthier person being appointed to discharge them. That a clergyman should be able to incur debts, giving his creditors the security of the endowment, which is not his but the parishioners'—that he should have the power of making over to his creditors the income which is to support the clergyman, and leaving the parish—as is continually the case—uncared for, or with an income in the Bishop's hands wholly insufficient to provide for its spiritual wants, is so utterly wrong, on the very face of it, that it demands an immediate and stringent remedy. This is no fanciful or imaginary evil. Were it not invidious, I could point to small
  792
  endowments all consumed in sequestration, the parishioners for whose sake they were created being defrauded of that which the endowments were intended to provide. I could point to benefices largely endowed—say with £2,000 a year—which have been for 30 years under sequestration, the sum which by the existing law the Bishop is able to take out of the sequestrators' hands for the supply of the population being only £200 a year, while the population in one instance numbers 20,000. This, £1,800, which those who cared for the parish had given as an endowment to the parishioners, is taken from them to pay the debts of the incumbent, while the parish is spiritually starved. Now, to remedy this evil, the Bill proposes that any clergyman who shall become bankrupt, and be unable to obtain a certificate from the Bankruptcy Court, shall, at the discretion of the Bishop or Archbishop, forfeit his benefice. This may appear too stringent; but I propose, as has been done in all Bills of this kind, to give discretionary power as to the time and mode of enforcing such deprivation to the Bishop, with an appeal to the Archbishop of the Province; for there may be cases of unforeseen misfortune, in which the incumbent ought to have time to recover himself. Such a discretion could not be vested more safely than in the Bishop or Archbishop, for they are high functionaries, who are at any moment liable to be called to account in this House for the use of that discretion. So far from its being an injury to the clergy thus to deprive them of the right which has grown up of pledging their endowments for debts, it is a positive advantage to them. The present state of the law is injurious to them in continually tempting them to live beyond their income, for it gives their creditors this false security for the payment of the debts they may allow them to incur. There can be no greater evil to any class than a legislative temptation to incur debts, and this especially applies to the clergy, who, taken altogether, are the worst paid of all the different professions in this country. Numbers of them have to maintain a position in their parishes, to support charities and schools, and, as we have a married clergy, their families also. Only, therefore, by the closest and most continued economy are they able barely to keep

  793
  themselves out of debt. To men so circumstanced the temptation to obtain goods on credit under the idea that the creditors will be able out of their benefices to insure payment is a most cruel one to hold out. The result is, that if a man of this class once gets into a difficulty he never gets right; and I have been told by clergymen how deeply they regret that the law was not altered when they entered on the clerical life, that they might not have been subjected to this temptation, and might not have incurred debts which have embittered their whole lives. The remedy which I propose is no injustice or hardship. Beneficed clerks are by law restrained from charging their benefices with any payment or pension, and the abolition of sequestrations will therefore simply carry out the general principle of the law. It will, moreover, put the body of the clergy on the same footing with the rank to which I belong, for there is no power of sequestrating the income of a Bishop. I do not shut my eyes to the fact that the Bill may be open to difficulties and objections—for there are difficulties and objections in the way of every mode of dealing with this matter; but, after much thought upon it, I am quite convinced that the abolition of sequestrations and forfeiture of the benefice are the only remedy. The Bill is, no doubt, susceptible of amendment, and it does not stand alone, for another measure has been introduced in your Lordships' House with which the honoured name of a noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) is connected. If your Lordships think proper to refer my Bill to a Select Committee, I shall offer no objection; but I hope you will not send both Bills to a Committee, for they proceed on directly opposite principles. It is for your Lordships to determine the principle on which you mean to legislate, leaving a Select Committee to work out the details and remove objections. The other Bill, it seems to me, would actually increase the evil of sequestrations, and no one of its chief provisions would be workable. It provides, for instance, that a clergyman who shall not within a certain time pay his debts shall be deemed to have committed an act of bankruptcy. Now, that is more severe than anything in my Bill, for I propose to go through the intermediate stages of a debtor sum-
  794
  mons and petition in Bankruptcy—thus giving the clergyman and his friends an opportunity of meeting the emergency. It deals with existing as well as with future sequestrations. As to the former, which my Bill does not touch, it provides that the Bishop shall ascertain the whole amount of the debts of the sequestered clergyman, throwing on him the responsibility of finding the right amount—a task for which a Bishop has no qualifications, and one which ought not to be thrown on him. Then he is to apply to the Queen Anne's Bounty Office for a sum sufficient to pay off the whole amount, and the life of the incumbent is to be insured for the sum so borrowed, in order that it may be repaid at his death. Now, I am quite sure the Queen Anne's Bounty Office would not grant money on such a security, for many of these lives are not insurable at all in any office. The Bishop would first have to create an insurance company which would take the life. Suppose, moreover, the clergyman is guilty of some misconduct or of suicide, the insurance policy may be forfeited. Then, again, the 17th clause provides for the payment of arrears on the policy; whereas, if the payments, are allowed to fall into arrear, the policy lapses. This is an illustration of the accuracy which pervades the Bill. It proposes, again, that the Bishop shall consider what claims are to be admitted and what rejected, what is the total amount, how the money is to be raised, and in what proportion and in what order the payments are to be made—in short, he is to be a kind of Bankruptcy Commissioner. These are matters quite alien to the education of a Bishop, and for which no Bishop would willingly become responsible, since he would have no hope of doing justice in the case. After all this cumbrous machinery, moreover, no benefit is secured to the parishioners, for the living is still liable to sequestration for the purpose of meeting the claims of creditors, insurance charges, and so on—so that we get back to the sequestration of the living after all. It proposes, too, that no living with a population of 1,000, and with an income not exceeding £500, shall be subject to sequestration. Now, in by far the largest number of sequestrations the livings are under £500, the population being frequently 1,000, and in these cases there will be

