said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of a cattle-drover named James Bell, who, wrongfully convicted at the Middlesex Sessions of March 1868, on a charge of sheep stealing, was sentenced to five years' penal servitude; whether it is not the fact that his innocence of the alleged offence was fully proved after he had suffered six months of his sentence, and that the guilty parties were detected and punished; whether Bell has not Memorialized the Home Office, praying for an investigation into his case, and for the expenses incurred by his relatives in their prolonged efforts to prove his innocence, and bring the real culprits to justice; and also for some compensation for his own sufferings of mind and body during an imprisonment of six months, previous to his receiving a free pardon; whether the expenses of a Mr. Guerrier, who interested himself in Bell's case, have not been paid by the Crown; and, if so, on what ground were the expenses of Bell's relatives refused to be paid; and, whether the evidence which led to an innocent man's conviction was not that of three members of the police force?

said, in reply, that the case of James Bell had been decided by his predecessor. James Bell, a cattle-drover, was convicted at the Middlesex Sessions of March, 1868, and sentenced to five years' imprisonment, on the evidence of three policemen, who swore to his identity. There could be no doubt they were mistaken. The matter was taken up by Mr. Guerrier, a cattle salesman in London, who expended a large sum in investigating the case. The innocence of the man was proved to the satisfaction of his (Mr. Bruce's) predecessor, and a free pardon was granted. Mr. Guerrier's expenses were paid by the Government. He was not aware that any application was made by Bell's relatives for the payment of the expenses incurred by them; but, if so, they would have stood in the same position as Mr. Guerrier. With regard to compensation to Bell for his wrongful imprisonment, it belonged to a class of cases unhappily large and of a painful character. It had never been the practice of the Government to grant compensation to an unfortunate man for the result of a mistaken verdict. If the principle were applied to criminal cases it must be extended to civil cases where loss and suffering had been inflicted. Numerous applications of a similar character had been made to the Home Office and refused. The case of Barber was an exception, to the general rule, as it was investigated by a Committee of the House of Commons, and a special Parliamentary Grant was made.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, "Whether there has been any change in the agency of the Bank of Bengal at Bombay?

said, in reply, that there had been no change whatever in the policy of the Government in this matter, as lately announced by himself in answer to the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. G. B. Gregory); and he might add that he thought it to the last degree improbable that there would be any change.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government have considered the propriety of providing some additional means for the transaction of Public Business connected with Scotland?

Sir, this subject, in consequence of the representations of many Scotch Members, has been for some time under the notice of the Government. I am sure it will be generally admitted that the business of Scotland has been conducted with great ability and efficiency for many years by the Lords Advocate, and by the present Lord Advocate, who brings so much learning and experience to the discharge of that office. But it has been represented by many Members connected with Scotland that there is a great deal of administrative business which is not of a legal character, and which, in their opinion, may be more appropriately lodged in hands not legal. In the second place, it has been represented to the Government that there are various establishments in Edinburgh in which it will be perfectly practicable to make improvements and economies in case the Parliamentary strength were increased so as to be available in this House for the management of Scotch affairs. These two principal allegations have been submitted to the Government. The second of these representations, it is quite evident, is the essential portion of the case. The course we propose to take is, during the Recess, by such administrative means as are at our command, to make inquiry into the establishments now existing at Edinburgh, which are available for Scotch business, with a view to ascertain how far economy in those establishments, by their abolition, reduction, and modification, may be rendered practicable in the event of the appointment of any new Parliamentary officer for the transaction of Scotch business. We will prosecute that inquiry as well as we can during the Recess. It is perfectly possible that when Parliament meets again, and the result of such an inquiry is presented, hon. Members may think that a Parliamentary Inquiry in furtherance and prosecution of the same purpose may be desirable. We will do the best we can, but if a further investigation by a Parliamentary Committee should be deemed desirable by those specially connected with Scotland, and interested in the effective transaction of its affairs, we shall be perfectly ready to lend ourselves also to the further inquiry.

I should like to ask whether the proposed course of proceeding is taken by the Government in consequence of their being dissatisfied with the administration of Scotch affairs, or, whether it has been taken in consequence of representations made from without to the Government; and, if so, in what form and shape those representations have been made?

The inquiry we are ready to make did not arise from any observations made by the Government themselves, but arose out of a variety of communications made to us by Scotch Members. My right hon. Friend will, I am quite sure, understand that we think it our duty to ascertain the whole facts of the case before the time comes when it will be proper for us to form or express any opinion on the subject. With regard to the character of the representations, they were entirely informal, and of the same nature as those which are happily always in progress between Members of the Government, and the Members of this House.

This Bill relates to a subject of so much importance, that I should not be justified in moving that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair without explaining, in a few sentences, why such a Bill has been introduced and pressed on at the present period of the Session, although the occasion for such a measure is sufficiently notorious to dispense with any long explanation or defence of its provisions. In the early part of the Session representations were made to me respecting the unfortunate position in which some of the dioceses of the South of England were placed in consequence of the great age or infirmity of the Bishops charged with the care of those dioceses. I stated that the evil was undeniable, and required a remedy; but that it was very desirable that a matter of this kind should be considered in the first instance by the episcopal heads of the Church, and that the result of those counsels should be awaited by the Government. In harmony with that announcement, the Archbishop of Canterbury took measures to ascertain the sentiments of his episcopal brethren, and they came to the conclusion that it was necessary to pass, without delay, a general measure by which such cases might be met. The question then arose, what should be the scope and purport of that measure? In the framing of this Bill we had to take into consideration—for the Archbishop acted in concurrence with the Government—the very great difficulty of originating a comprehensive measure on this subject—a measure providing legislative enactments, under which, in every case where a Bishop was incapacitated either from mental or bodily infirmity, and quite independent of his will or choice, the appointment of an efficient episcopal superintendent might be secured. That, evidently, is the aim which Members both of this House and of the other House of Parliament have had in view. In the 3rd clause words have been introduced which, as the Bill now stands, would make it practicable to appoint a coadjutor, whether with the will or against the will of a Bishop who is incapacitated. And an hon. Member (Mr. Dickinson) has given notice of an Amendment going even further than that, and providing for a system of what may be called compulsory resignation. With respect to a Bill of so wide a scope as a Bill upon either of these bases would be, I would wish to point out that it is in our judgment wholly beyond the power of Parliament to grapple with it under present circumstances. Nor do I speak merely of the date which we have now reached —the first week in August; there has been no part of the present Session, crowded as it has been with most important business, when we could have undertaken in this House to go through the provisions of an Act involving a matter of such extreme delicacy as the power of removing against his will a great public officer — to call him nothing else—like the Bishop of a dio- cese, who is supposed to have fallen into a state of incapacity for the discharge of his duties. To pass such a measure would be a most arduous undertaking, since we have not taken the same course in the case of other functionaries enjoying great public emoluments. I am not saying that a time may not come when we might find it necessary to take some step of the kind; but I think it better that we should apply a remedy to present inconveniences and should stop short of questions so difficult and thorny as those we should have to encounter if we attempted to pass a law to enact, in certain cases, compulsory episcopal resignation. The leading provisions in the measure as introduced by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the other House of Parliament—and as I should propose that this House should agree to them— are two. It is proposed that any Archbishop or Bishop in England, being incapacitated by age or by some mental or physical infirmity — it may be well, perhaps, to insert the word "permanent" —so as to imply that he shall be really and permanently incapacitated from the discharge of episcopal duties — shall have adjusted for him certain terms on which he may resign; and, subject to the responsibility of the Ministry of the day, who will be bound to be satisfied that this is a legitimate transaction, and who will be accountable for it as well as for all their other acts, a certain pension may be assigned to him. And not only a pension, but if Her Majesty should see fit, under certain circumstances, particularly of great age, the episcopal residence which he has hitherto enjoyed may be likewise assigned to him. It is it not necessary now to enter into the precise pecuniary terms on which these resignations are arranged; but we endeavoured in framing the Bill to make as fair a division as we could of the income between the incoming and the outgoing Bishop, with reference to the respective needs of each. There is a proviso in a clause which relates to the case of a Bishop appointed before the year 1832. I was not aware of that proviso till the Bill reached this House. I presume it was to meet one particular case; and though there is much to be said in its favour, still an amendment in the proviso will be requisite, the reasons for which I shall state when we come to the clause in Committee. There is also a series of clauses, beginning with the third, which refers to the appointment of coadjutor Bishops. As far as the Government are concerned, I must beg the Committee, forming a judgment upon these clauses, to suppose that the Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper has been carried. The clause, as amended, would then run to this effect. When a Bishop is incapacitated by permanent mental infirmity, a coadjutor Bishop, with right of succession, may be appointed, and, subject to the conditions of the Act, may assume episcopal jurisdiction in the diocese. The clause as to resignation may be called wholly new; no such provision exists in our law at present. In 1856 an Act was passed to enable two particular Bishops to resign upon specified terms; but it was extensively felt that it was objectionable to appear to make such retirements a subject of pecuniary bargains with individuals, and that the proper method would be to lay down a general law applicable equally to all. With respect to the subject of the 3rd clause, the appointment of a substitute for a Bishop mentally incapacitated, this legislation is not altogether new; and I hope hon. Members will be good enough to consider this clause in conjunction with the provisions at present upon the statute book. Under an Act passed by the Government of Sir Robert Peel, if a Bishop is mentally incapacitated two things may be done. In the first place, an episcopal person—that is to say, a person who has received episcopal consecration, may be appointed to perform episcopal acts in his diocese, and in the second place, a non-episcopal person may be appointed to perform those acts of jurisdiction which do not require the episcopal character. What I would submit is, that this is a very unsatisfactory method of making provision for the oversight of a diocese, and that the 3rd clause makes a great practical improvement in the law. It is not the mere perfunctory discharge of certain duties, such as the institution to benefices or the correction of clerks, nor yet the more strictly episcopal acts of confirmation or the consecration of churches; it is not the mere mechanical performance of duties that you want, but the living influence of the man whose work it is to promote the work of the Church in the diocese standing in the public eye, subject to obser- vation, to criticism, and to all the sense of responsibility attaching to a duly appointed Bishop. And our proposal is that, instead of these merely makeshift provisions, we should adopt a plan under which, speaking generally, the patronage of the Crown that would accrue in the see should be anticipated, and a man appointed at once, with restricted emoluments, and subject to a variety of conditions set out in the Act, but who, except as regards these conditions and restrictions as to emoluments, should be devoted to the diocese and bound to carry on his work, exactly as if he were a Bishop in full possession. These are the two leading propositions of the Bill, and it is on the basis of these two propositions that I trust the House will be disposed to entertain the measure. For certainly the practical evil that it aims to redress is a very serious one, and is felt by the inhabitants of no very inconsiderable portion of England. The right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) the other night, in the course of the few words which he uttered, said it would be desirable to restrict the operation of this measure to a limited period of time; to that I cheerfully accede. I think it very desirable for two reasons. In the first place, it is sufficiently plain that this principle of resignation, although the need of it be more urgent in the case of Bishops, yet applies equally to parochial incumbents and to cathedral officers, subject to proper guards and checks, which will have to be carefully considered, remembering how large a proportion of clerical patronage is in private hands, and that some of it, as in the case of advowsons, may be classed as a marketable commodity. That is a reason why we shall do well not only to contemplate, but to secure a return of the attention of Parliament to this subject, in order, after the short experience which this Bill will give us,—after a couple of years,—that we may be in a position to judge how far its provisions are capable of extension to other members of the Church. It is also obvious that the remedy which we are now providing may not be altogether sufficient—it may not be the best which the particular circumstances of the case admit of, and in this view, accordingly, it will be very desirable that the matter should be further considered by Parliament. I hope I have sufficiently explained and vindicated the provisions of the third clause as they are proposed by the Government; but I would just say one word in justification of the view taken by the Government and the Archbishop of Canterbury when the Bill was introduced. The words at present in the clause enable a coadjutor to be appointed, not only in the case of mental but physical infirmity. We have, therefore, to contemplate, as a consequence of that provision, inteference in a diocese where the Bishop, being or being supposed to be, physically incapacitated from the discharge of his duties, is unwilling to resign. Consequently, this is to be a coercive process. And if it is to be coercive it is evident that it will require a set of provisions most carefully framed and most elaborately guarded to prevent the process being put into operation where it is not fully justified, or without, due consideration of private rights. These provisions, which are supposed to refer merely to cases of mental incapacity, would not be adequate in any manner such as justice would demand if we were to contemplate, not the actual removal of the Bishop by coercion, but the virtual supplanting of the Bishop by placing all his ecclesiastical powers in the hands of a coadjutor Bishop. Another objection of a practical character that has been taken is this. I think it is conclusive. By the 3rd clause the power given in the case of a Bishop being physically incapacitated is not to be put in force unless he shall have failed adequately to provide for the performance of his duties. Everyone will see what would happen under this clause. It is not merely what the Bishop would do, but what the family of the Bishop would do. We should have a number of what are called stop-gap Bishops, makeshift Bishops, stray Bishops returned from the colonies or elsewhere, and we should have again that perfunctory and mechanical performance of the duties set up before the world which would be a blind and a delusion, but which at the same time would totally prevent the Archbishop from declaring that adequate provision had not been made for the discharge of the duties of the incapacitated Bishop. I think that the House will be satisfied that the attempt to extend this clause is unwise, and that if we are to seek to introduce coercive powers at all we must do so at a period when we have more time at our disposal in which to consider with care what safeguards shall be adopted in incorporating such a provision into our law. I think that is all I need now say, and therefore I beg to conclude by moving that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair.

