to put a Question to the Secretary of State | upon that occasion, he should answer in the for India. MR. CONINGHAM: Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be good enough to answer my Question before the House proceeds to another subject. MR. VERNON SMITH said, he would not trespass at great length on the attention of the House. MR. ROEBUCK intimated his opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought first to answer the Question of the hon. Member for Brighton. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he rose to order. As he could speak but once upon the Motion of the adjournment of the House till Monday; he did not think it desirable that he should proceed to answer the Question of the hon. Member for Brighton until he should have an opportunity of knowing whether any other question which might also require a reply upon his part would be addressed to him. MR. BRIGHT said, he also rose to order. It appeard to him that the House was falling into a most absurd practice every Friday evening. He observed that on the other evenings of the week Ministers rose several times to answer questions which were put to them; but on the Friday they could rise but once, and the consequence was, that the Questions addressed to them and their replies to those Questions presented, when reported in the public prints, a most disjointed appearance. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair and the House, whether it would not be better to allow the Minister to answer in its natural order each Question as it was addressed to him on the Friday in the same manner as he replied to the Questions that were put to him during the other days of the week. MR. SPEAKER said, it was perfectly true that on ordinary evenings, if two or three Questions were addressed to a Minister, he had the power of rising and answering each of them in its proper order; but no debate could then take place in reference to those questions. Upon the present occasion, however, there was a Motion for the adjournment of the House, and notice was given that several Questions would be put on that Motion being made, hon. Gentlemen wishing to accompany those Questions with certain observations. But if the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) wished to ask him, in the first place, whether anything out of order had taken place negative; and if the hon. Member further asked him whether he thought the convenience of the House would be promoted by allowing any hon. Member to speak two or three times on the Motion for the adjournment, he should say that the inconvenience of the present system, which was very great, would be considerably increased by following a suggestion of that kind. MR. BRIGHT said, he rose to explain. He merely proposed that a Minister answering Questions, and not any other Member, should be allowed to speak twice or thrice on the Motion for the adjournment. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he thought he could put himself right with the House. He believed that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) laboured under a complete misconception. The fact was, that when a Question was addressed in the ordinary way to a Minister there was no Motion before the House, and therefore it was his duty at once to notice it. But at that moment there was a Motion before the House, and, as he could speak but once upon that Motion, he thought it right that before he rose he should have an opportunity of ascertaining whether any further Question might be put to him that would require an answer upon his part. Therefore, he naturally waited until the last moment before he replied to the hon. Member for Brighton. [At a later period of the evening.] THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that he found very great difficulty in answering the Question addressed to him-whether, as the authorities at the National Gallery were reported to have expressed their willingness to give a large sum for a picture by Raffael, it would not be desirable that the Government should secure for the nation the famous picture of "The Apollo and Marsyas, now in the possession of Morris Moore, Esq., the original drawing for which was in the Academy at Venice. He really never heard of the report, and never saw the picture. He was, therefore, called upon to deal at the same time with an hypothesis and a contingency. In what more puzzling situation could a man be? All that he could say was, that, filling the situation which he now had the honour to occupy, he naturally looked with alarm when he heard of large sums in connection with famous pictures; but he at least ex THE COUNCIL OF INDIA. pressed the opinion of the Government | dicious document to be addressed by the when he said he thought that when the Minister of the Crown in this country to a trustees of the National Gallery did pur- nobleman filling the high and distinguished chase pictures, unless they purchased pic- and difficult position which Viscount Cantures of the highest possible class they ning occupied in India. He had been would incur a very heavy responsibility. credibly informed that the despatch of Viscount Canning, dated the 17th of June, was received in this country before Parliament was prorogued last Session. He had also been credibly informed that the despatch of the 9th of December had been submitted to the Indian Council, and that, although no positive declaration might have been made to the noble Lord against the terms of that despatch, the Council had put a minute or memorandum upon their books declaring that, in their opinion, that despatch ought not to be sent out to the Governor General of India. There might not have been a protest on the subject, but he was told that there was such a memorandum as he had mentioned. MR. VERNON SMITH said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India to lay on the Table any Minutes or Regulations he has made for the transaction of business in the Council of India, under the 20th section of the Act 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106. In the course of the discussions last year upon the Indian Bill the noble Lord the Secretary for India had told them that he proposed to adopt such regulations as might be found convenient for the division of labour among the members of the Indian Council; and it appeared to him to be desirable that they should at present learn how far that determination of the noble Lord had been carried into effect. A case had recently arisen which showed the advantage which would follow from their possession of accurate knowledge upon that point. The noble Lord had addressed an important despatch, dated the 9th of December, to Viscount Canning, which had recently been laid upon the table; and he thought it was very desirable that they should know whether that document had been the production of the noble Lord alone, or whether it had received the sanction of the Indian Council. MR. SALISBURY said, he would also beg to ask the Secretary of State for India the date on which he received Viscount Canning's Despatch No. 26 of 1858, and dated the 17th of June; also, if any Minute or Memorandum has been placed upon the books of the Indian Council in respect of the Despatch No. 5. of 1858, and dated the 9th of December; and, if so, whether the Government are prepared to lay a Copy of such Minute or Memorandum on the Table of the House. He could assure the noble Lord that he was influenced by no party or personal motives in putting these questions. He had entertained a decided objection to the Oude Proclamation, and he was also