  795
  no power of recovering anything from the indebted clergyman, who will continue to the end of his life in possession of his £500 a year. Parliament surely could not assent to such a provision—which is made, moreover, to apply to all livings of £300 a year and under, so that such clergymen would be able to incur any amount of debts and give their creditors no remedy. That would be most unfair to the creditors. It is proposed also that the Bishop, in the case of these sequestered livings, shall have power to appoint any number of curates he pleases, and to assign them what salaries he pleases; so that if there is a large population he might appoint five curates at £100 or £150 a year each, thus absorbing the whole income of the living, and rendering the sequestration nugatory. I will not go further into these remarks. I hope that if your Lordships determine to send my Bill to a Select Committee, you will not trouble it with the other Bill, which is exactly opposite to it in principle, and is encumbered with so many details that the Committee would find it difficult to dispose of the matter.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  LORD CAIRNS: I am sure your Lordships will all agree in the eloquent description of the right rev. Prelate, of the great misfortune which befalls any parish where the incumbent falls into pecuniary difficulties, and where, above all, under the process of sequestration, its spiritual duties are very imperfectly performed. To see an evil, however, is one thing—to say what is the best remedy to be applied is another; and I wish to state, in a few words, the objections which I see to the right rev. Prelate's Bill. In the first place, its title is misleading. Its title is—"An Act to abolish Sequestrations for debt, and to provide a more effectual remedy for securing payment of the debts of Beneficed Clerks"—and the same object is expressed in the Preamble; yet the Bill, while abolishing sequestration altogether, not only makes no new provision for securing payment, but abolishes the only means by which, in nine cases out of 10, payment can be obtained. Whether that is right or not—whether it be right or wrong to say that benefices shall not for the future be
  796
  held answerable for the payment of the incumbent's debts—I protest against such a Bill being introduced, which professes to do that which its provisions do not even attempt to do. The Bill professes to be a Bill providing a more effectual remedy for securing the payment of the debts of beneficed clerks. But what is the principle of the Bill? The principle of the measure is, that for the future a freehold benefice is to be absolutely forfeited—absolutely forfeited—subject to the discretion of the Bishop, if the holder, from misfortune or any other cause, fall into bankruptcy. Now, even if that were the best possible rule for the future, but that Parliament will consent to apply the rule to those who at present hold benefices I greatly doubt. I cannot imagine that Parliament will ever sanction the principle that the present holders of a freehold benefice, who entered in their freeholds under certain perfectly known conditions, shall be made to forfeit it by a process that is at present utterly unknown to the law. I hope, therefore, that as a matter of course, the right rev. Prelate will be prepared to except from the operation of his Bill all existing holders of benefices. But more than that—I want your Lordships to consider whether it will be wise in Parliament to say for the future, that wherever a freehold office is attached to the performance of certain duties—and I believe there are no duties more important than the spiritual duties of a parish—if the holder of that office becomes bankrupt, then the freehold is to be abolished, and the benefice to be forfeited. You cannot stop short in the application of that principle to benefices. If it is to be applied to benefices it must be applied to freehold offices of every kind which are connected with duties to be performed. You must lay down the rule—for if it be good for one description of office it is good for all—that wherever an office is held, the duties of which are not efficiently performed, it must be forfeited. I would also take exception to one postulate which was laid down by the right rev. Prelate. He said the endowment was not the property of the holder, but of the parish.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: What I said was that the object for which the endowment was given was not the benefit of the parson, but of the parishioners.
  LORD CAIRNS: I quite agree with that statement; but it is the services of the incumbent which belong to the parish, and provided they are rendered in a proper way the expenditure of his income is his own affair, and not that of the parish. The right of the parishioners cannot go beyond the right to the proper performance of the duties. Now, let us go a step further and see what the Bill proposes. The Bill leaves to the discretion of the Bishop, subject to appeal to the Archbishop, the question whether the benefice shall be forfeited or not, in the event of bankruptcy. I admit that if there is to be a discretion it could not be reposed in better hands; but will Parliament lay down the rule that the holder of a freehold benefice shall, for the future, hold his office at the discretion of the Bishop of his diocese? Is the Bishop to sit as a kind of Bankruptcy Judge, to consider the circumstances which have led the bankrupt clergyman into embarrassment, to pass an opinion on his conduct and say whether the benefice shall be forfeited or not, with no remedy except an appeal to the Archbishop? Will Parliament place such power even in such good hands? If, too, the Bishop decides that the benefice is not to be forfeited, what is to be done with the creditors? Is the clergyman to retain his benefice and not pay his debts? The Bill does not explain this point, for it makes no provision for the creditors in case the living is not forfeited. It proceeds on the principle that unless the bankrupt obtains his discharge the benefice is to be forfeited; but it is well known that a common condition of discharge is for a certain portion of the income or salary of the insolvent to be set aside for the purpose of paying the debts. The Bankruptcy Judge, therefore, would have power to discharge the bankrupt on such a condition, and the fact of discharge would entitle the bankrupt to retain possession of his benefice; yet, as at present with sequestrations, a portion of the income would be diverted to the payment of his creditors. The right rev. Prelate urges that the Bill, though it may at first sight appear harsh, is in reality a merciful one to the clergy; because moneylenders and others are now induced to tempt clergymen to get into debt, knowing that when the pinch comes they can obtain a sequestration of the living, and
  798
