said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the table the recent Report of Mr. Taylor on the sanitary state of certain parts of Liverpool, and on the condition of the dwellings of the poor in that town; and whether he has received from the local authorities of that place any satisfactory assurance that the recommendations of Mr. Taylor will be promptly carried into effect?

Sir, the Report of Mr. Taylor is a very long and a very valuable one. It has been only recently delivered at the Home Office, and I have not yet had time to go through it, but when I have done so I will inform the hon. Gentleman whether it can be laid on the table.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the evils arising from the fact that a separate jurisdiction exists for granting Licences for the retail sale of Spirits, Beer, and Wine; and, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to bring in a Bill to place the granting of these Licences under one jurisdiction?

The matter, Sir, referred to by the hon. Gentleman has been brought under the notice of Her Majesty's Government in a vast variety of forms, in the several different applications made to the Home Office on the subject. Some particular applications are at this moment under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but until they have all been thoroughly examined, I am not prepared to state to the House what course the Government will take.

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

It is.

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

I cannot help thinking, Sir, that the time has arrived when, after having been kept for three weeks in the dark as to the policy or intentions of the Government, some further explanation is due to the House. ["Order!"] I am speaking, Sir, on the Motion that you leave the Chair.

The House is now proceeding on the Motion for going into Committee on the British North America Bill.

I was about to move, Sir, on the Motion that you leave the Chair, that the House do now adjourn. I cannot think that I am taking any liberty with the House in moving the adjournment. This is no common period in the history of Parliament. Sir, what has happened? For three weeks this House has been kept in the dark as to the proceedings of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down, not on the first night of the Session, but on the Monday following, and, like Cagliostro expounding the secret of the philosopher's stone, he left us as much in the dark as we were before. And what has now happened? We are told that the Government is about to recur to its original policy. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, or, at any rate, some of his Colleagues that are left, or possibly those that have gone, what the original policy of the Government was? This House has a right to demand what it was. Whether it was to land us in an £8 rating or in household suffrage no man in this House or the country knows. It is but decent to this House—it is, at any rate, what the country demands, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—whether he is the late or the present Secretary for War I am not able to say—whom we all admire and respect for his consistency and also for his noble abnegation of self, that he, or at least the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranbourne), should tell us what that original policy was, or why they have left Her Majesty's Government? I will not press the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for War on this occasion, because he is still sitting on the Treasury Bench, and possibly some other policy may be initiated which may keep him there; but I ask the noble Lord, who I am sure will not scruple to tell us, the reason why he has left the Cabinet. I ask the question out of no vulgar curiosity, but because it is an explanation to which not only this House, but the constituencies which sent us here are entitled. I am surprised that such a duty should have devolved on so humble a Member as myself; but I am sure that I only reflect the common sense of the country in asking why the noble Lord has left the Government, and what is the original policy to which the Government have recurred after three weeks' con- sideration. I beg, Sir, to move the adjournment of the House.

said, that some nights ago, in Committee of the House, a sum of £6,000 was voted for excess of expenditure, and he wanted to ask the Secretary of the Treasury what this was for? ["Order!"]

I regret to say, Sir, that my reply to the hon. Gentleman must necessarily be brief, He must be aware that it is not in the power of those who have had the honour of forming part of Her Majesty's Government to speak as to what has taken place without the permission of Her Majesty. That permission I have not received, and I therefore regret to say that I cannot satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

I give notice that I shall renew the Question at the first opportunity.