said, he rose on this occasion with considerable reluctance, because this measure had come down from the other House with the authority of the Bishops and of the Government, and therefore it could not be said to be an ill - considered Bill. The Bill had been carefully considered during the early part of the Session, and the circumstances which had given rise to it had been long notorious. It was therefore to be expected that it would have at once commended itself to the good sense of the House, but he was sorry to say that it failed to do so. He did not think the measure took a proper view of episcopal duties and episcopal responsibilities. The Bill provided in a general way for filling up a bishopric when the existing Bishop was incapable of performing its duties. No doubt such a state of things as was contemplated by the Bill was a great evil and scandal, for which some remedy must be found, but while the evil was simple the remedy was equally simple. A Bishop should be treated in the same way as any other public functionary. A Bishop was a public functionary who received public pay for the performance of public duties, and when he was incapable of discharging those duties other provision should be made for their proper discharge, and the emoluments of the office should go to the person who discharged them. He admitted that there was a difficulty in dealing with freehold offices when they were called on to abolish them, because they were open to the argument that the incumbent was ready to go on performing his duties, but that was not the case here. The holder of every public office held it on the condition that he was at all times ready to perform its duties, and he had no right to take the pay of the State when he could no Longer perform them. It was for the House to consider whether they would sanction a system of buying out incompetent officials. The question was a serious one as to whether they would extend the principle of giving large retiring allowances to people who, from age or other circumstances, were no longer able to perform their duties. No public officer who became incapacitated should be entitled to more than a fair superannuation allowance, and he approved of the principle that such allowance should be provided for out of the emoluments of the successor. In parts of this Bill there was a looseness to be condemned or a casuistry which was very suspicious. In one clause it provided for the resignation of a Bishop or Archbishop, who was in capacited by age, or mental or physical infirmity from the due performance of his duty; but, in the next or coercive clause, incapacity from age was entirely left out, so that a man who could not leave Ms bed might still continue to be a Bishop. His (Mr. Dickinson's) view was that when a Bishop was incapable he should cease to be a Bishop, and instead of having a coadjutor appointed to do his work, they should have the real article in the shape of another Bishop appointed in his place. An incapacitated Bishop ought not to retain his seat in the House of Lords, or they might have a lunatic Bishop sitting and voting on great questions of State policy. The 3rd clause of the Bill provided that there should be no power to turn a Bishop out of his office if he himself had made arrangements for the due performance of his duties. The 1lth clause related to Archbishops, but it did not remove them for mere bodily infirmity, but only for mental infirmity; so that there was one law for a Bishop and another for an Archbishop. Instead of having a clear and simple cure for a clear and simple evil, there was to be this complicated state of affairs. And then the Bill, instead of being permanent, was only to be a temporary measure, which made it a great deal more objectionable. When the present cause of scandal was removed, probably nothing more would be heard of the subject until the next scandal arose. If a good and effectual reform could not be introduced, it would be better that the scandal should remain until a sound and complete measure could be framed. This was not a case in which tentative measures were necessary, because the nature of the evil for which a remedy ought to be applied was perfectly well known. Then, as to the question of resignation or deprivation, he was astonished at the mode in which the incomes of the Bishops were disposed of by the Bill. When a Bishop who was permanently incapacitated from the discharge of his duties retired into private clerical life, he should have only such an allowance as was sufficient for him in his altered position. The Archbishop of Canterbury had, he believed, £ 15,000 a year, and the Archbishop of York also had a very large annual income; but, in each of these cases, as in that of all the other Bishops, the income was given because of the dignity and responsibilities of the office, and not because the office was filled by a particular individual. Great demands were made upon them; and when a new Bishop took the place of one who retired from incapacity, he should surely have the means of performing all the accessories of the office in the shape of subscriptions to works of charity and usefulness. Now this Bill provided that if a Bishop resigned voluntarily he should receive one-third of his income, or £2,000 a year, whichever sum happened to be the larger; but the incapacitated Bishop who refused to resign was to be left in possession of Ms palace, and to receive the whole of his income, with the exception of the sum paid to the coadjutor who was appointed, and which, in the case of a Bishop, was £2,000 a year; in the case of the Archbishop of York, £3,000 a year; and in the case of the Archbishop of Canterbury, £4,000 a year. An incapacitated Archbishop of Canterbury, therefore, might receive £ 11,000 a year, while the person who did all the work would get only £4,000. If this had been a Motion for the second reading of the Bill, he should have moved its rejection; but, as it was, he hoped the House would be able to remedy its defects in Committee, and with that view he had given notice of several Amendments, to the effect that the person appointed to fill up a see, under the provisions of this Bill, should not be a Bishop coadjutor but a real Bishop, receiving the chief emoluments of the office.

said, that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Dickinson) had answered his whole speech by the first two or three words of it. In his first sentences the hon. and learned Gentleman said he could not see the difference between a Bishop and any other public functionary, and therefore he thought that a Bishop should have his pay only as long as he could perform his work. The civil office which was most analogous to the office of Bishop was that of Judge. A Judge had a nominal salary of £ 5,000 a year but an actual one of £ 4,500, as about £500 a year of his salary wont in circuit expenses. A Judge after fifteen years' service might retire of his own free will on a retiring allowance of £3,500, though he might be in the full vigour of his mind, and quite as capable, if not more so, of performing his judicial functions as he was at the time of his elevation to the Bench. This retiring allowance of £3,500 was saddled on the Consolidated Fund; but under this Bill the Bishop who had to retire from mental incapacity, and who was in all probability very old, would have to share his pittance with the Bishop appointed to discharge the diocesan duties. The country was not saddled with any burden in the matter. The freehold office had to keep the new Bishop and the poor old retired clergyman. He believed that Bishops were something more than mere stipendiaries of the State, and he was anxious to see that view enforced, even though it might, as in this case, touch the pockets of the Bishops themselves; but assuming with the hon. and learned Gentleman that they were no more than episcopal servants of the State, ought they not to be treated as well as its judicial servants? He thought his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government was adopting a judicious course in confining legislation on the subject at present to the immediate wants of the case, and in leaving the general question of parochial as well as diocesan provision for another time. He hoped that the House would be allowed to go into Committee on the Bill.

said, he rose to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill this day three months. Parliament had passed a Bill this Session depriving, after a certain time, the Irish Bishops of the right to sit in the House of Lords. That had been done for the purpose of establishing religious equality in Ireland; but he contended that the principle of religious equality was not fully established in this part of the United Kingdom so long as the English Prelates had seats in the Upper House, while at the same time the Nonconformists of England had no representatives, and indeed desired to have none, in the House of Lords, and Scotland had long dispensed with episcopal representation. The Churchmen in this country formed only half the population, and he had reason to believe that a majority of their body were desirous that Bishops should be removed from the House of Lords. That sentiment was constantly growing, and very shortly it would prevail. In the interest of the Church of England it was desirable that her Bishops should be relieved from the political services in which they were engaged, and should bestow their exclusive attention on the affairs of their dioceses. Had the Bishops, during the present Session, been faithful to Protestantism? Nine of them, forgetful of their professions of loyalty to Protestantism, for supporting which they received their pay, voted in favour of endowing the Catholic Church, to the indignation and grief of the members of the Church of England—they were, in fact, in favour of giving £2,000,000 as hush-money out of the funds of the Irish Church, if the members of that Church, on its disestablishment, were allowed to go off with £10,000,000. All Catholic Peers, in the House of Lords, on the part of their Catholic brethren, indignantly refused to accept hush-money from their natural foes. During the last thirty years an opinion had been growing in this country that the Bishops must leave the House of Lords. He should like to know what the First Minister thought of the conduct of the Bishops in the House of Lords. They had attacked the character of that right hon. Gentleman, whose name would go down to posterity as that of a man who had achieved probably the greatest work on record. He (Mr. Hadfield) would not be satisfied if this Bill were allowed to proceed. It was an unseasonable measure, and he hoped the First Minister would postpone it till another Session. Last year twenty-one Prelates voted against the Suspensory Bill, and this year all the Prelates voted against the Irish Church Bill, except one, who voted for it, but that Bishop having voted for it once, never did so again. There was an interest in another place inimical to the interests of the United Kingdom. A Notice was given in this House that the state of the Church in Wales should be considered next Session; and an hon. Member had intimated that he would try the question next Session whether Bishops should or should not retain their seats in the House of Lords. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) was alarmed at the progress of Ritualism, and was resolved to bring forward the question, and had given notice of his intention to do so. All these things showed that there would be no rest for the Prime Minister until he eased the public mind as to the presence of those Gentlemen (the Bishops) in the other House. He should like to call attention at a future period to the history of the Bishops since the Revolution. ["Question."] He would say no more on that subject at present; his opinions on removing the Bishops from the House of Lords would be heard throughout the length and breadth of the country, and he would now move, as he had intimated, that the House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee.

I am very sorry, Sir, to say, after the best consideration I can give to this important Bill, in the very limited time allowed for the consideration of it, I shall feel it my duty to vote with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) if he goes to a division. As a permanent measure the Bill is admitted to be thoroughly defective; and that admission is made by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government for limiting the operation of the Bill to two years. The Bill deals with only one corner of a great subject. Perhaps the House is not aware that there is a prohibitory statute which renders it penal for the inferior clergy to resign under the circumstances in which this Bill will sanction the resignation of Bishops. That being the state of the law, I ask—Is it right that we should pass an Act of Parliament expressly providing for that step being taken by incapacitated Bishops which we have made it penal for the inferior clergy to take? I think that neither the Bishops who framed this Bill nor the Government can have given any attention to the state of the law upon the subject. In this respect alone, then, the Bill is most thoroughly deficient and incomplete, and as a permanent measure it cannot be defended for a moment. Therefore the First Minister is right in proposing to limit its operation to two years, and the ground is taken from under all argument based on the permanent advantages to be derived from the Bill. Regarding it, then, as a temporary measure, we know that it is de- signed to meet two or three particular cases referred to by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Dickinson). One is that of the see of Winchester and another that of the see of Exeter. A more munificent Prelate than the Bishop of Winchester never adorned the Episcopal Bench; the generosity of spirit he has displayed on the Ecclesiastical Commission, and which I have had the opportunity of knowing, has been most exemplary. He has not been placed under the restrictive system established by the Church Commission Act; he holds the estates of the see under arrangements which come down from the time of the Reformation; and, if rumour speaks truly, the income derived from them in modern times is something like £16,000 or £18,000 a year. No one appreciates more highly than I do the eminent character of the right rev. Prelate; but are we really about to provide that he shall have a retiring pension of something like £6,000 a year? In point of wealth the bishopric of Exeter is far below that of Winchester. The see of Exeter, which is also held upon the old tenure and not under the Church Commission Act, is one of the poorest; and I believe the income is something less than £2,000 a year. For years the Bishop has been totally incapacitated for discharging the duties of the see, and it is proposed to pension him with £2,000 a year, a sum equivalent to the whole income of the bishopric. Of course, no one would wish to see a Prelate of such distinction and ability left to starve because he is incapable of discharging his duties; but what is the fact? It is well known that the Bishop enjoys one of the prebends of Durham Cathedral; his income from this source is supposed to be £5,000 or £6,000 a year, and the office is a sinecure, the only duty attaching to it being that of residence for a certain time in a beautiful cathedral town. Ought not that income to be sufficient for the Bishop of Exeter? Ought not he to feel that the duties of his episcopate are, as far as he is concerned, entirely neglected because he is unable to discharge them? The comparatively humble revenues of the Bishop of Exeter might surely be surrendered for the appointment of a Bishop to discharge those duties. As far as I know the facts of those two cases, I must say I think we are hardly justified in making the special arrangements provided by this Bill in order to meet them. I cannot help urging on the Government the propriety of dealing with the whole subject of the retirement of Bishops and clergy in a more general way. I admit that provision should be made for retiring allowances, but I contend that in these two particular instances about as little of a case has been made out as possibly could be made. I shall therefore vote for the Amendment.

said, he had come down to the House to give his humble assistance to the Government in carrying through this measure, which was of a strictly remedial character. He thought they had some reason to complain of the manner in which opposition was offered to the Bill at its present stage. The second reading had been agreed to without cavil or debate on Monday night. ["No, no!"] He repeated that the Bill had been read a second time without any opposition having been offered to it, and he submitted that it was contrary to all the usage and practice of that House that an Amendment of this kind should be moved on going into Committee without notice being given. His observations did not apply to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Dickinson) because he seemed to feel there was an obligation laid on him not to respond to the invitation made to him to move the rejection of the Bill. His observations applied to the Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), Bath (Mr. Dalrymple), and Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield). Perhaps the course taken by the hon. Member for Sheffield, with his well-known anti-episcopal views, should not excite much surprise, though even from him they had a right to expect some notice. But something different was to have been expected from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock. That right hon. Gentleman was an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, and was intimately conversant with questions such as that under discussion. He was, moreover, the greatest stickler for the observance of the minutest rules and forms of the House, and was ever ready to call those to Order who transgressed them. For him, therefore, to put himself forward to lead the Opposition against the Bill at that stage was certainly a most extraordinary thing. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, possessing as he did a full knowledge of the ecclesiastical revenues, might, at least, in going into the case have given the House a statement more consistent with the real facts than the one he had submitted. He led the House to believe that the Bishop of Exeter had an income of between £5,000 and £6,000 a year from his prebendal stall at Durham.