  he thinks that if the power of sequestration be taken away the clergy will not be thus tempted. I am afraid your Lordships' experience of human nature will not bear out this view of the case. I believe the consequence would be this—The money-lenders would be quite as willing to lend money as they are now; but there would be this difference—that as the risk would be greater, the terms would be harder. The money-lender would have a perfectly efficient screw on the clergyman, for he would hold this Bill in terrorem over his clerical debtor—he would say—"If you do not pay my debt I will put you into the Court of Bankruptcy, and if you do not obtain your discharge your living will be forfeited." He would continue to lend, therefore; but the process being a little more circuitous than at present, he would make a harder bargain. I admit that there is great objection to the present state of the law. The real defect of the existing law is, that the Bishop, in the event of sequestration and failure of the clergyman to perform his duties, is not allowed to reserve a sufficient portion of the income to meet the wants of the parish. The right rev. Prelate mentioned the case of a living of £2,000 a year under sequestration for 30 years, only £200 being dedicated to the spiritual wants of the place. There certainly ought to be power to the Bishop to make an ample and liberal provision for the supply of the wants of the parish, which ought to be the first charge on the income, if the duties are not performed by the incumbent. Any Bill in that direction would, I believe, be accepted by Parliament, and would remedy the evil so far as it admits of remedy—for it cannot be remedied entirely. You cannot make things as pleasant as if a clergyman were never in difficulties; but that is the best remedy. I was glad to hear the right rev. Prelate express his willingness to have the Bill referred to a Select Committee; but though I see a great many objections to the second Bill also, I think it should likewise be dealt with in the same way. It is true the two Bills proceed on different principles; but when a subject of this kind is referred to a Select Committee, every suggestion on the subject should go with it, leaving the Committee to adopt the principle of one Bill or the other, or to recommend some other course.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I am in no way responsible for the Bill; but some of the objections to it by the noble and learned Lord appear to me considerably over-stated. The real question is this—The law at present regards a benefice in the light of a freehold possession, held in connection with the performance of certain duties; and the House is asked to treat it in future as a trust, and to take care, first of all, that its duties are duly discharged. The principle of the Bill is to make the privileges of the freehold subordinate to the duties of the trust. That principle will, I hope, be affirmed by the second reading. The noble and learned Lord says, that whatever may be the case in future, it ought not to be applied to existing incumbents. Now, if the measure be good at all, I do not see why it should not be applied at once. I grant that it would be unfair to apply it to existing debts; but I do not see why it should not be applied to existing incumbents, in respect of all debts contracted hereafter. The noble and learned Lord contends that provided the duties of a freehold office are discharged that is sufficient; but there is a great difference between the position of a clergyman in difficulties and that of the holders of other offices. It is true that there are some cases of unavoidable misfortune overtaking a clergyman, which the parishioners, the Bishop, and all concerned, agree to regard as free from blame; but there are others of a totally different kind, where the debts are rashly, carelessly, even fraudulently contracted, and where it would be an additional calamity to the parish if the clergyman were continued in his services, even without remuneration. Bishops, indeed, are often obliged to take advantage of the power of refusing to assign a stipend, in order that the clergyman may go, and thus enable them to provide for the duties as best they can. I believe the principle is not unknown in other Departments of the State. An officer in the Army cannot place himself in the position at present held by some clergymen. He would lose his commission by committing acts such as those by which too frequently a clergyman loses the confidence of his parishioners. Consuls and persons in other public offices are also unable to charge their incomes with the payment of their debts.
  LORD CAIRNS: Those are not freehold offices.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I admit that there is that distinction; but in point of principle, if such persons sometimes lose their offices for these acts, why should a clergyman, who can no Longer be of the slightest use to his parishioners, be treated differently? I am at a loss to know why, of all offices to which the discharge of duties is attached, the clergyman is to be the only exception of forfeiture for non-performance. With regard to what is to follow, in case the Archbishop should refuse to declare the living forfeited, I think that may very well be dealt with by the Select Committee. As to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, that ample provision should be made out of a sequestrated living for the spiritual wants of the parish, it would be an excellent remedy, if the benefice would provide both for the wants of the parish and the payment of the debt, so as to allow the former incumbent to go into retirement with a portion of the income. But, unfortunately, nine-tenths of the benefices are too small for that. What provision could be made in a living which was under £250 or £300 a year? What claim, moreover, has a man who has forfeited his position by some gross imprudence, depriving him of the confidence of the parishioners, to be a perpetual pensioner on a poorly endowed parish? I hope your Lordships will affirm the principle of the Bill, and I understand that there will be no objection to referring it to a Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYwished to make a few observations. After the eloquent speech of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester) there was no necessity for him to make out a case against the present system—it was admitted on all hands. He hailed with satisfaction the tone which prevailed in their Lordships' House on this subject compared with that of a few years back, when any Bill proposing to deal with the subject would have met with very little favour. A benefice was then regarded as an absolute freehold, and the trust with which it was connected was thought of very lightly indeed. The question was not now as to the grievance, but as to the remedy. He agreed with much that had been said by the