I think, Sir, the answer which has just been given by the noble Lord is one which is perfectly sufficient and conclusive. At the same time, I am bound to say that I do not think any blame attaches to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) for referring to the terms in which another disclosure or revelation has to-night been made to the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not confine himself in the brief statement that he made within necessary bounds. He did not merely state that alterations had occurred which would call for time in order that Her Majesty's Government might well consider their course; but, as has been observed by my hon. Friend, he also told the House that the Government had "recurred" to their original policy. Now, Sir, that is an explanation which imports more difficulty than it removes, and I own I am sorry that such a declaration was made; because the mind of every man who heard the right hon. Gentleman must have immediately conceived—indeed, it was involved in the very words—that the original policy which has now been revived was, at the time when it formerly existed, the policy of the entire Cabinet, including, therefore, of necessity, the three distinguished persons of whose services the Government have now been deprived. At this critical moment, therefore, when I am sure the House would gladly have consented, with that delicacy and justness of feeling for which it is so remarkable, to abstain from all inquisition, the expressions of the right hon. Gentleman most unfortunately have had the effect of casting upon his Colleagues who have retired the responsibility of some change of policy, which has been ostensibly the cause of the present embarrassment. I am sure the noble Lord and my right hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me if I point out that which appears to me to lie upon the very surface of the case, and that they will not for a moment presume that I am giving an opinion on the matter. I think, however, that there are a few words which it is necessary at this juncture to say on the part of the House. Four weeks have now elapsed since the House met, and those four weeks have not been, as they were last year, weeks of silence on the part of the Government, justified, or, at any rate, believed by us to be justified, for stated and substantive causes; but they have been weeks in which we have seen more than once an attempt to make a fitful and uncertain advance, to be followed by a speedy and unequivocal retreat. When Parliament met, a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne announced the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring before us the question of the representation of the people, and great satisfaction was felt by us all when the right hon. Gentleman made the engagement, which he afterwards fulfilled, that on a very early day he would open to the House the views of Her Majesty's Government. When, however, those views were opened—I will not say anything either in praise or in blame of them—it certainly appeared to the House, and L think to the country, that instead of advancing with the question, we stood at a point somewhat behind that which we had occupied on the first night of the Session. There were, consequently, general demands for a further elucidation of the matter, and on Monday last the right hon. Gentleman brought down a plan and laid it before the House. We then for a second time—the first being the opening night of the Session—thought that progress was to be made. No debate took place upon that plan. A few remarks were made by myself—I am not sure whether any were made by any other Member—and those remarks certainly did not convey any intention to oppose that plan upon the second reading of the Bill that was to be introduced. No sooner, however, had that plan appeared than it also seemed to be smitten with paralysis, and there went forth rumours in London and throughout the country that that plan was itself to be withdrawn. Without Parliamentary opposition, almost without Parliamentary comment, that scheme has ceased to exist. At this moment we find ourselves at the point at which we originally stood. I have seen in a distant country an ancient Greek dance, in which the women, from moment to moment, commence by advancing three steps, and immediately afterwards continue the dance by retreating two steps. But our case is not quite so favourable, for, in the political dance of the present Session, if the advance has been three steps, the retreat has been of three stops also. Now, I advert to this matter not as a question between party and party, but because there are others besides ourselves who are interested in it; and it is essential, in my opinion, to the well working of the Constitution that the country should not lose, and that we should do nothing to diminish, the confidence which the country places in the House of Commons as a body capable and competent to deal with public emergencies when they arise, Therefore, I hope that at the point at which we have arrived we shall henceforward have one definite, consistent movement in the same direction. I am bound to say—and I do not fix the charge on the Government alone, I speak of the House of Commons without distinction of party—that unless we can convey to the mind of the country more distinct and definite convictions of our capacity to treat this great occasion with the force and decision it demands, not the Government alone, not those who sit behind them, but all classes of this great assembly of the Parliament of England will stand materially discredited in public opinion. I have said so much on the subject of procedure. With regard to the substance of the Bill, I do not intend to go into any further critisism, which I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite circumstances alone have extorted from me, and my deep conviction as to the somewhat critical position of the House itself before the country. I do not intend by that criticism to qualify anything that I may have previously presumed to say, on behalf of myself and others, with respect to the reception which we shall give to a definite proposal from the Government. I may venture to express, however, a hope that that proposal when it appears will be of a simple, straightforward, and intelligible character. I will not ask that it shall not contain what is now. It must contain what is new. But I will ask and I will express a hope that it will not contain what is new-fangled. The people of this country are eminently attached to simplicity of procedure, and I think there never was a moment when they were in mood less favourable for dealing with plans and schemes which might seem to them to deviate from the character of simplicity. I trust, above all, that the Bill of the Government may not be a measure containing two sets of provisions, one of them framed to have the semblance of giving, and the other constructed to have the reality and effect of taking away. I may perhaps be uncharitable in allowing my mind to be influenced, even in the slightest degree, by those rumours with which the air is thick and full; but it is not possible wholly to resist their effect. And I say, in conclusion, that if the Government, avoiding those dangers—serious, I think, for all public men, and more serious when the question has reached that state of complication and entanglement at which this question has unhappily arrived—if the Government, escaping those dangers, shall submit a plan, good, simple, ample, straightforward, constitutional, and intelligible in its character, I venture to promise that it will be received on this side of the House in no grudging spirit—with no recollections of the past, with no revival of those mutual suspicions and complaints which I grant may be bandied from either side of the House to the other, but with an earnest desire to bring the endeavours of the Administration to a speedy and prosperous issue. I wish to make an appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Aytoun), with respect to the Bill for the Confederation of the North American Provinces, which is now proposed to be committed. My hon. Friend had given notice of his intention to raise a debate upon the 145th section, which relates to the construction of a railway which will unite the Provinces of British North America. I cannot help thinking, and I am sure I express the feelings of the Under Secretary for the Colonies, that it will be much better to wait for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the guarantee, than to raise the discussion of a question so important upon this clause in the Bill. Having read the clause with cave, and having consulted upon it with others, I venture to give the most confident opinion that it has no bearing upon the obligations of Parliament, and that the discretion of Parliament must remain entire, subject only to the announcement of the Government with respect to the proposed guarantee. Upon an early day there will be ample opportunity given for full discussion on the question; and therefore it will be better to allow the Bill to go through Committee, it being a matter which appertains—I will not say to the security, but to the dignity of the Empire, and which should proceed from stage to stage without unnecessary delay.