I have no knowledge of the fact myself, but it is generally understood that such is the case.

said, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to insinuate by that that he adopted the general understanding? Did he not from his position as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner know that the income of the Bishop referred to was only something between £3,000 and £4,000? [Ironical cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen might cheer, but he submitted that there was a great deal of difference between £ 3,000 and £5,000, and £4,000 and £6,000. When such a statement as that made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock was made ad invidium against a right rev. Prelate, the House had a right to demand a precise knowledge of the facts. In what way did. the right hon. Gentleman regard the question? First of all he started with a most extraordinary proposition. He urged the House not to pass this Bill as regarded the Bishops, because they would hereafter have to do something for the inferior clergy, That might or might not have been a good argument previous to the year 1856; but in that year Parliament passed Bills allowing the Bishop of London (Bishop Blomfield) and the Bishop of Durham (Bishop Maltby) to resign. It was, therefore, too late now to tell them that there was anything penal in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman further said that this was not a permanent Bill but a temporary one, and that it only applied to two Bishops. He (Mr. Mowbray) submitted that that was not a fair way of putting the case. The right hon. Gentleman exaggerated the incomes of the Bishops in order to create a prejudice against the Bill. Looked at properly it would be found that the Bill was general in its provisions, and it could be made applicable during the two years it was to remain in force to other cases besides those of the two right rev. Prelates. He did not at that period of the Session wish to detain the House with anything like a speech. He wished merely to give his support to Her Majesty's Government in a measure which he considered both timely and seasonable. It was quite true that it had come up at rather a late period of the Session; but the Prime Minister had told them early in the Session that the subject was likely to become matter of legislation. The hon. Member for Sheffield was naturally triumphant that Parliament had dis- established one branch of the Church of England, and he grudged that Church even the small remedial measure under discussion. But if they remembered that the Church of England was identified with the State and was of course subject to legislation, this small remedy ought not to be withheld. He considered that the Bill was a practical remedy for a practical grievance, and that it had been brought forward at the proper time. Both the hon. Members for Bath and Stroud, while objecting to the Bill, admitted that some system of resignation for Bishops was absolutely necessary. With respect to the second portion of the Bill, he thought that the slightest consideration of the arguments urged by the Premier must prove that whatever questions might arise as to coadjutor Bishops, the Bill was an improvement upon the law as it at present existed under the Act of 1843. He would not follow the hon. Member for Sheffield through all his references to profane history and the voluntary system. But he must protest against one of his remarks. The hon. Member claimed that the Nonconformists constituted a majority of the people of England; but how far that was the case might be judged of by the fact that in 1861 the Dissenters in the House opposed Lord Palmerston and Sir George Cornewall Lewis and prevented a religious Census of the people of the kingdom being taken. The hon. Member, therefore, had no right to appeal to imaginary numbers.

said, the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) proposed that an enumeration should be made throughout the kingdom.

said, he felt bound to bear his humble testimony to the urgent necessity in the South part of England for some practical measure of this kind being passed without delay. It was not necessary to go into details in answer to his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). He would not discuss the question of the precise income of these two Bishops; but his right hon. Friend knew very well the constant inconvenience in the Ecclesiastical Commission of not being able to refer to a responsible Bishop, or to bring his personal and moral influence to bear on any part of his diocese. He urged the Government to lose no time in pas- sing this measure as a practical remedy for a great and admitted evil. There was wisdom, he thought, in placing Parliament under the necessity of re-considering this matter in all its bearings, after a short experience in the working of this measure. He hoped the Government would not give way.

said, he had been most anxious the other night that this Bill should be explained, and it was only in consequence of the state of his right hon. Friend the First Minister's health that a full statement on the subject had not been given. He must say that the arguments used by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had convinced him that it would not be desirable to proceed with the Bill. This was a very wide question, and he thought it unfair to legislate for the heads of the Church, who had very large incomes, while they provided no retirement for the humbler clergy, with far smaller incomes.

wished to say a word respecting the conduct of the Dissenters at the last Census. He ventured to say that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mowbray) was a very in accurate statement indeed. The Dissenters merely objected to the Census being taken in a particular way. The Census of 1851 took an account of all who attended places of worship, and the results arrived at were most important; but under the Census of 1861 the Government proposed to ask each person to what denomination he belonged, and the great mass of inhabitants in large towns, who attended no place of worship at all, would have returned themselves as members of the Church of England. This led to statements which for statistical purposes were perfectly useless. If the present Bill had proposed to increase the number of Bishops in the House of Lords, he should have opposed it; but as it was only proposed for the purpose of re-placing in the diocesan work inefficient persons by efficient ones, he should support it.

said, that his constituents took great interest in this subject, in consequence of the unsatisfactory state of the diocese of Exeter for many years past. He should oppose the Amendment.

Sir, I am desirous of saying a few words in reference to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird). It was undoubtedly perfectly competent for any or all the Members of this House to oppose the principle of this Bill upon the Motion for your leaving the Chair. There can be no question about that. For myself, I took it as a great courtesy and kindness on the part of the House to allow, as it did, the second reading of the Bill to pass without discussion. I am bound to say that I conceive it quite possible the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) may have waived putting any Amendment on the Paper when he saw the Notice of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Collins) to move that the order for the second reading be discharged. With regard to the question itself, I think that the speeches we have heard from Gentlemen connected with the diocese of Exeter will weigh very greatly with this House, as well as the speeches made by Gentlemen opposite. It must be borne in mind that the Church of England is an Episcopal Church, and that it is presumed, whether rightly or wrongly, that a Bishop is of some use. But there happen, unfortunately, to be four or five dioceses of which it may almost be said that they have no Bishops, and all that we propose is to provide Bishops for them, provided the present holders of the sees are willing to cooperate with us. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Dickinson) says there is great difficulty connected with this question of retirement. I myself began by stating that if you are to frame an universal and compulsory system of retirement the matter would be most difficult. I, for one, should hesitate to set myself to such a work. But, as far as voluntary resignation goes, I venture to say that the difficulty is small. The resignation of Bishops is admitted by the ecclesiastical law; and so strongly did the House feel upon this matter of resignation in the year 1856, that it passed a Bill to enable two particular Bishops to retire. The real question is, whether or not we are prepared to apply a practical remedy to a very serious practical evil, and on that question I will now take the judgment of the House.

moved, in page 1, line 15, to leave out from "is" to "he" in line 16.

said, he thought it would be better to retain these words, as they set forth that the Bill was to proceed merely upon the principle of voluntary resignation. He was not sure whether that system would prove to be altogether sufficient; but if it did not, they might then proceed in the direction suggested by the Amendment. He had no objection to the insertion of the word "permanent" before "physical infirmity," as their desire was not only to encourage resignation where it was necessary, but to discourage it where it was not.

then moved in line 16, after "or," to insert "permanent."

said, the next Amendment of which he had given notice raised the question as to the amount of retiring allowances to Bishops and Archbishops. He could not admit the justice of the parallel sought to be established by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope). Judges came from a class in large and lucrative practice, and frequently sacrificed a large portion of their income on taking office. Bishops, on the contrary, came from a class not remarkable for large incomes; and the justification for the very high incomes which they received as Bishops was said to be that the emoluments were necessary for the office, not for the individual. A retired Bishop would have no social or public demands upon him calling for a large income; and during a long episcopacy he had many opportunities of providing for his family. The clause proposed that his allowance should amount to one-third of the income of the diocese, which he (Mr. Dickinson) thought was excessive. A larger portion of the revenues ought to remain with his suc- cessor, by whom the duties of the office were to be discharged. He further contended that there ought not to be different grades of retiring allowances for Bishops, but that they ought to be placed in the same category; they ought to have enough to maintain them in comfort, but not more. He should, therefore, move in line 27, to leave out from "such" to "pounds," in line 30, and insert "to the retiring Archbishop two thousand five hundred pounds, and to the retiring Bishop one thousand five hundred pounds." He first begged to move, in line 24, to leave out from "to" to "Bishop" in line 25.

said, that to give to this subject the full discussion which it might require would necessitate the introduction of a good deal of matter; but he would state shortly the view which the Government took, and he hoped it would commend itself to the Committee. Nothing was easier than to say that the Bishops, like the Apostles, ought to live according to evangelical poverty. Burke, however, had a very pregnant remark on that subject. He said, that undoubtedly all Bishops and clergy ought to have the mind of evangelical poverty, and to live in that spirit; but he added, although they might not be aware of it, that was equally the duty of the laity. And, certainly, throughout the New Testament, where the spirit of evangelical poverty was so strongly insisted upon, no clear distinction, that he had ever been able to find, was drawn between its application to the clergy and the laity. That, however, was one extreme view; the other was, that the Bishops should be treated as great Officers of State, the nearest analogy that could be found being that of a Judge. To the Judge, considering the relief which he gained from certain expenses, substantially three-fourths of his salary were given as a retiring allowance. According to the spirit of evangelical poverty, the Bishop, he supposed, ought to get no retiring allowance at all. But the line which the Government had drawn was one-third of his episcopal income. In framing a Bill of this kind it was absurd to leave out of sight all regard to the existing conditions of society. Parliament thought it desirable that there should be an Established Church, and also that very close relation should exist between the clergy and the rest of the community, with some relation also to rank. Further, it was justly thought of importance that there should be a married clergy, and hence the influence of the family upon the Bishop; and considerations of social status could not be excluded. The Government, accordingly, had taken the sum of £ 2,000 as that which would pretty fairly represent the minimum that would enable a person who had sat in the House of Lords to maintain his status with tolerable respectability; and they had introduced the provision as to one-third of the episcopal income as the general rule to which they wished this Bill to conform, being a very small allowance compared with that which was given to Judges. It might be perfectly true that the Archbishop of Canterbury, considered as a man, or considered as a gentleman, would be able to live upon the sum named in the Amendment. It must be remembered, however, that the Archbishop of Canterbury was the first subject after the Blood Royal, and that the Archbishop of York was the third. Under all the circumstances, he did not think the provision contemplated by the Bill for the members of the hierarchy could be regarded as extravagant, bearing in mind that many private gentlemen were in the enjoyment of fortunes of £20,000, £30,000, £40,000, £50,000, £60,000, and he knew not how many more thousands a year.

asked whether the retiring allowance in the case of the Bishop of Winchester was to be calculated on the scale named in the Bill, or upon one-third of his former income, which amounted, he believed, to £15,000?

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had stated that under the scale proposed the Bishop of Winchester would have a retiring allowance of £6,000 a year. He could not say he thought that an allowance of £6,000 a year was necessary for a gentleman who had occupied the position of a Bishop, but then it was not for the sake of individuals that this Bill had been brought forward. Its object was to get a see clear, in order that an efficient man might be put into it. Considering the subject from a pecuniary point of view, he might remark that he had not ascertained, as a fact, that the income of the Bishop of Winchester amounted to £18,000 a year; but, whatever it might be, he had no doubt that that excellent Prelate made a good use of it. Supposing the Bishop's income to be £ 18,000 a year, it was obvious that annual sum would become part of his private property as long as he lived and did not resign his see. Under this Bill, however, he would receive his pension of £ 6,000 a year. At the same time his successor would be paid the Parliamentary income of £ 7,000 a year, so that there would be an addition of £ 5,000 a year to the general funds of the Church applicable for incumbents. He trusted that this explanation would be satisfactory.

said, he was of opinion that the superannuation allowance ought not to be deducted from the income of the incoming Bishop.

said, that hon. Members should bear in mind that this was a measure to promote resignations; and, however anxious a Bishop might be to promote the welfare of his diocese, he could hardly be expected to reduce himself and his family to beggary. He knew that the Bishops, as a body of men, were torn to pieces by subscriptions. As the Prime Minister had truly remarked, the Church of England desired to have a married clergy; and how then was a Bishop or other clergyman who desired to devote a great portion of his income to charitable objects to make due provision for his family unless he insured his life? Probably, however, if his retiring allowance was made too small, he might be induced to let the insurance fall in, and thus his own family would be defrauded of their reasonable expectations. In a matter of this kind the highest generosity was the highest wisdom, and he trusted, therefore, that the Amendment would not be carried.

asked whether it was intended that the outgoing Bishop should retain his seat in the House of Peers?

explained that the Bill consisted of two parts. The first part had reference to the case of an absolute resignation, in which event the incoming Bishop would have full possession of the see, except that his revenues would be charged with the payment of his predecessor's pension. Of course, therefore, the retired Prelate would not continue to sit in the House of Lords. The second part related to the appointment of a coadjutor Bishop. In that case there would be two Bishops in the same see—one incapacitated, and the other doing the duty of the diocese. This was wholly different to the former case, because the coadjutor would not succeed to the see until the decease of the incapacitated Prelate.

said, he had now to propose an Amendment which would, he believed, meet the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Dickinson). If it were true that the Bishop of Winchester would, on resigning, be entitled to a pension of £ 6,000 a year, while the income of his successor would be only £ 7,000 a year, it would almost be an absurdity to make the pension payable out of the new Bishop's income. The House of Lords had accordingly provided that the £ 6,000 should be paid out of the common fund. But if the proviso became law the new Bishop of Winchester would, in the event of the present Bishop resigning, obtain his full salary without any charge upon it; whereas any person subsequently becoming Bishop of Winchester, would have his income charged with the payment of his predecessor's income. He, therefore, proposed that the proviso should be amended so as to run thus—

"Provided that if in the case of the retirement of any Bishop appointed before the year 1832, such retiring allowance should exceed the sum of £2,000, the excess shall be paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners out of their common fund."

The result would be that in the event of the retirement of the Bishop of Winchester £ 7,000 would be saved to the Church.

said, he desired to see sub-section 2, relating to episcopal residences, expunged from the clause. Every Bishop who resigned ceased to be a Bishop. ["No, no!"] It might not be so canonically, but, under this Bill, a Bishop who resigned was defunct as a Bishop. When a Bishop resigned, and a new Bishop was appointed, he maintained that the episcopal residence ought to go to the real Bishop, and not to be retained by the practically defunct one. Let them not seek to keep up the "sham" of having unreal as well as real Bishops. When a Bishop re-signed he should retire into private life; and the episcopal residence attached to the see should pass to the actual Bishop who did the work of the diocese. He would, therefore, propose the omission of sub-section 2 from the clause.