  801
  noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) as to the Bill of the right rev. Prelate. The right rev. Prelate's Bill proposed to treat the clergy as minors, incapable of pledging their property, their debts being merely debts of honour—and no doubt something might be said in favour of it; but the view of the noble and learned Lord must also be taken into consideration, according to which the result, as in the case of minors, would be heavier encumbrances and an aggravation of the evil. He admitted that with regard to existing sequestrations the provisions of his own Bill were not entirely satisfactory. It was placed in his hands at the end of last Session, at the instance of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he was requested to place it before the House in order that it might be circulated and considered during the Recess. He did not mean to represent that his Grace was pledged to every part of it; but it certainly received his sanction. If their Lordships were not prepared—as he himself was not, at least for the present—to go the length of abolishing the security for clergymen's debts, and making them merely debts of honour, they ought to be willing to adopt the only provision of his Bill to which he attached any importance—namely, to give the larger powers to deal with such cases. That was the only principle of the Bill to which he attached importance. He desired that the Bishops should have larger powers in dealing with the revenues of sequestrated livings, and that instead of £200 a year as much as £500 or £600 should be at their disposal if the revenues allowed of it. The power of vacating a living in ease of bankruptcy created a very awkward dilemma. If made absolute in all cases, it would no doubt in many cases not only be a very needless hardship on the clergyman, but lose to the parish the services of a worthy man, whose bankruptcy might arise from no fault, or a very trifling fault, of his own; while, on the other hand, if a discretion was left, as in the right rev. Bishop's Bill, to the Bishop, he might often be placed in a very unpleasant position, being exposed to pressure from the friends and relatives of the bankrupt, as well as from persons anxious for a new appointment, and would thus be placed in a difficult and delicate position. His difficulty would be still further increased if the living
  802
  was in his own patronage. He did not pretend that his Bill was entirely satisfactory; but he hoped their Lordships would refer it likewise to a Select Committee, and he trusted that the consideration of the whole question by some 15 of their Lordships would result in the framing of a satisfactory measure.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND, being personally cognizant of one or two cases of sequestration, held that an amendment of the law was urgently called for, and he thanked the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester) for introducing this Bill. He hoped its principle—namely, that the freehold should be less considered than the duties to be rendered by the freeholder on behalf of the parishioners—would be affirmed by the House, though he agreed with the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), and with the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby), that some of its details were open to objection, and that the discretion proposed to be conferred on Bishops would be an invidious and arduous task. The position of the creditors must be taken into consideration, as also cases in which bankruptcy might be due to unavoidable misfortune, entitling the clergyman to sympathy rather than to forfeiture of his preferment. Looking at all the circumstances of the case, he thought it desirable that both the Bills should be referred to the Select Committee, because he agreed in some of the observations that had been made by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Cairns). The evils occasioned by the present state of the law were so patent and so serious that it was highly desirable that some remedy for them should be applied by Parliament in the present Session. He quite coincided in the opinion that, where it was possible, a larger sum should be given to the clergyman who discharged the duties of a living under sequestration.
  LORD WESTBURYdeemed it the bounden duty of those Members of their Lordships' House who, by courtesy, were called "learned," to call attention to any proposal which infringed the settled rights of property. Now, while admitting the laudable motives which had inspired this Bill, he was obliged to say that since the Irish Church Bill he had seen none which more violated those rights than this. He agreed with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Win-