said, he wished to ask whether it was intended to give the franchise to females, or to confine it to males? The clause as it stood said that "every British subject" of the prescribed age should have a vote.

said, he presumed it was not intended that females should vote.

said, that in the clause a power was reserved of increasing the number of Members, and he thought it might be desirable to give the power of also diminishing it. The total number of Members who would be required for the general and provincial Legislatures would be 550, which might be found too many to be conveniently furnished from a population of 4,000,000. 550 Members would be equivalent to a population of 15,000,000. He was aware that the number had been settled by the delegates of the Canadian Provinces; but he wished them to have the power of diminishing the number if it should be found too large.

said, that the population of the Provinces was rapidly increasing. The Bill had been drawn for a representation based on the existing elec- toral districts in the several Provinces, and such an alteration as the hon. Member suggested would involve a subversion of the entire arrangements of the measure.

said, the greatest possible importance was attached in Canada to the maintenance of the electoral districts as they stood, inasmuch as any re-arrangement of them by a dominant majority might tend to interfere materially with the interests of the minority.

said, that the proposed Amendment would destroy the symmetry of the measure.

said, he thought some greater limit should be put to the time during which Her Majesty had power to disallow any Acts that might be passed. Two years was too long a period for Her Majesty or Her Majesty's Government to consider whether they would allow or disallow a Bill. He also suggested that a provision should be inserted by which a Bill reserved for Her Majesty's approval should become law unless Her Majesty disallowed it within a certain specified time.

said, the clause before the Committee only provided for the disallowance of a Bill within two years. He would not discuss whether the time were too long or not; but he did not think that was the best opportunity to alter a rule with regard to the disallowance of Bills, which applied to all the colonies. He was satisfied, too, the hon. Member could entertain but little apprehension that Her Majesty would exercise her power in that respect in a manner injurious to the Confederation.

said, that in his opinion, the appointment should be made by the Crown and not by the Governor General. The Lieutenant Governor should come from England, and should be independent of and not hold office merely during the pleasure of the Governor General. With regard to the two Lieutenant Governors, who would be superseded by this Bill at Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, he wished to ask if any compensation would have to be made to them?