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. It was not intended by that portion of the Bill to lay down as a general rule that the retiring Bishop was to keep the episcopal residence. What was asked was that confidence should be given to the Advisers of the Crown up to this point, that if in a particular case they thought it expedient to assign an episcopal residence they should have power to do so. They would be responsible for that exercise of discretion, and if they exercised it wrongly they would be called to account as in regard to other matters where they had discretionary powers. If it were said— "Why should there be such confidence given to the Advisers of the Crown?" it was sufficient to reply that there might be some cases where it was desirable. He would take the case of the late Bishop Blomfield, who had been far gone in paralysis as the result of his almost superhuman and certainly his most indefatigable and untiring labours through a long and honourable episcopate. To have removed him in that condition from Fulham would have been cruel; and, at the same time, the term of his natural life could not, in all human probability, have been prolonged for more than a year or two. It was in view of such a case as that that this power was now asked for.

said, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted. It might be very difficult for the incoming Bishop to obtain a residence as convenient as the episcopal residence attached to the see; and the new Prelate would hardly be deemed to be a true and properly appointed Bishop, if he were not invested with the residence hitherto appertaining to the bishopric.

said, he regarded that as partly a question of social feeling and personal convenience, and partly a question of practical efficiency. It might be a hardship to ask an aged Prelate, who was suffering from nervous debility, to clear out of his private study. On the other hand, he could not see what great hardship it would be to the incoming Bishop if he were asked temporarily to provide himself with a plain unostentatious town residence in a hired house in. the scene of his labours until a more comfortable residence could be prepared for him.

said, he was in favour of leaving the clause as it stood.

said, that the case of the Bishop of Exeter, which had been repeatedly referred to, was not in point, as the Bishop did not reside at the episcopal palace in the City of Exeter, but in a splendid palace which had been built out of his funds at Torbay.

said, he thought that if they were dealing with deans, canons, or incumbents they would not insert a provision allowing a retiring dean to retain the deanery close to the cathedral, or a retiring incumbent to retain the rectory house, and he did not see why a different rule should be applied to a retiring Bishop.

said, he hoped they would not have any more cases in future of Bishops sticking to their bishoprics until they could not remove from their episcopal residences. At all events, if such a case occurred again, that matter should be left to the good feeling of the incoming Bishop. They ought not to make a rule for exceptional cases, and why were Bishops to be treated differently from other men?

suggested to insert after "Her Majesty may" the words "upon special grounds," as likely to meet the difficulties of the case.

proposed to strike out the word "any" in line 24, and insert the word "permanent."

said, the clause read now "by reason of permanent mental infirmity." He proposed to introduce after "mental" the words "or physical," and to add after "infirmity" "or age." The Bill as it came down. from the House of Lords provided for physical or mental infirmity, and, looking to what had occurred in certain dio- ceses, the House of Commons ought to proceed on that principle.

said, that a great many Members had waived their objection to the Bill on the understanding that it should be limited to mental infirmity. His hon. Friend was asking the Government to undertake one of the most difficult tasks of legislation— namely, while maintaining that regard for existing interests, which was always observed in this country, to arrange and adjust a machinery for ejecting a number of distinguished persons who held freeholds from offices with incomes of from £ 4,000 to £15,000 a year. That would be wholly beyond the means of the Government, and would be fatal to any enactment of the kind at the present period.

moved, at the end of the clause, to add "and such certificate shall be deemed to be a representation within the second section." His object was that in a case of mental infirmity there should be appointed a real instead of a coadjutor Bishop.

proposed, in line 6, after "privilege," to insert, "with the exception of a title to a seat in the House of Lords." If a Bishop was unfit for his episcopal duties, it was quite clear he was unfit for his legislative duties.

said, he would not dispute that primâ facie the Amendment appeared reasonable and proper. But if the retiring Bishop was not to retain his seat in the House of Lords, was the seat to pass to the coadjutor Bishop? ["No."] Well then, the hon. Baronet was opening a very large constitutional question, and he (Mr. Gladstone) should prefer its being raised broadly and directly. It was certainly an inconvenience and an anomaly that a person not in his right mind should have a seat in the House of Lords. But if Prelates afflicted with mental infirmity were to be turned out of the House of Lords, what was to be done with lay Peers similarly situated? Moreover, if this strict rule was adopted, a little legislation would be necessary for the House of Commons too, for upon one occasion an hon. Gentleman walked quietly out of a lunatic asylum, came down to the House, and gave his vote upon a question which involved the life and death of a Ministry, as the hon. Baronet would doubtless remember, for he was in the House at the time.

said, he was sorry the recording of this vote against the right hon. Gentleman should affect his view of the question before the Committee.

said, he remembered another case in which a Gentleman was brought in on the Liberal side of the House in 1841, and voted on a question of vital importance, having no mind at all.

asked whether it was intended that in the case of an Archbishop the coadjutor would simply exercise the episcopal duty of the see attached to the archbishopric.

answered in the affirmative.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that as he understood the Bill was about to be opposed by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) he would shortly remind the House of the history of the negotiations that had taken place. These negotiations began in 1865, when four of the Canadian Ministers came to this country to discuss with the Government of the day various questions connected with the confederation of the North American Provinces, among which came up this question with regard to the transfer of Rupert's Land to the Dominion of Canada. The Canadian Ministers said they were willing to treat for the transfer on the ground of an indemnity to be paid to the Hudson's Bay Company, provided that the loan to be raised for this purpose should be covered by an Imperial guarantee. This was agreed to by the Government of the day, and his right hon. Friend the present Secretary for "War, who was then Secretary for the Colonies, wrote a letter to the Governor General of Canada, in which he distinctly promised that if negotiations were entered upon for the transfer of Rupert's Land from the Hudson's Bay Company, and if those negotiations should be successful and a loan were required to be raised under the sanction of an Imperial guarantee, the Government would then apply to the Imperial Parliament to grant the required guarantee. This was in June, 1865. The next step took place in March of the present year, when Sir Frederick Rogers by direction of Earl Granville wrote to the Canadian Ministers, Sir George Cartier and Mr. M'Dougall, who had come over to this country as Canadian delegates to negotiate for the transfer, that if the negotiations were successful the Government would, on their part, be prepared to fulfil the expectations held out in Mr. Cardwell's despatch of the 17th of June, 1865, and would propose that the Imperial Parliament should guarantee a loan of £300,000 for the purpose of completing the transfer. There were two Acts of Parliament passed having reference to this matter, to which he must now refer. The one was the Act passed in 1867, and which was known as the Confederation Act. The other was an Act which was passed through both Houses without discussion last year, to enable the Hudson's Bay Company to transfer Rupert's Land to the Dominion of Canada. The third section of that Act had attracted the attention of his hon. Friend (Mr. Monk), and it was that on which he understood his hon. Friend mainly based his opposition to the second reading of the Bill. By that section the Government were empowered to negotiate with the Hudson's Bay Company the terms upon which the latter should surrender their rights and territories to the Dominion of Canada; and it was provided that those terms should not be accepted until they had been embodied in a deed of the company, and in an Address to the Crown from both Houses of the Legislature in the Dominion; and there was also a proviso that those terms of agreement should impose no charge on the Consolidated Fund. The question raised the other night was whether the effect of that section was not to estop and prohibit the Government from proposing to guarantee a loan that Canada was seeking to obtain in order to enable her to carry out the terms of the agreement with the Hudson's Bay Company, and to estop and prohibit Parliament— if one Parliament could estop and prohibit any other Parliament— from assenting to such a guarantee being given. He need scarcely say that such could not have been the intention of the parties concerned. At the time that the Act was passed negotiations were being conducted upon the understanding that the Government for the time being would propose to that House that such a guarantee should be given. The true meaning of the proviso was merely that Parliament should preserve its liberty of action in the matter. The intention was nothing more than this—that in the deed which embodied the terms of the surrender of the Hudson's Bay Company, and in the Address to the Crown from the two Houses of the Dominion which embodied the acceptance, there should be nothing which in any way decided the question of a guarantee; that it should be left free to the Government to propose and to the House to agree or not to agree to the guarantee as they might think proper. In accordance with that stipulation in the Act of last year neither the draft deed of surrender, nor the Canadian Address contained any allusion to an Imperial guarantee. He made this proposal to the House not as one of the terms which had been agreed on in those documents, but to carry out the old arrangement; even if the House were to think it expedient to reject this proposition of the Government, still it could not be denied that the Government were adhering to their old pledges and those of their predecessors, and that was his justification for making the proposition confidently to the House.

rose to move that the Bill be read a second time upon this day month. He regretted that the question was brought forward at this late period of the Session, and he must protest against the preliminary stages of measures of this importance being brought on—as had been the case with this Bill —at three o'clock in the morning or during the quarter-of-an-hour before six on a Wednesday afternoon, when it was impossible that they could be discussed. Under these circumstances, he did not think it necessary to apologize for taking the earliest opportunity that had offered itself of calling the attention of the House to this subject and of informing the British tax-payer of the nature of the additional financial burden which it was proposed by means of this measure to lay upon his shoulders. The sole ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman based this measure was, that in June 1865, a promise had been given by the Imperial Government to the Government of Canada that, in the event of the latter acquiring Rupert's Land by purchase from the Hudson's Bay Company, the former would propose to Parliament to guarantee a loan to enable that purchase to be carried into effect. He had two objections to offer to the Bill now before the House. In the first place, he objected altogether to the principle of guaranteeing loans to the colonies; and in the second place, he objected to this particular guarantee, which he believed to be opposed not only to the letter, but to the spirit, of the Rupert's Land Act of 1868. In objecting to the principle of guaranteeing loans to colonies, he claimed the support of the present Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both of whom, at the time when the proposed loan for the Inter colonial Railway of Canada was before the House, had expressed strong objections to loans of that character. The Prime Minister said the general system of colonial guarantees had come into just discredit within the walls of Parliament, and that it was only in cases of the highest urgency that they should be granted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went even further upon that occasion, and urged upon the House, if they were determined to grant the loan, to make, at least some stringent provisions that the money should not be spent for other purposes—that it should not stick to the fingers of those who had to handle it. These were truly prophetic words. He wondered whether the Government was now satisfied, or whether the Law Officers of- the Crown were satisfied with the temporary use made of that loan advanced for the Inter colonial Railway. His second objection was based on the words of the Rupert's Land Act, 31 & 32 Vict. c. 105. At the end of the third section there were these words—

"Provided, further, that no charge shall be imposed by such Terms upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

These words were plain enough: yet, in the face of that proviso, it was now proposed to impose a charge on the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of making good the purchase of Rupert's Land. The negotiations which led to the purchase had been entered into in the present year, but he contended that the words in the Act of last Session ought to have prevented Her Majesty's Government from entering into such an arrangement as that to which this Bill was intended to give effect. He granted that the Government had only gone the length of making a promise, the fulfilment of which was subject to the pleasure of Parliament; but the promise so made must be fulfilled in spite of the words of the Act of last Session. It might be said that Parliament was at liberty to undo this year what it had done last, but he did not think that was a course which his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government would recommend. He hoped the House would have some further explanation of the matter. He begged to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time upon that day month.

in seconding the Amendment said, what he desired was that the House should have some general statement from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, as to the principle on which the Government intended to act in respect of colonial grants. He believed that his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) did not mean to press his Amendment to a division if there was a clear and satisfactory understanding as to the policy which should guide the Government in future.

said, he had heard the speeches of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), and his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) with great satisfaction. He thought it obvious that they might put out of their minds the question raised a short time ago with regard to the intermediate transactions under the Railway Loan Act. The only use they could make of it was to take care that in this Bill the provisions with regard to the appropriation were sufficient. The subject was only relevant to that extent. His hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester need not have been afraid that any complaint would be raised against him by the Government; but on behalf of the Government he had to say that they had introduced this Bill first, on the ground of faith, and, secondly, on the ground of policy. The ground of faith was sufficient to justify the Government in recommending the arrangement to the House; but he was far from saying that because the Government were bound in the matter, Parliament was bound in it also. He did not say that because the Executive Government had entered into an arrangement of this kind, Parliament ought, therefore, to sanction it. When the Government of this country entered into any arrangements of this nature, everyone knew that Parliament was supreme. All the Government could do was to undertake to make a representation to Parliament. It could not bind Parliament; but, at the same time, Parliament had always felt it was not desirable to needlessly call in question any discretion exercised by the Executive Government. Parliament had not been in the habit of calling in question the discretion of Government as to such matters, unless it appeared that there had been an absence of reason in the exercise of that discretion. Thinking now as he thought in 1865, he thought that the engagements entered into by the Government with Canada at that time were amply justified by reason and prudence. He did not recede from the expressions which had been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. He was ready to repeat them. Before 1865 the practice had been growing up of giving guarantees to the colonies for local and secondary objects. He contended that such guarantees ought not to be given except for objects of broad Imperial policy; but the purposes in regard to which the Government of Lord Palmerston, of which he and his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) were Membest, entered into the engagement with Canada were, in the highest and strictest sense, Imperial purposes. No one knew better than his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester that in former times the North American colonies were entangled in a vicious system of dependence on this country. The Government wished to engender in them a spirit of independence in financial matters. They wished to wind up the old system and see the North American colonies make a new start in colonial life; but we could not have extricated ourselves from the vicious system to which he had referred without paying for it. Neither in public nor in private life could one escape the consequences of former errors without some cost. To put an end to the old system once and for all, the Government made arrangements with Canada which bound them to ask Parliament to assist the North American Provinces with the Imperial credit for purposes well known to the House. That was not to be a beginning, but an end. The House would remember the great transition through which our loyal fellow-subjects in Canada were passing at the time. The proposal of the Government was based on grounds the sufficiency of which he hoped his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment might be disposed to recognize. The Government were aware of their responsibility in the matter, but it was one which they felt themselves perfectly justified in assuming.

said, he objected to the Bill for two reasons. The first was that he believed it to be in contravention of the third section of the Rupert's Land Act, which had been read to the House. From a despatch, dated June 17, 1865, and sent by the present Secretary for War (Mr. Cardwell), who was then Colonial Secretary, to Viscount Monck, it appeared that, at a conference between four representatives of the Canadian Government and as many Members of our Government, the Canadian Ministers undertook to negotiate with the Hudson's Bay Company for the termination of their rights, on the condition that the indemnity, if any, should be paid by a loan to be raised by Canada under an Imperial guarantee—a proposal which was assented to on the part of the Crown; and, therefore, independently of the Rupert's Land Act, the Canadian Government had an assurance that the Government of Lord Palmerston would apply to Parliament to sanction a guarantee. In 1868 came the Rupert's Land Act, which empowered Her Majesty to receive the territory of the company, and hand it over to Canada, upon an Address from both Houses of the Canadian Legislature; and the Act contained words which secured us against any arrangement which could impose a burden upon the tax-payers of this country. The Act forbade such an arrangement, but the arrangement was made without it; and the Address of the Canadian Legislature expressed satisfaction that, in fulfilment of the expectation held out in the despatch of Mr. Cardwell, the English Government would be prepared to propose to Parliament an Imperial guarantee for the loan of £300,000 to be paid to the Company. It was perfectly clear that the letter of the Act was complied with, and its spirit departed from on a most vital point. It was clear the Canadian Government made the arrangement on the faith of the English proposing the guarantee; but if this guarantee were to be given, what confidence could be placed in the words of an Act of Parliament? The Act said an arrangement might be made to effect a certain object provided no charge was placed on the Consolidated Fund; and if such a charge were to be placed upon it Acts of Parliament would afford no security in the future. Some months ago a Gentleman, not now in the House, pointed out the clause, and said it was perfectly impossible that the guarantee could be given, and that was the impression it produced on all whose attention was called to it. The effect of it was to throw off their guard those who were opposed to guarantees, to prevent them from asking for Papers, and to deter them from calling attention to the subject. For these reasons he would support the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) if he went to a division. There were other reasons which should induce the House to refuse the guarantee. If the territory ceded to Canada were really valuable, as it was represented to be, why should any charge be thrown upon us, and why should not the Canadian Government undertake the liability which the arrangement involved?