  803
  chester) as to the cumbrousness of the second Bill; but the simplicity of this was equally open, to objection, for with one fell swoop it would take away their property, not only from the clergy, but from their creditors, and would place it at the disposal of the Bishop or Archbishop. Such a scheme it was hardly possible for any reasonable being to entertain. The principles enunciated in the speech of the right rev. Prelate were worthy, indeed, of all commendation, for they were founded on reason and justice, and if the Bill went to a Select Committee—on which he, for one, should be happy to serve—its efforts would be directed, to bringing the Bill into harmony with those principles. The word "trust" was sometimes used here and elsewhere with a great amount of inaccuracy and in a very uncertain manner. Trust there was none, in the proper sense of the term, with regard to a benefice; but the law had provided the clergyman with that income to the intent that he might fully discharge his clerical and parochial duties, and if he was unable to do so, reason and justice demanded that his superior, the Bishop, should be able to take so much of the income as was required for those duties by some one else. No doubt, in many cases, the whole income might be inadequate to that purpose; but to the extent of this principle he should be most willing to go, and the present law undoubtedly fell far short of its duty in the administration of that principle. If the right rev. Prelate would permit him to substitute his speech for his Preamble and clauses, he should be happy to accept the Bill in that sense; and courtesy, he thought, demanded that the noble Earl's Bill should likewise be referred to the Committee. It was very important, however, having regard to the other duties they owed to the public, that the Committee should be able to bring their labours within such a compass as to complete the consideration of the subject within two or three days. In that case, he for one should be enabled to attend the Committee without derogating from his other duties.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I very much doubt whether the announcement that this Bill is an invasion of the rights of property such as that on which the opposition to the Irish Church Bill was founded be a reflection
  804
  that is likely to conduce to the support of this Bill. On the other hand, I support this Bill on the very ground on which I opposed the Irish Church Bill—and that ground is, that the income enjoyed by the clergyman really belongs in the first instance to the parishioners, and that they are in the first instance to be considered; and that, therefore, it is a great injustice to congregations to allow the clergy to mortgage their livings, and ignore the claims of the parishioners. As, on the contrary sense, I believe the Irish Church Bill to be unjust, because it deprives the Anglican congregations in Ireland of their right to spiritual ministrations, so I now hold that it is a great injustice that clergymen should draw the revenue of a living while they had rendered themselves incapable of discharging its duties. I only rise to express my concurrence in the view of my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) that, on the whole, you will have a more manageable task if the Select Committee had only one matter referred to it; and for this reason—the right rev. Prelate appears fully satisfied with his Bill from the beginning to the end, while my noble Friend is not very well satisfied with any part of the Bill which has been placed in his hands; and it is obviously not reasonable that the Select Committee should be asked to take into consideration a measure respecting which its very author is so doubtful in his language. But I feel we have not really any very wide difference to combat between those who apparently take different views on this question—the difference is rather apparent than real. I was at first much alarmed by the announcement of the opinion of the noble and learned Lord opposite; but the difference, after all, seems to resolve itself into this—that the first charge on the clergyman is the full, complete, entire performance of all the parishioners can claim from him, and not a farthing should be taken away till that claim is fully satisfied. The only thing that remains to be decided is, who are to enjoy the surplus, if surplus there should be? Is it to go to a new clergyman, to be appointed for the benefit of the parish, or to the clergyman who has prodigally mortgaged the income of the benefice? It appears we must take into consideration in deciding that point the nature of the expenditure, and the ex-