said, that upon the score of pensions there was no difficulty in the case. The late Lieutenant Governors of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had been provided for, the one having been made Governor of Hong Kong, and the other of Trinidad, The present Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia had been informed that he received his appointment only until the Bill before the House was passed, and he had accepted the office on that understanding. In New Brunswick the duties of Lieutenant Governor were being discharged by the officer in command of the forces; so that no claim for compensation would in either instance arise. On the general question that the Lieutenant Governor ought to be nominated by the Crown, he must say that he thought to adopt that course would be to act contrary to the whole spirit of the Act, which was to render the North American Provinces as far as possible one community, the Governor General representing the Crown, and being in communication with, and responsible to, the Colonial Office.

said, great inconvenience might result in time of war if the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia were not placed in direct communication with the Colonial Office.

said, he could very easily communicate with that office through the Governor General. He also considered that it was better the appointments of Lieutenant Governors should be made by the Governor General, entirely on his own responsibility, than that they should be vested in the Crown. Supposing the Crown retained the appointment, reference would have to be made to the Governor General to ascertain the qualifications of persons suitable for office. It was one of the objects of the Bill to strengthen the hands of the Governor General as much as possible.

said, that according to the Bill there was to be one Legislature for Upper Canada or Ontario, consisting of the Lieutenant Governor and one House, while the Legislature for Lower Canada or Quebec was to consist of the Lieutenant Governor and two Houses. He wished to know the reason of this difference.

said, that the Representatives of Upper Canada preferred a single Chamber, and those who represented Quebec desired to retain their present two Chambers. The fact was that Lower Canada was a little more Conservative than Upper Canada, and preferred its existing local Legislature; which Upper Canada was ready at once to reduce to a municipality.

said, he rather agreed with Upper Canada in this matter, because he fancied he saw some element of difficulty, with respect to the nominated Upper Chamber, which certainly could not arise where a Province only had one Legislative assembly. There was no aristocracy in Lower Canada, out of which a suitable Upper Chamber could be formed. Many years ago, representing the interests of Lower Canada, he had endeavoured to do away with the nominative Legislative Council. They now avoided that evil in Upper Canada, but they were perpetuating the evil in Lower Canada.

said, he wished to know how a conflict of jurisdiction between the Parliament of Canada and the Provincial Legislatures was to be settled?

said, he did not think that any serious conflict of the kind anticipated by the hon. Member could take place so long as a supreme power was vested in the Governor General to veto Acts.

said, that the framers of the American Constitution foresaw this difficulty, and provided a Supreme Court, whose province it was to decide whether even the laws passed by Congress were illegal. This Bill, however, seemed a lopsided one, and contained no provision to prevent the passing hereafter of laws which might be unconstitutional. In other words, the Canadian Parliament would be supreme. Supposing the Governor General and the Parliament of Canada were to pass a law that the Municipal Constitution of Nova Scotia was in contravention of this very Act, who was to decide whether they were right or wrong?

said, he was afraid that the defect pointed out by the hon. and learned Member was not one which, in the present state of feeling in the North American Provinces, it was possible to remedy. As matters now stood if the Legislature of Canada acted ultra vires, the question would first be raised in the Colonial Law Courts, and would ultimately be settled by the Privy Council at home. No doubt it was a defect, but the point had undergone consideration by the delegates, who thought it would be better to leave things in this state.

said, that he had placed on the paper an Amendment to the effect that this clause should be omitted; but after the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, whom he understood to say that the clause could in no respect fetter their freedom of action when the Bill guaranteeing the loan came on for discussion, he would not press his Amendment. He wished, however, to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies to state, whether in the negotiations anything had occurred to render it possible for the colonies to consider that this clause, if passed, would bind the House in the discussion which would afterwards take place on the Bill for granting a guarantee.

said, that there was no doubt that the present Government had come to an understanding with the Canadian delegates that they would propose a guarantee to Parliament, but there was nothing whatever in the clause under consideration that would bind the House to that proposal when made. The history of the clause was simply this—the completion of the Intercolonial Railway was regarded by the various Provinces who were parties to the Bill as a sine quâ non, and they wished to have the clause inserted in this measure with the view to record the agreement among themselves, thus giving it a sanction. What would be proposed to Parliament was to guarantee the interest at 4 per cent upon a loan of £3,000,000. The Confederation would be completed by the Bill. There was nothing in the Bill that could pledge Parliament, which would be left entirely unfettered, to discuss the guarantee when proposed.