said, that having been a party to the arrangements of 1865, he felt bound to say a few words upon the subject. He shared to the utmost extent all the objections which were raised against colonial guarantees in general; but the question now was whether the arrangement of 1865, entered into for the purpose of bringing about a more wholesome state of things between us and our North American Provinces, was or was not an arrangement which the House would feel it expedient to ratify. In 1865 an intimation was received of that which had now become a reality—namely, the intention to form the Provinces of British North America into one great Confederation. This arrangement was made between four Canadian Ministers and those who represented the Government of that day, and the Report of it was then laid before Parliament, and the project of confederation was afterwards brought before Parliament by the Government of which Lord Carnarvon was Colonial Secretary in 1867. Parliament passed the Confederation Act, knowing the terms on which the Canadian Government had arranged to acquire the company's territory. Just before Parliament was dissolved, in 1868, the Rupert's Land Act was passed to supply a defect in the Confederation Act, which did not enable Her Majesty, without further statutory powers, to accept the surrender of the rights of the company and transfer them to Canada. He was cognizant of the proviso in the third clause when the Act was passing through Parliament, and he understood it was inserted with a purpose different from that suggested by the hon. Member who had just spoken. It was framed, as he understood, for the purpose of preventing anything being done under that Act which should commit Parliament. Having been most careful to carry out all that was involved in his own despatch, the Government felt that nothing ought to be done which could by implication fetter the freedom and discretion of Parliament. He be- lieved that to have been the simple meaning of the clause; and he was fortified in that belief by other considerations. It was not in the power of Parliament to say that a future Parliament should be less free to do anything than their predecessors were. He held this to be the true and necessary construction of the proviso in the 3rd clause, and he did not think that anything of importance turned upon it. Coming back to the question of policy, he held that this arrangement, which was contemplated in 1865, and which the House was now asked to ratify, was an arrangement, not exclusively for the benefit and advantage of Canada, but was one which was largely beneficial to this country. We suffered from the inconvenience and disadvantage of exercising rights of sovereignty over one of the most inaccessible regions of the earth—the Hudson's Bay Territory. Continual embarrassment arose on account of the traversing of that extensive region by bodies of Indians, who entered from time to time the neighbouring American State of Minnesota; no settled Government was established there; and when he was Colonial Secretary there was a continual demand for creating the Hudson's Bay Territory into a Crown colony. A more undesirable proceeding on the part of the British Government there could not possibly be, for they had no advantage to expect from such an arrangement, which must necessarily have been attended with expense and risk; and, therefore, he was most happy to be a party to an arrangement by which—the sovereignty of this region remaining with the Crown—the rights which the Sovereign exercised were transferred to the Colonial Government. In return, all that we did was to give a guarantee for a loan of £300,000, and when the House went into Committee it would be seen that adequate security was taken in the Bill. He therefore recommended this measure to the House, not merely on the ground that the Government had pledged its faith in respect of the guarantee, for such a pledge would not bind Parliament—but on the ground of policy. As to pledges given by Government, he ventured to think that whenever Parliament thought the Government well advised in thus acting, it was good policy not to discredit the Crown and enfeeble the hands of the Executive Government by refusing to assent to that pledge. He did not put the case any higher with regard to the pledged faith of the Government, but he rested his support of this measure chiefly on the ground of policy. Canada had interests in this territory not possessed by our- selves, and in inducing her to undertake this duty, and thus relieving ourselves from a charge which in some form or other would have come upon us, he believed we had made an arrangement which was advantageous to the mother country—an arrangement cheaply purchased by the guarantee of a loan for so small a sum as £300,000.

said, that these guarantees were decidedly injurious to our financial comfort, and we had ten or a dozen of them at this moment. Among the rest were the Greek Loan, the Sardinian Loan, the Russian-Dutch Loan, and several others, of which the tax-payers of this country were paying the interest, and of which they would have to pay the principal in the end. It was highly impolitic and injurious to the interests of the country that we should embark in these guarantees at all. The Prime Minister of the country had stated that the faith of the country was pledged to it; but the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down modified that by saying that it did not bind a future Parliament. No doubt, technically, it did not bind a future Parliament; but any such pledge given to a foreign Government, or to one of our colonies, was morally binding; and, therefore, reluctant as he was to give his consent to any further guarantees, still, in this case, he thought we could not help ourselves, and he felt bound to give his consent to the guarantee.

presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Blooms-bury in favour of a restriction being placed on the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works to sell more than one-twelfth of land to be taken from Fins-bury Park.

said, that in rising to move that the Bill be re-committed, he had no wish to put an end to its progress. His object was to have the incidence of rating under Clause 22 defined more clearly. The sewers rate had been always regarded as a landlord's rate, and in the absence of a special agreement to the contrary, the tenant had always deducted it from his rent. If, however, the Bill passed in its present form it might happen that the small occupiers who held their houses from year to year would be called upon to pay the new rate that was to be substituted for the old one which was paid by the landlord. He wished to insert the following proviso after the word "board" in line 8—

"Provided always, That such first mentioned proportion shall be assessed and raised in like manner, and subject to the same provisons as the sewers rate, to be made under the Act of the eighteenth and nineteenth Victoria, chapter one hundred and twenty."

He therefore moved that the Bill be recommitted.

said, that if the Bill were re-committed, he should like to ask the opinion of the House on a proposal similar in object to, though somewhat different in terms from, that which he submitted to the Committee a few days ago. He desired to take from the Metropolitan Board of Works the power of selling or letting any greater portion than l–12th part of the lands vested in the Board for the purposes of any park within the metropolis. The Committee decided by a majority of 6 that a clause to that effect should be introduced into the Bill; but that clause was subsequently struck out by a majority of 23. The supporters of the proposal had been told they were making a claim on behalf of particular metropolitan parishes to have a new tax imposed on the whole community for the benefit of local interests. That assertion had been strenuously denied, though the majority appeared to think that the allegation was well-founded. It should be borne in mind, however, that the preponderance of unofficial Members was in favour of the proposal, which was negatived by a majority comprising 26 hon. Gentlemen who held Office. Twelve metropolitan Members, including the two Members for Middlesex, voted in favour of his proposal, and but one solitary representative of the metropolis recorded his vote against it. Up to the present time there had not been a single indication, whether by Petition, public meeting, or remonstrance in the Press, that the inhabitants in the metropolis were adverse to the proposal. He might remark that the Act of 1857, which was promoted by the Board of Works itself, set forth in the Preamble that the plans, maps, and specifications of the lands about to be taken for the two parks at the East-end of the metropolis, at the north and south sides of the river respectively, had been lodged with the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex, and had been approved by Her Majesty's Commissioners of Public Works. It was thus stated beforehand what the arrangements were to be, and the matter was not left to the mere discretion of the Board of Works. The 8th clause, indeed, stated the exact number of acres —250—purchased for the parks. The Act stated that when the purposes of the Act had been sufficiently accomplished, and the lands had been imparked, the Board of Works should be at liberty to dispose, at most, of one-twelfth part of the land it had acquired for the park. Let the House, then, hold the Board of Works to its bargain, and to the litera scripta of the Act which had been passed. Let it now enact by a clause that that Board should not have power at most to sell more than that proportion of the lands in their diminished area which it was not empowered by the Act of 1857 to sell out of the greater area. It was a mockery to tell the districts affected that they might bring in a private Bill next year. The part of the land which the Board of Works proposed to sell for building purposes, and which the President of the Poor Law Board argued the other night was worth £76,000, was the best part, the cream, in fact, of the whole. Parliament gave that to the people of the East-end of the metropolis. Let it keep it for them, and not tell them it was willing to sanction bad faith. It was not fair or just towards the inhabitants of those crowded districts to deprive them of almost their only means of obtaining healthful recreation and breathing space. He asked on their behalf for nothing unreasonable from the House. Never had a greater misrepresentation fallen from the lips of man than had fallen — unintentionally, of course—from those of the Prime Minister, when that subject was last under discussion. The right hon. Gentleman had been led most erroneously to believe he was justified in saying that that was a project to levy a new tax on the metropolis at large for the benefit of two localities. He denied in every sense which language permitted that the fact was so. Those two localities did not ask 1s. either from the public Treasury or from the metropolis at large. The Board of Works was the common trustee for the interests of the whole of London; it had taken its large powers under certain stipulations in an Act of Parliament; and it was not at liberty to go back from those stipulations now. Parliament had created the power of that Board, and was bound under the highest dictates of political honour to see those whom he represented out of that difficulty, and to show that it had just as much regard for their interests, although they might be comparatively powerless, as if they really composed one of the great parties or factions in the State. He therefore hoped the House would interpose its authority between the inhabitants of the East-end of London and an irresponsible body, and insist on inserting a clause in that Bill literally carrying out the stipulation of the Act of 1857, by which the Board of Works was not empowered to sell more than one-twelfth part of any land vested in it for the purpose of forming any public park in the metropolis.

said, his hon. Friend had, no doubt, exhibited great pertinacity in pressing his views on the consideration of the House, and he had not hitherto thought it necessary to enter into a discussion of the accuracy of the statements his hon. Friend had made to induce the House to adopt his conclusion. He had not done so because he regarded his hon. Friend's Motion as wholly inopportune, if not entirely irregular; for it was an attempt to introduce into a general measure a clause for the benefit of his hon. Friend's constituents—a proceeding contrary to the spirit of the Standing Orders of the House applicable to Public Business, and also of those applicable to local business, which declared that where they sought to alter the provisions of a local Act for the benefit of a particular locality they could do that only by private Bill, when they had to make their statements of fact before a Committee upstairs, which decided impartially. The speech they had just heard afforded an excellent illustration of the wisdom of that rule, and the necessity of adhering to it; because, otherwise, they would have an hon. Member, who himself knew nothing of the subject, inspired by anybody, by any of his constituents, by vestrymen and agitators, who gave him instructions, on which he was, of course, compelled to act without having the means of obtaining authentic information. That was the unfortunate position in which his hon. Friend had been placed. [Mr. W. M. TORRENS: No!] Well, let them see what were the facts. The vestry of Islington, through their clerk, promoted a Bill to have a park, in which they proposed that the Government should make a grant of £50,000 or £60,000 in aid of their scheme. By that Bill they proposed to get 300 and odd acres of land, and gave to their own commissioner an unlimited power of selling any part of the land to be so taken. The House of Commons, in the most unmistakable manner, in a full House, by a very large majority, condemned that project, and no further progress in it was made. But the Metropolitan Board of Works introduced a Bill of a different kind, by which it was proposed that Board should have a discretionary power to make a park as large as they should think fit. [Mr. W. M. TORRENS: No!] He had the Bill there; his hon. Friend had not got the Bill, but only the Act, and probably he had never seen the Bill. The Bill proposed that the Metropolitan Board of Works should make a park as large as they might think fit, within the limits of their compulsory powers to take land, which went to the extent of 250 acres. Under that Bill the Metropolitan Board of Works proposed to sell eighty acres of the land. Therefore, when his hon. Friend set up his theory that the Metropolitan Board of Works adopted the principle in the face of the public that they would deal with only twenty acres out of 250, the fact was they proposed to deal with eighty acres, and that quantity they were to sell at their discretion out of the land they were to take, which was not to exceed 250 acres. His hon. Friend told the House there was a public engagement not to sell more than twenty acres. What happened was this — The landed proprietor appeared before the Committee, as he had a right to do, to oppose the Bill, and said—" You shall not compulsorily take my land from me to sell eighty acres again. You shall take only twenty acres more than you propose to make into a park, because you have no right to dispossess me of my land in order to speculate with it." He carried his opposition further, and got a clause introduced providing that the land which was re-sold should be re-sold to himself. So the compact was between the owner and the Board of Works, that they might take twenty acres more than they intended to use for the park, but that they should sell it back to him. And how? Why, ten years after the park was made, at the improved value it would then have acquired; so that they would then have a means of indemnifying themselves, in part at least, for the expense of making the park. His hon. Friend had represented that to be a compact between the Board of Works and the public that the Board should be allowed to sell only a twelfth part of the land. The Bill and the Act, as passed, gave the Board of Works a discretionary power to make a park as big or as little as they pleased within the limits of their compulsory authority to purchase. It was not a compulsory Bill as regarded the Board; it was only a permissive Bill enabling them to take the land. After the Board of Works had got the Bill it had to consult the opinions of the ratepayers of the metropolis, who were so adverse to embarking in the enterprize, that the Board for six years did nothing, and they were not bound to do anything at all. They had an absolute discretion in the matter; although, of course, being elected, they were responsible to their constituents, the rate-payers. At the end of six years they appointed a surveyor to consider what should best be done to carry out the Act. The surveyor investigated the value and convenience of properties in the north of London, and made a report — which he then held in his hand—suggesting that they should buy a certain property; and as an inducement to them to buy it the surveyor called their attention to the fact that they would be able to appropriate and sell twenty acres. That report gave the value of the twenty acres on the conditions under which they were likely to sell them; and the surveyor pointed that out as a source from which they would be recouped. The Metropolitan Board proceeded upon the faith of that report, and made the purchase. When the Metropolitan Board had done so, and spent the money of the rate-payers, his hon. Friend now said that the House ought not to proceed with this Bill unless the rate-payers of the metropolis would make a present of land to his constituents. [Mr. W. M. TORRENS: I never said anything of the sort.] Not in so many words, but it came to that. There could be no greater breach of faith than such a transaction would involve. Now, what was the solution of the difficulty? His hon. Friend's constituents were most anxious to have a larger park than the ratepayers were willing to give them, and therefore he wanted to alter the law in order that his constituents might get the benefit. But was the House to stop the progress of a Bill for the benefit of the inhabitants of the metropolis generally until this concession was made to his hon. Friend's constituents? His hon. Friend knew very well that the Metropolitan Local Government Act was passed on this principle, that the Metropolitan Board should alone regulate the expenditure to be paid by the rate-payers at large, because they are elected by the rate-payers at large; but if any district thought that a particular improvement was more for its own benefit than that of the metropolis it would have to pay for that improvement; but it might apply to the Metropolitan Board to know how much the district and how much the metropolis should pay. When an improvement was made in the City, for instance, it was usual for them to say to the Metropolitan Board—" We will pay two-thirds provided you pay one-third." That was constantly done. And now his hon. Friend had presented a Petition from his constituents, saying that they wanted a bigger park. By all means let them have it. They could buy the twenty acres from the Metropolitan Board, subject, of course, to the owner's right of pre-emption. As far as the Metropolitan Board were concerned, those who represented the district had only to say—" We want more land than the rate-payers are willing to give us, and we are ready to pay for it." That was the proper solution of the difficulty, and it was in the hands of the vestry which his hon. Friend represented. The parish of Islington was very rich, and its rates were very low. He submitted to the House that they would encourage the very worst principle if at the end of the Session, when Bills might be delayed, they were to recognize the right of Members to come down and ask for grants to their constituents out of the money of the ratepayers at large.