  805
  tent of the moral responsibility of the clergyman. Two noble Lords who have spoken on this subject left out of their consideration that, in our modern practice, bankruptcy has come very often to be regarded as a positive offence. There is no greater disgrace than to be excluded from the House of Commons; but if, after election, a Member becomes bankrupt, that penalty falls upon him. If a barrister becomes bankrupt, he loses the power of continuing to practise his profession. In our public offices, also, it has recently become the practice that if a man becomes bankrupt he ceases to retain an office which, though not freehold, is yet in practice perpetual. That may fairly be applied to a State clergyman. No doubt a clergyman's benefice is his freehold; but Parliament has always reserved to itself the discretion of deciding what offence shall incur deprivation. Parliament has never hesitated to inflict that penalty for offences judged worthy of it; and the point to which the consideration of the Committee ought to be directed to define is the line which should be drawn between those clergymen who are culpably extravagant and those who, through unforeseen emergency, fall into pecuniary embarrassment. Where the difficulty has been unforeseen it would be a hard measure to deprive him of all future prospects in his profession; but I think I do not see any justice to the parishioners in requiring them to retain the services of a clergyman who has fallen, through his own fault, into embarrassment. I can only add that this is no theoretical—it is a practical grievance. I know more than one instance similar to those which have been stated, and which have been productive of very great evils; and I hope no ordinary scruple will be allowed to prevent the application of a speedy remedy to such a state of things.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTEE AND BEISTOLearnestly desired to express the hope that the Bill presented by his right rev. Friend who presided over the diocese of "Winchester would form the text on which the Committee would have to enlarge. He recognized several defects in the Bill; but it was with the greatest satisfaction that he saw the principle enunciated that livings wore held in trust, and that several of their Lordships recognized that as a fundamental principle. As far as he was ac-
  806
  quainted with the subject, this was the first time when it had been even shadowed forth that there should be a power by which, on a clerk incurring debts illegitimately, and placing himself, therefore, at a great disadvantage as a spiritual minister to his parish, he should be considered in danger of losing his benefice. He hoped his right rev. Friend's Bill would be selected to go before the Committee, because it would be accepted by the country as a very important evidence of a prevalent opinion in that House that livings are held on trusts.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot be altogether silent when a subject is discussed so extremely interesting as that of making a due provision for the services of the Church in those parishes which have the misfortune to be presided over by clergymen who have so encumbered themselves with debt as to render it impossible for them to conduct the duties which they owe to their parishioners in a manner satisfactory to their parishioners or even to themselves. During the short time I have had the honour of holding my present Office it has come to my knowledge eight or nine times, in presenting to benefices, that the parish has been in a state of the greatest possible disorder, owing to the incumbent for many years having been absent from his duties in consequence of his debts—which have frequently obliged him to live out of England altogether. One case has been mentioned in which the income was very large. A case occurred in which I had to present—not in the immediate right of the Crown, but the presentation fell to me in consequence of the vacancy of a see. The income was nearly £4,000 a year, and the incumbent having been for years residing abroad the services were very badly provided for; practically, the only teaching of the people in Christian truth was furnished in one of the largest Dissenting chapels in the town where the case occurred. On the occurrence of the vacancy, it was arranged by the Bishop of the diocese—and the ready concurrence of Her Majesty was given to the arrangement—to divide the large parish, and have four clergymen with curates instead of one incumbent. Most active men have been placed there, and already a most remarkable amount of good has been accomplished in the parish. Another