said, that in 1859 he went with the delegates, who were then here from America, to Lord Derby upon the subject of this Intercolonial Railway. He stated to Lord Derby at the time that it was an Imperial, and not merely a colonial question, because it might happen that we might have a quarrel with the United States in the month of December; and, if so, Canada would be a sealed land to us because the St. Lawrence would be frozen. It would, therefore, be of great importance to us to have means of transporting troops to Canada. The very case which he contemplated occurred in the affair of the Trent. The noble Earl saw the force of that statement, and the deputation left him with the impression that the railway would be made. Soon afterwards there was a change of Government, and the light hon. Gentlemen who entered office—thinking it their duty to undo everything that Lord Derby had done, good, bad, or indifferent—stopped the guarantee. As; time went on, however, they—much to their credit, and very unlike the rest of mankind—learned by experience; they took the matter up, and the right hon. Gentleman who was then Secretary for the Colonies consented to do the very thing that his leaders had, some two or three years before, prevented.

said, there was some difficulty about this matter. The clause was peculiarly worded. We proposed to enact that these States should make arrangements for the construction of the railway in question within six months after the union. But we had no power to do anything of the sort. We could not issue a mandamus to compel them, and yet we pledged ourselves as strongly as words could do to make this railway. We commanded that which we had no right to command, His right hon. Friend had declared that this railway was considered by the colonists a sine quâ non. And; then the House was asked to go another step. They were informed that a Bill was to be laid before them for the purpose of giving a guarantee, and that this clause would not in any way hamper their discussion when the Bill on the guarantee came before them. If the Government gave such an assurance, he supposed they must take it. But for that assurance he should have thought the clause would commit Parliament to the loan. But if it should be the pleasure of the House to refuse this guarantee, as he hoped it would, he trusted they would not have the gentlemen who represented the North American Colonies turning round by-and-by and saying that they had enacted this clause about a guarantee and then refused to carry it out.

said if they were to pass this clause in its present shape they would have no option but to assent to the guarantee when the Bill on the subject was presented to them. He understood that if the Committee passed this clause and made the House a party to the agreement, which was a sine quâ non with the Maritime Provinces, they would be obliged to give a guarantee for the loan which was now stated to be £3,000,000, but which he had always heard would amount to £4,000,000. If the question rested on the grounds stated by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, he would not give his assent. It was not because it was a matter of Imperial concern, and that otherwise we might not be able to get our troops into Canada, that he was willing to entertain the question of a guarantee. He would do so simply on the ground that it might be for the interest and well-being of the Provinces.

said, he wished hon. Members to read the clause and see what it really meant. It said that inasmuch as the Provinces had determined that such a railway was essential to the connection between them, be it enacted that it shall be the duty of the Government and Parliament of Canada to make it. That was all that was in the clause, and when hon. Gentlemen talked of its being a guarantee they should try and see what the words meant. If the clause provided anything else let somebody get up and say what.

In order, Sir, to put myself in order, I am about to move the adjournment of the House, and I take this unusual course in consequence of a transaction which had occurred in "another place." I did not think that I was putting myself unnecessarily before the notice of the House at the beginning of the evening when I demanded some explanation from the Treasury Bench as to the unusual position in which this House has been placed. Tire right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), however, maintaining that system of silence which has characterized the Government from the commencement of the Session, refused to give any answer, and the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranbourne) intimated that he had not received Her Most Gracious Majesty's permission to make any statement to the House. The House assented, and was left in that ignorance in which, if it depends on the right hon. Gentleman, it will be kept until the 18th of March. But what has happened in "another place?" The secret with regard to the Bill which, we being the most interested party, ought to have communicated to us in the first place, that secret has been let out in "another place." Not only has the noble Lord the Leader of the Government (the Earl of Derby) communicated in "another place" the original policy of the Government, but a noble Lord (the Earl of Carnarvon), who has resigned office, has, it appears, received the permission of Her Majesty to state, and has actually stated, the reasons why he has left the Cabinet. I leave the matter to the consideration of the House. If the House is content to be treated as a mere Court of Registry, to assent in silence, and to abdicate its functions, I shall say no more; but there are people out of doors who will see, with astonishment, that while a communication has been made in "another place," the Leader of this House maintains a silence which is as extraordinary as it is obstinate. I beg, Sir, to move the adjournment of the House.