said, that Liverpool, with about one-sixth of the population of London, and not at all so wealthy, was expending about £1,000,000 on parks for the people, and the whole population were benefited, though these parks were distant about two miles from the central and more populous portion of the town. And now they were told by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) that this park was for the benefit of the East-end of London. He had been accustomed to live near lakes, but what would lakes be if they were huddled behind great houses? Let not the Seven Sisters Road be shut out from the park by houses, but let the people there have a sight of the cheerful omnibuses and carriages passing by. He hoped that for once this Session the Government would be left in a minority.

said, the accumulation of words had mystified the question very much. He had thought he had understood it, but he perceived he had something to learn. However, the question appeared to him to be this. It was thought it would be for the benefit of a certain crowded part of the metropolis noted for its poverty and wretchedness that a certain portion of land should be bought for a park—he cared not what the number of acres were or by what means they were to be got, they were to give fresh air, and the means of recreation for the people. An Act of Parliament was passed for the purpose, and had his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) quoted rightly from the Act or not, that only one-twelfth of the land could be sold? If he had, and if the portion of land was only 120 acres, then the Metropolitan Board would have only ten acres to sell, and not twenty; but, honestly, if the land was bought for a park, it should be devoted to a park.

said, that the original Bill gave the Metropolitan Board power to buy 230 or 250 acres, he did not remember which; and for a long time they found it very difficult to get land at all. At last they obtained 120 acres. Originally the price was to be £500 an acre for 250 acres, but the Government were to find half the money ["No, no!"] He said "Yes." He heard Lord Palmerston, then standing in his place, say that the Government would pay £60,000; but the House did not allow him to carry his intention out. Well, the Metropolitan Board had to buy the land themselves, and they bought these 115 or 120 acres. And now they were going to sell twenty acres; the Act of Parliament did not empower them to sell more, and there were two plots—one fronting the road, the other fronting the railway, but the only point in dispute was as to ten acres abutting on the road. The parties who had opposed their buying it in the first instance had now purchased the land opposite and wanted to have the benefit of the frontage which the park gave. Therefore, they came and opposed this Bill. These persons said— "Don't take the frontage from us and prevent us from making a great deal of money by it. Don't sell it and don't build on it yourselves." Now, nobody in the world wanted the money more than the Metropolitan Board. And while his hon. Friend on the one hand said— "Don't increase the rates, and don't add another shilling to our burdens," he also said he would not let the Metropolitan Board have the means of recouping themselves to the extent of £70,000, which they might without doing harm to anybody. The Metropolitan Board had the power to sell the land, and had the right to sell it, and to interpose to prevent them would be most unfair.

wished to say that, although he had voted with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) the other night, the explanation offered by the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton) and the hon. Member for Bath had changed his opinion on the subject.

remarked upon the continued increase of expenditure in India, and complained that, although at the time money was wanted to make railways in India, it was promised that their construction would be followed by a reduction in the Army, the cost of the force was still £16,000,000, notwithstanding troops could now be transported from one end of the Empire to the other in as many days as it formerly took months. A very hard-hearted Chancellor of the Exchequer was wanted in India, and he hoped Sir Richard Temple would bring about a more satisfactory state of affairs than his predecessors had. He approved the principle laid down by the right hon. Member for Devonshire (Sir Stafford Northcote), that accounts relating to reproductive works should be kept distinct, and was glad to hear that future accounts would be framed on the principle of keeping ordinary and extraordinary expenditure separate. As it was now proposed to borrow upon these public works, he suggested that the loans should be called Public Works Loans, and that an effort should be made to raise the money or some portion of it in India. The people of India would see that the money was spent in works of great benefit to themselves, and he believed the investment would become popular among them. He had for years past advocated the construction of these works by borrowed money, and ventured to assert that India might be covered with every necessary public work without cost. The Erie Canal, one of the greatest works in the world, had been made without costing the State 1s.; it had been constructed for small vessels in the first place with borrowed money; the tolls had paid off the loan and enlarged the canal, and now it was proposed to make a ship canal of it; and all through the transaction, the policy of the State had been to attract traffic by a reduction of toll. Manchester, in like manner, had been supplied with water and gas without costing the people a ¼d. in taxation; and the whole of the Liverpool Docks had been constructed on the same principle. The advantages to the inhabitants in each case were, of course, immense; and India might be similarly benefited without cost to the tax-payers if public works were constructed with money borrowed on State credit and the security of tolls; for while the outlay on public works would be re-paid by the revenue derived from them, wealth would be 1,000 times increased by increased production. In the course of an interesting discussion a short time ago, by the Society of Engineers, upon irrigation in India and Spain, Mr. Allan Wilson, from the Madras Presidency, described the extraordinary magnitude of the works in that part of India before our conquest. It had been estimated there were in fourteen of the principal irrigated districts of the Madras Presidency, upwards of 43,000 tanks and channels in repair, besides about 10,000 out of repair, having probably 30,000 miles of embankments and 300,000 separate masonry works. Colonel Baird Smith stated that the Ponacry tank in Trichinopoly had an embankment of thirty miles long and an area of sixty to eighty square miles, and Mr. Wilson expressed surprise that the Government had neglected these great works, and allowed large rivers to flow into the sea unused for agricultural purposes. Besides the profit to the State in the way of increased commercial prosperity, canals were accounted valuable for sanitary purposes. Mr. Login, an engineer of the Ganges Canal, said the strong argument in favour of canals is, that they are calculated to prevent those awful visitations which sweep off hundreds of thousands by starvation. It was estimated that the Ganges Canal prevented the death of as many thousands as perished in Orissa, and in the next year, 1866–7, the canal repaid to the country more than its total cost, while it was the means of feeding little short of 2,500,000 of people. It appeared that the water in the canals in the Madras district was comparatively clear, and though the current was slight no great deposit was formed; but the water in the Ganges was full of mud, and a rapid current was there needed to prevent the accumulation of sediment. Now, it was proposed to make some of the Ganges Canal works on the same level as those of Madras; but it was the opinion of the engineers to whom he had just referred, among whom was that eminent authority, Mr. Hawksley, that such a course of proceeding would be altogether in error. He therefore trusted that the Indian Government would not spend £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 on such an important undertaking without making further inquiry. In proof of the benefits derived from irrigation he instanced the large profits yielded by several works of that kind, and he thought that such results ought to encourage the Indian Go- vernment to persevere in making works of irrigation. Sir A. Cotton said the opinion had been expressed that no great profit can be gained on works of irrigation for many years to come. His experience of profits were—

	Cost.	Profits.	Per cent.
Godavery	£337,000	£160,000	45
Kistreah	191,000	29,000	15
Upper Calleroon Anicut	24,000	64,000	270
Lower Calleroon	34,000	52,000	150

The total aggregate profits on the Madras works, over and above 4 per cent interest, was £2,820,000 on a total cost of £560,000, or five times the cost of the works after paying interest and cost of repairs. The Indian Government wanted revenue, and it was very clear that the most effectual mode of obtaining it was by irrigating their lands and thereby increasing their rental. Mr. Allan Wilson, contrasting the difference between dry and irrigated land, stated that of fourteen Ryotwaire districts of Madras, 2,000,000 acres irrigated yielded a revenue of £1,500,000; 25,000,000 acres of dry land only £2,000,000; while, if it had been irrigated, it would have produced upwards of £18,000,000. As regarded the gain to the cultivator, independently of the certainty of reaping a crop, irrigated lands yielded a crop of 20 rupees an acre; dry land, 6 rupees an acre. So that the Ryot was better able to pay 3 rupees per acre for irrigated land than 1 rupee for dryland. If the Government wanted to increase the revenue and at the same time benefit the cultivator, they had only to promote irrigation. He was glad to learn that the Government of India were taking measures to promote the growth of forests in their territory, for the manure which ought to be used to enrich the land was to a great extent dried and used as fuel. In alluding to the growth of cotton, he observed that twenty-five years ago certain persons in the manufacturing districts of this country entertained great apprehensions in consequence of those districts being mainly dependent for the cotton they needed upon one source of supply. At that time 75 per cent of the raw cotton used in this country came from America, and at the time of the occurrence of the civil war the proportion supplied by America had increased to 85 per cent. In 1848 the present President of the Board of Trade moved for a Select Com- mittee to inquire into the growth, of cotton, and the Committee, after investigating the matter, were satisfied that a large quantity of excellent cotton could be obtained from India. In the following year his right hon. Friend moved that a Commission should be sent out to India further to inquire into the subject; but the East India Company refused to afford any assistance in prosecuting the inquiry. However, the manufacturers of Lancashire felt the importance of obtaining information on that head so greatly that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce sent out a commissioner of their own, who, though he unfortunately died, left behind him sufficient evidence to prove that the desired object of procuring supplies of cotton from India might be attained. It was represented to the Government from time to time that, without Government assistance, it was impossible for India to produce what was wanted—namely, a good quality of cotton; but the reply made to that representation was that it was contrary to the principles of political economy for the Government to interfere in such a matter, and that when there was a demand there would be a supply. That statement was true as regards most countries, but it did not apply to India. In America the cotton was produced by men of capital, but in India it was the production of a miserable set of ryots; and one might as well look for improvements in agriculture from Irish cottiers as expect improvements in the cultivation of cotton from the class of cultivators he had referred to. The Government said it was contrary to political economy to do anything in this matter. But there was as great a demand for tea as cotton, yet that demand brought no tea from India until the Government, acting upon the economical principle, wisely tried the experiment of planting tea gardens, and exhibiting to the natives the practicability of extensively growing it, and now they succeeded in growing tea of better quality than was grown in China. There was now a large growth of tea in India, and very probably it would be exceedingly extended. Then, there was the article of quinine. It fetched fabulous prices, but no one ever thought of growing it till, on the recommendation of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), plants were introduced in large quanti- ties, and now India not only supplied itself, but in all probability quinine would become an article of considerable export. If the Government could do all this, why not try experiments in the growth of cotton? But Government had always treated Lancashire people as merely seeking their own interests. Now, they did seek their own interests undoubtedly, but they could not do so without seeking also the interests of India. During the American War the total exports from India amounted to £67,000,000, and of that £34,000,000 consisted of cotton. The total exports now were £50,000,000, and he supposed they would have to pay some £30,000,000 this year for cotton. Was not India, then, interested in the growth of cotton, seeing that one-half of her exports consisted of that article? They had been imploring the Government for years, and at length they had got a Cotton Commissioner. They were very fortunate in his appointment, for the gentleman appointed had his heart in the work. He went to the province of Candeish and saw they were using a very inferior kind of seed. He imported seed from Berar, where the best cotton in India was grown. The very first year after sowing this seed the sowers obtained so much more for it as paid the price of their rent twice over. He said, then, that the Cotton Commissioner had been a great benefit to India. But he must warn the Indian Government that they would have competition to encounter. America would still grow cotton, and of a better quality than India, unless India bestirred herself. America was about to import large numbers of Chinese labourers, and India could not keep the valuable cotton trade she possessed unless she bestirred herself. The great disadvantage of India was that, while America grew 500 lb. per acre, India grew only 50 lb. per acre. India had also this disadvantage, that, for want of roads, the cotton had formerly to be carried on the backs of bullocks from Berar to Bombay for shipment, a distance of 500 miles. India had now railways and the finest rivers in the world. The expense of the conveyance of cotton from Berar to Bombay on bullocks was 2d. per lb., by railway 1d. per lb., and by the Godavery, which flowed through the centre of the best cotton-fields, half-a-farthing per lb. The Government of India must, therefore, bestir themselves. Not many years ago we were reproached with the charge that if we were driven from India the only memorial we should leave behind would be pyramids of empty beer-bottles. That reproach no longer existed. We should now leave behind us ever-enduring monuments of our greatness and beneficence in the magnificent public works already existing, which, with those the Government projected, would confer greater benefits on the people of India than were recorded of the conquerors of any age or nation. The late Mr. Cobden could never be persuaded to take part in Indian affairs; his answer always was we had no business there. Well, but we were there; we had taken upon ourselves a great responsibility, and it was our duty to face it; we had destroyed the established Governments of the country; and if we left India now, anarchy and confusion must be the result. The English Government was the best that India ever possessed, and life and property were never so secure as under our sway; nevertheless a foreign yoke was always hateful. Let us endeavour, by just and beneficent rule, to make our Government a blessing to our Indian fellow-subjects.