  807
  instance of a different character occurred in the principal parish of an important county town. The income was only £350 a year. There the same thing happened. I was asked—and I could not refuse—to present a gentleman who for 25 years had admirably performed the duties of the parish in lieu of the incumbent, with a stipend of £200, the rest of the income being appropriated to the incumbent's creditors. I have had six or seven other parishes in the same condition, and where the most disastrous effects have resulted to the parishes. One of these was the case of a large rural parish. The emolument was small, and the incumbent had become hopelessly in debt. I found great difficulty in finding a proper presentee. Under these circumstances I was most thankful in being able to obtain the assistance of a clergyman who, in consequence of having served in India, was in the receipt of a pension, and who, on that account, stood in a better position to perform the duties of the incumbency than many others. This gentleman accepted the living, and has restored the parish to a proper condition. Such cases are too frequent and are known to all right rev. Prelates, and therefore there is no doubt that some remedy is required for this most disastrous state of things. Beyond all doubt, no person would venture to say that an incumbent is placed in his parish merely to perform his duty twice on every Sunday, to spend his income as he pleases, to incur debts, and to place himself in circumstances under which his character becomes such that his parishioners can no longer respect him, and yet that he should continue to enjoy the income which he draws from the parish. I feel thankful that the present Bill has been introduced, and that no one has opposed the second reading; but, at the same time, I am bound to say that I agree with my noble and learned Friend that there is much requiring consideration in the Bill, which is somewhat meagre in its details, and which, though proceeding in a right direction, goes further, perhaps, in its operation than any Select Committee of your Lordships would, after a full and general consideration, sanction. The true principle is, to consider the parishioners in the first place; and is it to be supposed that a clergyman can teach to his parishioners the cardinal principle of doing as they
  808
  would be done by if he exhibits in his own person an example of spending carelessly the money of other people by taking goods from his parishioners which he has no means of paying for, and if he thus neglects the obvious duties which all owe one to another? It is plain that such a person cannot have the slightest hope of impressing on the minds of his congregation the doctrines he preaches, while his own example is opposed to the principles he inculcates. I therefore trust that the proposal to refer the right rev. Prelate's Bill to a Select Committee will be agreed to; and I hope that the noble Earl will not require that his Bill should be referred to the same Committee, because, if only on account of the complication of its details, it would occupy time which had better be devoted to perfecting the Bill of the right rev. Prelate. There is a clause in the noble Earl's Bill directing the value of a sequestrated living to be ascertained, and, after deducting what is necessary for the maintenance of the clerk and his family, to hand over all that is provided for the creditors to another authority, the whole transaction being completed by borrowing from Queen Anne's Bounty. The whole principle is wrong that there should be a power set above the creditors to take out of their fund that which the clerk has forfeited, and I do not see any object in referring the noble Earl's Bill to the same Committee as that to which the Bill of the right rev. Prelate is to be sent, because, without taking that step, the noble Earl will have the opportunity of making such suggestions in the Select Committee as he may think desirable. As regards myself, I am afraid that my necessary attendance at appeals in your Lordships' House will render it impossible for me to be present at the deliberations of the Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he did not wish to press his Bill upon the Select Committee, if it were not the general wish of their Lordships that it should be referred to that Committee.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and referred to a Select Committee.
  And, on May 19, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  L. Abp. York.

  E. Beauchamp.

  Ld. Privy Seal.

  L. Bp. London.

  D. Marlborough.

  L. Bp. Winchester.

  D. Cleveland.

  L. Bp. Gloucester and Bristol.

  M. Salisbury.

  E. Shaftesbury.

  L. Stanley of Alderley.

  E. Grey.

  L. Chelmsford.

  E. Harrowby.

  L. Westbury.

  And, on May 20, the Lord Bishop of ELY added in the place of Lord WESTBURY.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.], APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL [H.L.]
  Moved, That there be laid before this House, Copy of the communication from the Lord Chief Justice of England and other Judges to the Lord Chancellor with respect to the Agreed to: (The Lord Chancellor).)
  Copy of the communication from the Lord Chief Justice of England, &c. respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 104.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.