I think, Sir, I can give a satisfactory reason for the silence which I have observed. I had communicated with my noble Friend (Viscount Cranbourne), and was aware that it was not in his power to make any statement to the House, and I certainly think it would have been most unbecoming in me to enter into details which I myself had not received sufficient authority to disclose, and under particular circumstances, in which others were obliged to be silent. I have no doubt, however, that an opportunity will be properly taken for that frank communication to the House which always occurs when political changes of this kind happen. What has occurred in "another place" is unknown to me, and unless I receive some authentic account of it, I am not disposed to put upon it the interpretation which the hon. Gentleman has done. All I can say is, that in the course which I pursued I was influenced, not only by a sense of public duty, but by those private feelings of honour which, I hope, will always animate Members of this House.

No interpretation is required in the matter. The fact is palpable that in this House information has been refused, which in "another place" has been granted. If the right hon. Gentleman has had no communication with his Leader it only shows that there are more divisions in the Cabinet than the House were aware of an hour ago.

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

said, he intended to move an Amendment in this, a fuller House than he had addressed on a former occasion. The object of the Bill was to enable the Counsel to the Secretary for India to sit in the House of Commons, and he moved an Amendment to the effect that the House should resolve itself The present Counsel was Mr. Forsyth, who was returned for Cambridge, but unseated by a Committee of the House on the ground that his sitting in the House was contrary to the statute of Anne, which disqualified any one for a seat in the House who received emoluments from the Crown, imposing also a penalty of £500 for a breach of its provisions. He objected to the Bill because it was exceptional, and because, as Counsel to other Departments of the State might be equally required in the House, the Act of Anne should be dealt with as a whole. When he had questioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday night whether he intended to repeal the statute of Anne in favour of the gentleman whom it was proposed to appoint as Equity Counsel to the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman declined to give an answer. If he were to take for truth the old adage that silence implied consent, then it was clear that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the hon. and learned Gentleman sitting in the House. There was no more reason for this official to sit in the House than for many other learned gentlemen who occupied analogous positions. The House should either admit all or admit none. He should not object to a Bill throwing over the statute of Anne altogether, and allowing the Counsel for all the Departments to sit in Parliament. There were altogether seven Standing Counsel for different offices, and he saw no reason why legislation should take place for a particular case.

said, he approved the Bill, on the ground that constituencies ought to have the fullest freedom of choice in the selection of representatives, and that restriction by disqualification was opposed to the policy which ought to govern our legislation. The statute of Anne was obsolete, because it was passed under the influence of jealousy lest the Crown should obtain undue influence in that House. But the House now, indirectly, appointed the advisers of the Crown, without whose advice the Crown could do nothing. One objection to the restriction was that it was technical. An officer appointed by the Crown could not sit in the House, but one appointed by the Ministry could. The Secretaries to the Treasury and the Admiralty did not, on appointment, vacate their seats, because they were appointed by the Lords of the Treasury and the Admiralty. It would be easy, therefore, to secure an officer a seat in that House by providing that he should be appointed, not by the Crown, but by the Ministry. The restriction was therefore a delusion, because it was grounded on technicalities; and if Mr. Forsyth had been appointed, not by the Crown, but by the noble Lord at the head of the India Office, he might have sat in the House. The thing was absurd, and could not be justified. He was sorry the Bill did not extend to other cases; but that was no reason why they should not deal with this case. He accepted the Bill as an instalment towards a desirable consummation when every constituency should possess the fullest liberty in the choice of its representatives.