said, he had listened with great interest to the very able speech of the Under Secretary for India on Tuesday last, but he must deplore that so much procrastination occurred in all that concerned India. He hoped that in future Sessions the Indian Budget would be brought forward earlier. No doubt the accounts quoted by the hon. Gentleman were accurate, but they should be more distinct. He agreed in the suggestion that there ought to be an investment account; for reproductive public works, and indulged the hope that a permanent source of revenue would arise from judicious Government investments in railways, canals, and irrigation. The cost of these works should be the foundation of the proposed investment account. He believed it would be found that the increase in our Indian expenditure, since the period of the Mutiny, was little less than £20,000,000 per annum, and this amounted to a heavy burden on the people of India. He approved very much of the statements which had been made in "another place" with regard to public works, and was much pleased to find that an eminent authority had said that 30,000 miles of railway were necessary for India. That country had 4,000miles of railway, constructed at a cost of £80,000,000 sterling; Great Britain had 14,000 miles of railway, which cost £600,000,000; while America had already 40,000 miles of railway, which cost £550,000,000; and there was a prospect that before long the railway investments in the United States would amount in value to £1,000,000,000. It was clear that India was still lamentably behind Great Britain in railway enterprize. He was glad to see that railways in that country would be constructed in future at the sole cost of the Indian Government, because he believed there would be great national economy in making railways a portion of public works. We spent £100,000,000 during the Crimean War, and why should not our capitalists, in the cause of peace and industry, raise £100,000,000 for Indian railways? The Government might as well engage in these works as depute a railway company to execute them. He would go further, and advise the Government to buy up the lines already opened in India, and establish one uniform public railway system for that country. He believed that if that course had been pursued in England the railways would have been more cheaply constructed, there would not have been so many duplicate lines, and there would have been greater convenience, combined with a lower rate of charge. He did not see why the public works should not become a source of permanent and enduring revenue. The establishment of an Agricultural Board would probably give a stimulus to the productions of India, which could send us three or four times her present amount of exports. Her coffee was of an improved quality, owing to the application of manure to which the soil of India had hitherto been a stranger. Her growth of cotton could be largely increased. Unhappily great distress existed at present among the cotton interests in the manufacturing districts, hence the necessity of still greatly increased supplies of raw cotton. He had every reason to believe that the losses on fixed investments in the cotton trade amounted to £30,000,000 sterling, and the losses on floating capital to an equal amount; so that by the disasters connected with the cotton trade that branch of industry had sustained a total loss equivalent to £60,000,000. A continuance of the present state of depression, coupled with the emigration of the operatives, would go far to remove the trade itself to some more prosperous country. He deplored the existence of the protective system in America; but, with all its evils, the manufacturers in America were able to keep their mills going, while we could only work ours for a very limited period. He gave the present Government full credit for endeavouring to bring about a healthier state of things as far as this could be accomplished by legislation. With that object in view he trusted they would persevere in their efforts to develop not only the cotton trade in India, but remunerative traffic in the various products of the soil.

said, he regretted that the discussions upon Indian subjects were always deferred to so late a period of the Session that Members were utterly wearied and worn out, and unable to give to the matter in hand that attention which its importance demanded. If it were true that this year upwards of forty Members had come down to hear the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India, he hoped that might be taken as an augury of good for the future; the subject only required to be popularized to become full of interest to Members. Some improvements had been made, but still he thought the accounts of Home expenditure, as placed upon the table this year, were not satisfactory or easily intelligible; it would be much better if they were classified, as was done with the Indian expenditure, under different heads. A separate Financial Statement and Budget for the public works would also, he thought, be highly desirable. The ordinary expenditure, as laid down by Sir Eichard Temple—the permanent guaranteed interest on railway capital, and the extraordinary reproductive expenditure together made up £10,000,000, and it would surely be interesting to the House to know how these £10,000,000 were spent, and to what extent the works themselves were reproductive, With regard to the Customs, he hoped that the Government might before long see its way to a reduction of the export duty of almost every Indian product. The manner in which the salt duty was levied was far from satisfactory. It produced a net revenue of £5,500,000; but the proportion of that which, fell to the Punjaub and the North-west Provinces was not more than £1,400,000. As regarded the revenue from opium, he hoped the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and those who thought with him would bring forward their objections in some shape admitting of the question being thoroughly talked out; he should then be prepared to meet them. On that point he fully agreed with Sir Richard Temple, who declared that—

"If the Chinese will have opium, they may as well have it first-rate from us as second-rate at home, and they may as well have it taxed as untaxed."

The Chinese would have opium: there was no doubt about that; and if that was the case, he did not see why a profitable article was not to be supplied to the Chinese market. At the present moment, however, it was idle to discuss the question; we simply could not do without the revenue from opium. If that stopped from any cause, all the expenditure upon public works must cease at the same moment. The postal service in India ought to be a source of revenue; but, at present, there was a deficit, and this could hardly be regarded as in process of diminution, for the Government had lately doubled the minimum weight of letters to be carried without increasing the tariff. The telegraph entailed a net expenditure of £200,000 and upwards, and he wished to ask the Government what portion of this outlay belonged to India proper, as this was not shown in the accounts? There was another item as to which explanation was desirable; £68,000 were put down for a small arms manufactory in this country. He wished to know where the machinery was erected for making the small arms ammunition for India, and also what was the total estimated cost of the gunboats for Bombay Harbour? The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith) had expressed his belief that matters might be so arranged that the public loans for the public works of India might become a favourite investment with the natives, but it was a remarkable fact that out of the £87,000,000 that had been subscribed for Indian railways, only £1,000,000 was held by the natives; and that out of the £100,000,000 of which the Indian public debt consisted, only £15,000,000 were held by them, scarcely any portion of that sum having been taken up since the Mutiny of 1856–7. There were two reasons explanatory of that fact. In the first place, the usual rate of interest in India was 12 per cent, or more than double that offered by the Government; and, in the second place, the confidence of the natives in Government securities had been shaken in consequence of the Government having confiscated that portion of their debt which was the property of the rebels. Upon the much-debated subject of Indian railway finance the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford) the other day had taken great pains to point out the great injustice that had been done the guaranteed railway companies by the recent despatch of the Indian Government, in. which they were charged with mismanagement and extravagance. It appeared to him (Mr. C. Denison) that the East Indian Railway was well deserving of the confidence of the Government. It was, howover, only fair to state that the despatch had not been drawn up for presentation to Parliament, or as an attack upon the railways, but had been merely intended to justify the Government in inaugurating the new system which was to be pursued with regard to them. In his opinion, however, that despatch did not show the existence of such a state of things as would justify the Indian Government in taking the whole control of the Indian railways into their own hands henceforth. He doubted, in the first place, the capability of the Government of India to undertake the management of these enormous works to anything like the extent which had been foreshadowed by the Secretary of State, and, beyond that, he had a great horror of the management of the existing lines and of the 10,000 miles of new railways which it was proposed to make being placed in the hands of one high central department. On the other hand, it might be most advantageous for the Government of India to take in hand certain railways, for the purpose of showing the companies what economy and good management might produce. But that was a very different thing from taking possession of lines of which 4,500 miles were open and 2,000 were in progress, and which gave employment to 3,000 Europeans and to 25,000 natives. They had had some experience of Government management in the case of the Ganges Canal, and that was not calculated to inspire confidence in their management of the railways. The Home Government, under the advice of the Governor General, had very wisely within the last few weeks authorized the Government of India to undertake the construction of about 800 miles of railway, and he should watch the progress of those lines with great interest. If the Government could bring down the cost of construction from £17,000 to £12,000 per mile, and could materially reduce the cost of the working expenses they would do much towards justifying the charges they had brought against the guaranteed companies. The Committee, however, should recollect that when these railways were first inaugurated the British people had but little confidence in public works in India as a remunerative investment for capital, and, therefore, by removing that distrust the guaranteed companies had amply served their purpose, however extravagant they might have been in their capital accounts, and however much they might have neglected economy in their working expenses. That there was a remarkable difference between the amount of the working expenses of the various lines was true; but that was largely accounted for by the fact that while some companies had coal in their own districts others had to import Welsh coal at the cost of 60s. or 70s. per ton. The Government would do well to persevere in the course they had indicated during the last month, which was to authorize the construction of a certain number of miles of railway under the superintendence of their own officers, and to encourage the old and new companies only on the understanding that the terms of their agreement should be altered so as to permit the Government, when there was extravagance in the capital account, to take the lines under their own control, while all surplus over the 5 per cent which was guaranteed was to be equally divided between the company and the Government. If that course were adopted he could not see what objection there could be to leaving the lines in the hands of the companies. He did not propose to enter deeply into the subject of the irrigation works, but he might observe that the Government of India proposed to expend in this very year not less than £2,500,000 upon them over and above the amount appropriated to the ordinary public works, a sum which, in fact, they could not spare in any one single year. Certainly, he would not encourage an unlimited expenditure on those works although they were reproductive. It had been found by experience that in India such works took a longer time to be reproductive than they did in this country. He believed that in India it took from ten to fifteen years for such works to recoup the capital expended on them. He thought those who urged an enormous expenditure were not really good friends to India, and he thought also that the Government of that country must always keep a firm control over its finances, otherwise the credit on which they were now so proud of borrowing at 4½ or 5 per cent, would soon disappear. He did not believe in the power of the Government to go on for a number of years borrowing money at 4½ per cent. He was sure that the noble Lord who now filled the post of Governor General and the Indian Government at home would make it their study to consider Indian subjects from an Indian point of view. They should do everything to encourage the flow of surplus capital into India, and he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) that England had done more for India than India had done for England—that was to say, India had absorbed more, much more, of the precious metals from England than she had given back. The Under Secretary in his long and able review had taken occasion to say that, on the whole, he thought there was much reason for hope as to the progress of India. He concurred with the hon. Gentleman. He believed that the present improvement was only a beginning, and that, if an intelligent interest were taken in India, in twenty years to come the India of that time would no more be recognized as the India of to-day than the India of today could be recognized as the India of twenty years past. He would conclude by expressing his hope that in future the Government would be able to intro- duce the Indian Budget at an earlier period of the Session.

said, that he felt great interest in the question, inasmuch as the prosperity of Lancashire depended, in a great degree, on the development of the resources of India. At one time it was said that Indian cotton would not be used in Lancashire. No doubt before the American War very little of that cotton was used; but since then the exports of cotton from India had risen from 125,000 lbs. to 30,000,000 lbs. per annum. He did not mean to say that some of those exports did not find their way to the Continent, but three-fourths of the Indian cotton was used in Lancashire. The town which he represented (Oldham) used, he believed, one-sixth of the cotton imported into this country, and three-fifths of the cotton it used was Indian cotton. Oldham was the first town to use Indian cotton, and by the use of such cotton it had been able to surmount the crisis caused by the civil war in America better than any other town in Lancashire. He did not go so far as to call on the Government to grow cotton in India, but he asked them to give facilities connected with it. The Government proposed to make railways on a large scale, and he would suggest that a preference should be given to railways that went through the cotton districts. The manufacturers of Lancashire had been pertinaciously pressing on the Government the question of roads to the cotton districts for many years past. Some ten years ago he was chairman of a cotton company in India, which came to grief in consequence of the want of roads. Lord Halifax, who was at that time Secretary of State for India, gave a promise that a railroad to Darwar and the cotton districts should be immediately commenced. Now, after a lapse of nine years, there was a prospect of the road being commenced, and he trusted that it would be made. India could produce more cotton without diminishing the quantity of land devoted to the production of the food of the people. The produce of cotton was only from 50 lb. to 70 lb. an acre. They did not ask for an increase in the acreage, but for an increase in the productiveness of the land which was now employed. He found that in the Southern States of America, by the employment of artificial manures and other means, the produce of the soil had been raised from 500 lb. to 700 lb. per acre, and if the same thing could be done in India there was a large margin for the further development of the cotton trade. He agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bazley) that a Board of Agriculture, or else a Minister of Agriculture ought to be appointed in India, with agents and inspectors in all the subordinate districts. If this were done, it would turn out immensely to the advantage not of the revenues of India only, but also of its ryot population. There was no country in which information upon agricultural matters was so much needed as in India. This was well proved at the time of the war with Russia, from which country we had been accustomed to obtain our supplies of jute. It was soon discovered that the article could be grown in India, and from that time jute became a permanent export of India. Neither did he think India had any reason to fear the competition of America in the production of cotton. Much was said just now about the Chinese settling in the Southern States, but he believed that a great social battle would have to be fought before that could be accomplished. Lancashire could consume any amount of cotton from India. Indian cotton, when well selected, was quite equal to the middling cotton of America. There was another remark of the hon. Member for Manchester with respect to the advantages of America in manufacture which he could not endorse. It must be remembered that since the Americans had adopted a high tariff they had lost every neutral market in the world—even the market of China. This was so much the case that Mr. Wells, who had been sent over to this country to inquire into our system of Free Trade had recommended, on his return, a great relaxation of the American tariff. He hoped it would not be considered that Lancashire was importunate in pressing the Government as it did.

said, he must complain of the great expenditure on barracks in India. The greater portion of that expenditure was worse than useless. He doubted whether, even by skilful organizations, we could reduce our Army of 64,000 European soldiers in India — soldiers who were very costly to us, and of whose value the highest opinions had been expressed by Runjeet Singh and Shere Ali No class deserved more care and sympathy than those troops. Each man of them was really worth his weight in rupees; and, in spite of all the care that could be taken as to their clothing and lodging, their health and strength would gradually ebb away. But while the officers could go to the hills or get leave of absence to recruit their health, there was no such resource for the men, who gradually died off or were sent home invalided. He would urge that European soldiers might occupy healthy hill stations to a much larger extent than they had hitherto done. There were spots, such as Darjeeling, on the slopes of the Himalayas, the Neilgherries, and even the Western Ghauts, where the men could be kept in health and spirits as buoyant as at any station we possessed; but in these districts there were only a few detachments, while at Lucknow, Seeunderabad, and Nawar, there were small armies stationed. It could scarcely be said in these days of railways and telegraphs that it was necessary to keep large bodies of European troops in close proximity to Gwalior and Hyderabad in order to overawe the natives of the semi-independent states, when far more healthy quarters could be found for them in the neighbouring hills. At Morar very large and extensive barracks had been built, sufficient for a brigade of European cavalry, besides infantry, though the spot was noted for its un-healthiness; and the 71st Highlanders, when quartered there, buried 10 per cent of their numbers in a few months. It would be presumptuous in him to say whether, instead of stationing our troops in unhealthy barracks, it would be possible to form military cantonments, where in time of peace our soldiers might be employed in industrial and agricultural pursuits. He ventured merely to direct attention to this point, which involved not merely the welfare of many thousands of our fellow-countrymen, but even the safety of our Indian Empire.