said, that the Bill was directed against an absurdity. The statute of Anne was passed when there was a contest between the aristocracy and the Crown, and that contest had entirely passed away. The aristocracy fancied that the Crown might acquire power in the House of Commons; but we were now living under new circumstances, and the real qualification for a seat in that House was the vote of a constituency. Lord Macaulay made a remarkable speech in that House upon the question of the Master of the Rolls being entitled to sit there, while other Judges were excluded. Doubtless that was one of the anomalies that ran through our laws on the subject. A Lord of the Admiralty vacated his seat when he was appointed, but a Secretary of the Admiralty did not, because the former was appointed by the Crown and the latter by the Lords of the Admiralty. The slightest alteration of arrangements would enable the Ministry to bring in whom they pleased, provided the persons had constituencies; and if the counsel to the India Board were appointed by the Board instead of by the Crown, he could sit in the House. Why that course was not adopted he did not know. No man in his senses could imagine that the Crown could acquire undue influence in the House through inducing a constituency to send into the House a person appointed to an office by the Crown. The Bill would effect good to the extent of doing away with one anomaly, and it was an odd reason for opposing it that it did not abolish other anomalies. Our whole legislation had been piecemeal, and expe- rience showed that it was advantageous in the long run to abolish grievances piecemeal, and not by wholesale.

said, he must explain why he stood in the somewhat anomalous position of supporting the Amendment while his name was on the back of the Bill. It was his own fault entirely, and not that of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn), that he wrongly understood the object of the Bill. He had supposed it was designed to appoint a sort of Attorney General for India, to advise the Government, and to go in and out like other officers of the Government. To such an officer he could not see any objection, as Indian law was a special subject with which the generality of English lawyers were not familiar, and if the statute of Anne stood in the way of the appointment of such an officer it would prevent the appointment of a useful one. But if the proposal was that the counsel was to be a permanent officer he saw considerable objection to it. It was undesirable to let the Government appoint an officer who was practically irremovable, and who, being fully acquainted with all the details of the policy of a Government, might not agree with it, and might from his place in the House oppose it. It appeared to him that there would be considerable practical inconvenience in the appointment of an officer who, he understood, would not go in and out with the Government, but would be irremovable. He should, therefore, vote in favour of the Amendment.

said, he regretted that any misapprehension on the subject should have existed in the mind of his hon. and learned Friend; and if the forms of the House would allow it he should be ready to move that the name of his hon. and learned Friend should be at once struck off the back of the Bill, especially as the speech just delivered had convinced him that even now the hon. and learned Member had not read the Bill, and did not understand its provisions. His anxiety had been to divest this Bill of anything like a party character, and he was therefore desirous to have two Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House to support the Bill. One of those Gentlemen, who, he understood, was favourable to the principle of the Bill, was the hon. Member for East Surrey, and the other his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken, and whose only doubt, he then believed, was as to the two sections of the statute of Anne. He (Mr. Selwyn) had never thought of creating any new office, but the object of the Bill was merely to remove an exclusion which was not merely an accident, but also an anachronism. The hon. and learned Serjeant (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee), who had moved the rejection of the Bill, seemed to think that he (Mr. Selwyn) had advocated the Bill upon personal considerations, but that he altogether denied, and he would not, therefore, speak of the Gentleman who held the office at the present time. It was plain that this exclusion was merely the result of accident. If there had been any doubt on the subject before, it must have been removed by the statement of one of the Members of the Committee—Sir James Fergusson—who said they did not at all dispute the proposition laid down that if the office were an old one, the transfer of patronage to the Crown did not make it a new office; but that their decision was founded upon the circumstance that the Act required a scheme, and that this office was included in the scheme. When the Act of 1858 was passed the office in question was held by Mr. Loftus Wigram, who at that very time sat in that House as one of the representatives of Cambridge University. That being the case, it was impossible to doubt that the question as to the exclusion from Parliament of the holder of that office must have been present to the minds of the framers of that Act, and of the Legislature which passed it. The members of the Counsel were expressly excluded, but the Standing Counsel was not, and if it had been intended to exclude him the Act would doubtless have declared it. The hon. and learned Serjeant must be singularly ignorant of the position occupied by Mr. Wigram if he supposed that, for the sake of retaining this office, he would ever have resigned his seat for the University of Cambridge. But this exclusion, besides being an accident, was also an anachronism, and a proof of that was to be found in the speech of the hon. and learned Serjeant, who had said that the power of the Crown was increasing, had increased, and ought to be diminished. That statement might be left to answer itself. Lord Macaulay, in a memorable speech on the proposed exclusion from Parliament of the Master of the Rolls, said that nothing could be more unreasonable, or more inconvenient, than the rule which laid down that the holder of an office created since the 25th of October, 1705, should not be a Member. He added—