said, that the people of India might suppose, judging from the tone of the present debate, that in the House of Commons India was looked upon either as a Manchester colony or as a military settlement. He protested against the postponement of all discussion on Indian subjects to the very end of the Session, when in one day the House was asked not only to discuss the Budget, but to pass two important measures relating to the future government of India. He certainly should do all he could to defeat these two measures. The late Government had promised a full inquiry into Indian affairs, and he could see no reason why the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), and his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India, should seek to pledge the House without redeeming that promise, as no Committee on the affairs of India had sat for the last ten years, though the whole state of affairs in that country had changed more than man could conceive. He considered, therefore, that the House was being treated in the most supercilious way by the present Government. Was India, he asked, to be governed for her own welfare, or for the sake of Manchester? No doubt cotton was a good thing, and hon. Gentlemen of one idea might think that India was made for the purpose of supplying it, and of receiving Manchester goods. But he did not so deem it. He felt some sympathy for the 184,000,000 of natives of India, and his hon. Friend the Under Secretary, before he was in Office, had felt some sympathy for them too. He hoped that he should not be disappointed in his expectations from his hon. Friend. When he heard of his appointment he was rejoiced by it, because he thought that he did sympathize with the natives. There were two or three special points to which he would now call the attention of the House. One was the salt tax, which the Government of India ought to consider very seriously with a view to its modification. Salt was a necessary of life; the absence of it led to disease; and, in the interests of humanity, the tax should not be continued in its present form. If a poor ryot attempted to scrape a morsel of salt out of the mud of which his cottage was built, he subjected himself thereby to the severest penalties. Then there was the revenue derived from opium. It certainly was a most unhappy thing that the Government should so long have indirectly been encouraging a contraband trade with China. No doubt there was a lawful use of opium; but there was also a demoralizing use of it, and he could not withhold blame from the Indian Government in past years for having abetted the latter in order to fill the coffers of the Indian Treasury. He did hope that the Government would alter its course of procedure on this head, and, without throwing the trade open, separate itself from the responsibility of the trade itself. He appealed to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bright) on this point. One of these days the opium trade might again lead us into war, and he hoped that his right hon. Friend, if he were still the man he once was, would unite with him in saying there should be an end to revenue derived from this demoralizing source. The third point he wished to allude to was the system of public works—and here he must express his regret that so very little encouragement was given to private enterprize, thereby Limiting the introduction of English capital into India. He could not but think that the wiser course would have been to encourage its introduction as widely as possible; for, surely, there was scope enough in India both for the Government and for the English capitalist. He had given a Notice on the subject for next Session. The matter ought to be thoroughly gone into by a Committee next year, and then justice might be done to India on this point.

said, he would put it to the Committee whether, after the discussion of that evening, as well as on a previous occasion, it would not be desirable that his hon. Friend the Secretary for India should be allowed to proceed with the Bills relating to that country which were set down on the Notice Paper. Unless there were great objections to those measures, it would, it seemed to him, be a great pity at the end of the Session, when the changes which were proposed with respect to administration in India could not be much affected by anything which might be said in that House, that the Bills should not be allowed to pass. The speech of his hon. Friend who had just sat down was one of a very lively character, and he could assure him that so far as many of the points on which he had touched were concerned, he sympathized with him now as well as in past times, when he took a much more active part in the discussion of Indian affairs. It was not possible, however, on the present occasion to alter the duty on salt or to do anything with regard to the opium question, while it would be a great convenience to the Government and the House that the Bills relating to India should be proceeded with at once. If that were not done, the probability was that they would have to be abandoned for the Session, and the majority of the House would, he thought, be sorry that such should be the case.

said, he intended to enter into the general question raised by the financial statement of the Undersecretary for India, but at that late hour would refrain from doing so.

begged to add his entreaty to that of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, that the Bills in question should be permitted to be advanced a stage that evening. With the view of facilitating that course he trusted he would be pardoned if he did not reply to the speeches which had been made during the evening, as well as on a previous occasion, in the usual way.

said, it was certainly understood by those Members who listened to the speech of the late Secretary for India (Sir Stafford Northcote) last Session that the whole question of the Government of India, which it was admitted required to be calmly considered and thoroughly discussed by Parliament, should be referred to a Select Committee of the House at the commencement of the present Session. The actual words used by the right hon. Gentleman were, as reported—

"I think that the best plan would be, when the Bills are introduced next year, that they should be referred to a Select Committee, and under these circumstances I beg to move that the Order of the day for going into Committee upon the Bill should be read and discharged."

At the time when these words were spoken they were heartily responded to; and it was in the hope that the present Secretary of State for India would assent to the wise and judicious course of action proposed for adoption by his pre- decessor in Office that he had refrained from renewing the Notice he had placed upon the Paper in the last Parliament for the appointment of a Select Committee on Irrigation. And if, in July of last year, it was acknowledged that the appointment of a Committee upon this subject was desirable, he thought it could not be denied that the necessity for such an inquiry was greatly increased at the present moment, when one of the largest questions which could possibly arise, vitally affecting the interests both of this country and of India—namely, whether the construction of railways and of works of irrigation still so urgently required should be monopolized by the Government or thrown open to private enter-prize—was now pressing hard for decision, and was reported to have been all but finally decided upon by the Council of India without that House having been consulted at all. Surely a question of such vast importance in its results to both countries, and so closely mixed up with the constitution of the Council of India, that one could not separate the two, ought not to be decided either one way or the other by any other tribunal than Parliament itself, to whom alone the solution of such a national problem could be satisfactorily intrusted. Up to the present moment no public discussion worthy of the name had been had on these momentous questions, and the minds of English statesmen had not been brought to boar upon them in a clear and distinct manner, and he was sure that not only would that House, but that portion of the public most interested in the matter, agree with him in saying that until a full, patient, and thoroughly sifting inquiry had been made by some such means as a Select Committee, no satisfactory result could be hoped for, or discussion had. That House had, in fact, no materials before it by which it could properly and with satisfaction to itself discuss and decide on a matter fraught with such immense results for good or evil to the Governments and people of both countries; and he therefore earnestly put it to the Under Secretary of State for India whether it was right to proceed at the fag-end of a Session with measures as to the merits of which that House was in almost total darkness, and whether it would not be an act of wisdom, which would be appreciated by all who took an interest in India, on the part of the Government to refer the two Bills now before the House to a Select Committee, and to agree that to the same Committee should be also referred the inquiry as to the best mode of constructing railways and other public works. His hon. Friend near him (Sir Charles Wingfield) had given notice of a Motion similar to his own, and he could assure the Government that the concession he asked for on their part would be received with the highest satisfaction out-of-doors, and be accepted as a convincing proof that they had the real interests of India at heart, and were not desirous of preventing a full discussion founded upon the best information that could be procured. He begged to move that both the Bill under discussion and the Governor General of India Bill be referred to a Select Committee next Session, and he should take the sense of the House on the question.

said, the Motion of which he had given notice referred only to the Governor General of India Bill. He could see no reason why the Bill now under consideration should not be proceeded with.

said, he had formerly entertained the same opinion as the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Kinnaird) that these Bills ought not to pass the House at so late a period of the Session, without their being referred to a Select Committee; but when those who were specially interested in the subject took counsel together they came to the conclusion that the first Bill might be allowed to pass upon condition that the objectionable clauses in the second Bill should be withdrawn for the present Session. He, therefore, could not divide with his hon. Friend.

said, that the Bill involved a principle of the utmost importance, and would make a fundamental alteration in the constitution of the Council of our vast Indian Empire, and the term for which the members of that Council were elected. It had, indeed, undergone partial discussion last year; but since then a clause had been introduced under which every member of the Council must be appointed by the Secretary of State for India. The House and the country were very much in the dark as to the manner in which the new Government of India had worked during the last ten years, and he was therefore of opinion that the subject ought to be thoroughly inquired into. In conclusion, he entered his protest against the hurried way in which it was proposed to discuss this important question.

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Kinnaird) was altogether wrong in supposing that he desired last Session to have these Bills referred to a Select Committee. On the contrary, he was extremely anxious that they should be discussed publicly in the House.

entered his protest against proceeding with a measure of this vast importance at so late an hour (12 40 A.M.)

said, he entertained great objections to the system now so common of buying out by pensions officials who had become too old for their work. When competent men were constantly coming home from India they ought not to retain worn-out men in the Council. The hon. Gentleman moved in page 1, line 18, after "years" to leave out "and," and insert—

"Determinable on his attaining sixty-five years of age; and every member of Council who has not served ten years before the passing of this Act shall continue in his office for a period of ten years from his appointment, and no such member of Council, whether appointed or continued, shall."

said, he would support the Amendment. He protested altogether against that Indian Council. They ought to have a responsible Government. The Secretary of State for India and the Under Secretary, with a proper staff, ought to suffice without a Council of old individuals, whose age, according to the Returns, was marvellous. Some members of the Council were in India thirty years ago, since which period the greatest changes had occurred there, so that their knowledge of the country was quite antiquated. The House ought to be careful not to waste the money of the people of India in salaries and pensions for such a body.

said, he hoped the House would not accede to the Amendment fixing the limit of age at sixty-five years. Judges and other public servants performed their duties satisfactorily at the age of seventy and upwards, and he did not see why it should be enacted that no man should sit in the Council of India after he was sixty-five years of age.

begged the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Dickinson) carefully to remember that they were now dealing with councillors, and not with administrators. For the purposes of a Council men rather gained than lost by advancing years, provided they retained their faculties—and certainly many persons of active mind retained their faculties in perfect vigour when considerably over the age of sixty-five. That House was one of the very last Assemblies in the world in which they ought to speak of sixty-five as an age at which men ought to retire from active public life. A leading case was that of Lord Palmerston, and there were many others who showed great power after the age of sixty-five.

said, if he remembered rightly the intention was that there should be fresh blood in the Council of India. They did not want old gentlemen who lived in India twenty years ago, but men who were well acquainted with what was passing in India now. He regretted to see this retrograde policy of the Government.

said, the course of Her Majesty's Government in fixing one arbitrary line ought to be regarded as sufficient. He should object to a double check. The matter might be fairly left to those who were responsible, for they would not be likely to appoint unfit persons.

said, he had no desire to press the Amendment as to ago. His object was not to give annuities to those to whom they were not bound to give them.

said, he would beg to move the omission of the words '' except as herein-after provided," with a view to other Amendments removing that provision from the Bill which gave the Secretary of State the power of re-appointing members of the Council at the end of their term of service. He did not think members of the Council should be put into a position which obliged them to look to the Secretary of State for re-appointment.

said, he would support the proposed Amendment. Some men might be tempted to ingratiate themselves with the Secretary of State in the hope of re-appointment. The first quality a Council should possess was independence; if the Secretary of State had councillors whose first object was to please him, the result would be to increase his power amazingly, while it diminished his responsibility. Earl Russell and the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had strongly insisted upon the independence of the Council at the time it was formed.

said, he should support the clause as it stood. At the time the Council was appointed the idea was to curb the power of the Secretary of State. That feeling had passed away, and it was now recognized on all hands that the Council should be a consultative and not a controlling body. Neither of the hon. Members who had preceded him seemed to understand the full meaning of the provision they wished to amend. The Secretary of State could not appoint without good reason, and his reasons would have to be drawn up and laid before Parliament.

said, it was a mistake to suppose that there would be a rivalry among the members of the Council to flatter the Secretary of State, for they could not be sure that any particular Secretary for India would remain long enough in Office to reward them for obsequiousness.

said, he thought it would be a very unwise thing for the Committee to declare that a man who had served in the Council for ten years, and had there earned distinction, should not be allowed to serve other five, should the Secretary of State believe he was capable of doing further good service.

moved that the following words be added:—

"And it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by warrant under her sign manual, countersigned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to grant to any member so resigning, out of the revenues of India, if he shall have been elected or appointed before the passing of this Act, and if he shall have held the said office for the period of ten years and upwards at the date of such resignation, a retiring pension during life of five hundred pounds."

proposed the following proviso:—

"Provided, That when and so often as a vacancy shall occur during the continuance of any pension under this section, the Secretary of State shall, by reducing temporarily the number or salary of newly-appointed Members of Council, arrange that the total charge for salaries of Members of Council and pensions under this section shall not exceed eighteen thousand pounds a year."

said, he objected to the clause, which would, place the appointment of the members of the Governor General's Council in the hands of the Governor General. The object should be to give the Governor General honest, independent advice.

said, he thought it very undesirable that his Council should be any check on the Governor General. It should be rather a Cabinet to assist him.

F said, that this measure stood in a very different position from that which had just passed through Committee. That was of comparatively small importance, while the present Bill was the reverse. He felt, therefore, that it would be wrong to go on with it at the present period of the Session. There were, however, three clauses respecting which, he believed, no difference of opinion existed, and which were of considerable importance— namely Clauses 1 and 2, which corrected a clerical error in a former Act, and Clause 9, which enabled the Government of India and the Legislative Council to pass a Vagrant Act for India. These clauses he would ask the House to pass.

said, he approved of the clauses in question.

moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following clause:—

(Criminal after tenth conviction to be treated as an habitual criminal.)

"Provided always, That any person who shall have been convicted of repeated misdemeanours, may, after the tenth conviction, be deemed guilty of an aggravated misdemeanour, and such person shall be liable to the same punishment as if he were convicted of a felony, and shall be treated as an habitual criminal."

said, the clause certainly deserved consideration, but he would oppose its insertion in the present Bill. As worded it would render any person who had been ten times convicted of drunkenness liable to be treated as an 'habitual criminal.'

then proposed another clause, imposing additional punishment for aggravated assaults on the police.

said, he thought that cases of this kind were sufficiently provided for under the existing law.