"A great jurist seated among us might, without taking any prominent part in the strife between the Ministry and the Opposition, render to his country most valuable service, and earn for himself an imperishable name. Nor was there ever a time when the assistance of such a jurist was more needed, or more likely to be justly appreciated, than at present."

But it bad been objected that it would be exceedingly inconvenient to take the opinion on matters of Indian policy of a person who might have been appointed by a Whig Government and who would consequently be in opposition to the Conservative Secretary of State. This objection, however, bad been conclusively answered by Lord Macaulay in the speech which had been already referred to. The truth was that the House would not require from a legal officer an opinion on matters of policy, but simply information as to matters of fact. As an instance of this he might refer to the debate of Wednesday last on the sale of banking shares, when the Solicitor General was asked by an hon. Member opposite as to what were the limits of the liability of partner's who had retired from associations of that kind. So as to the right of adoption question, the Standing Counsel to the Indian Secretary would be asked, not what was his opinion on the policy of adoption, but what was the fact respecting the terms in which treaties were usually drawn up in India. He could not help thinking it would be a very great convenience if there were an officer in the House who could answer questions of that nature, and that consequently the exclusion of the holder of the office was a great disadvantage to the House of Commons. There never was a time when such assistance was more requisite as would be evident if they regarded the increase of trade between this country and India, and the importance of our relations with the Native Princes of that country. On ordinary questions of law, if information were wanted by any Member of the House, an appeal might be made to the Law Advisers of; the Crown; but the questions with which the Counsel for India would have to deal would be of a very difficult and of a special character. Then, as to the inconvenience of such an officer being permanent, and to his being called upon to serve alike under a Whig and a Tory Government, he would point, by way of analogy, to the Counsel to the Admiralty, in which case no such inconvenience had been felt, though the successive holders of that office bad sat in the House for many years. It was true as the hon. and learned Serjeant had said, that there are many barristers who would be glad to accept this office, but the Secretary of State was bound to choose, not amongst the hundreds of briefless barristers, but amongst those who had deserved and obtained professional success; he was bound to look out for a man who could worthily fill the office; and men of that class usually aspired to a seat in the House of Commons, and would therefore decline an office which was subject to such a condition. The choice of the Secretary of State would thus be materially limited, and by insisting on this exclusion a great injury would be inflicted on the public service.

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

said, that as a Member of the Committee which sat last year and unseated Mr. Forsyth, he might state that the only ground on which that gentleman was unseated was the accidental circumstance that in the Act of 1858 there was a clause requiring the Secretary of State for India to submit a scheme constituting the establishment connected with his office, which fact alone tended to make Mr. Forsyth's office a new one under the Act of Anne. Moreover, the Committee were not unanimous in their decision. This might, therefore, fairly be viewed as a doubtful case which the Bill was introduced to meet. The case of the Members of the Indian Council was not parallel, for they were incapacitated to sit in Parliament by an express clause in the Act; whereas the learned counsel was accidentally disqualified merely because he formed part of the establishment of the Secretary of State. A salary of £500 a year was the sum paid to that gentleman, and if he was to be incapacitated on that account from sitting in the House, the only result would probably be that the Secretary of State would not have a Standing Counsel, but would refer to a person learned in the law for advice as occasion arose. It was absurd to suppose that an eminent counsel would be influenced in political matters in that House by a salary of £500, At the same time, that particular case could not perhaps be wholly dissevered from many others of a similar kind; and he would suggest that the Motion and the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Selwyn) should consent to refer the subject to a Select Committee to be dealt with on broader and more general grounds.

said, if such was the feeling of the House, he was very willing to accede to it.

said, the policy of the law was entirely against the admission to that House of any persons who were appointed by the chiefs of the public Departments.