hostile to what was called the Cardwell Resolution of last year; but he had been greatly pained at the terms in which the noble Lord's despatch to Lord Canning was couched. He would not say that despatch was insolent, but it was certainly a most inju LORD STANLEY said, he had to state in reply to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Vernon Smith), that he had no objection to lay upon the table the minutes and regulations to which he referred. Those minutes were very brief, and merely related to the division of the Council into Committees for the despatch of business with greater facility, on a plan similar to that which had existed under the Court of Directors. The Council had adopted, with some modifications, the system which previously prevailed. Questions were, in the first place, considered in Committees, and the draught despatches and papers were then laid upon the table of the Council, where they generally remained for a week. Of course this arrangement did not at all affect the power which, after much discussion, had been vested by that House in the Secretary of State of sending out despatches upon his own responsibility through the Secret Department. He admitted that in those comparatively rare instances when despatches where sent out in that manner there ought to be some indication that they were sent out in the Secret Department. He accepted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman on that point, and it was merely from inadvertence that such a course had not been already adopted. In point of fact, however, the despatches so sent out would be distinguishable from others, for it was stated with regard to all despatches submitted to the Council that they had been "considered in Council," and therefore the omission of those words at once showed that a despatch had been CENTRAL ASIA.-QUESTION. MR. W. EWART said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is a prospect of the completion of the road from Trebizonde to Erzeroum, important as an opening for British manufactures to the more central parts of Asia; also, whether the Government has information how far the new frontier line of Russia below the River Amoor extends; and whether the Russian Government has occupied a port opposite the south-west of the island of Sagalien? sent through the Secret Department. He distinctly that nothing was further from now came to the question of the hon. Gen-his mind, either at the moment of writing tleman (Mr. Salisbury) who asked the date that document. for he was responsible on which he (Lord Stanley), received Vis- for it- or at any other time, than to count Canning's despatch of the 17th of take any step which would give personal June. It was received in London on the offence to, or wound the feelings of Lord 2nd of August, but it probably did not Canning. If it were considered that such reach his hands until the 3rd or 4th, at was the effect of the document in question, which time the Session had closed, and he could only say that he regretted it and it was therefore not in his power to lay did not intend it. At the same time, the the document before Parliament. Strictly opinion expressed in that despatch was speaking, it was irregular to publish such deliberately formed, it was right that it a despatch before it was laid on the table should be distinctly asserted, and he of the House; nevertheless, in justice to thought that upon such a matter—a large Lord Canning that course had been adopted question of Imperial policy, it was the in the present case. With regard to the duty of the Government, holding the opinsecond part of the hon. Gentleman's ques- ions they entertained, to take care that tion, the only paper that answered in the those opinions were fully and unequivocally slightest degree to the description of those conveyed to Lord Canning. referred to by him was a minute of the Political Committee, to whom the draught despatch was in the first instance referred. It was suggested, however, that as all the other correspondence on the subject had taken place through the Secret Department it was desirable that the same course should still be pursued, and upon that suggestion he had acted. He sent the despatch through the Secret Department, and it never was brought by him before the Council. He had stated on Monday evening, in reply to a question which was put to him without notice, that no protest had been made against the despatch. That was strictly and literally the case. No pro- MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD said, test in any form had been recorded against the only information he had it in his power it; and if he had had an opportunity of to give in answer to the first Question was considering his answer he would have said contained in a despatch of Sir Henry that from the form in which the despatch Bulwer, in which he stated that orders went out the opinion of the Council was had been given to repair the roads to not taken upon it, and that therefore no Erzeroum, but that he did not apprehend opportunity for any protest was afforded. much good would be done, and that the He had stated, in reply to the question to construction of a new road would require which he referred, that the despatch was considerably more funds than were at the sent out through the Secret Department, command of the authorities. Sir Henry and upon the responsibility of the Secretary made a suggestion, to which he (Mr. Fitzof State alone; and the only paper which Gerald) thought it was not very likely the at all answered the description of the hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would listen Gentleman (Mr. Salisbury) was an extract-namely, that if the British Government from the minutes of the Political Committee, merely stating that the draught of the despatch was read and approved without any further explanation. With regard to the despatch itself which was the subject of these questions, he thought that as it would probably be the subject of future debate the House would not expect him to enter upon its defence on the present occasion. He would, however, take that opportunity of stating most plainly and would advance the money the Porte would undertake the work and pay interest, but otherwise the Porte would be ready to make concessions to a private company. With regard to the second part of the Question, the Government were given to understand by the treaty of Tien-tsin, signed on the 15th of June last, that the boundaries between the Russian and Chinese empires were to be ascertained by a commission of engineers. They had no official information whether that commis- | Friend represented him as having sugsion had been appointed, whether the gested that the House should make their limits had been traced, or whether any Amendments in the Bill in Committee, convention had been held on the subject. assuming that the Government would disAs to the last part of the question-honour itself by accepting those Amendwhether Russia had occupied a fort oppo- ments. What he had really said was, that site the south-west of the island of Sagalien he thought the House ought to use every -he had no information at all on that effort to make the Amendments they pleased, subject. pressing on the Government the responsibility of rejecting them, and then when the House had before it two rival Bills-the measure as introduced by the Government and as altered by the House-there would be a clear issue for an appeal to the country. THE ANNUITY-TAX.-QUESTION. MR. BLACK said, he would beg to ask the Lord Advocate when he will lay his Bill for the repeal of the Annuity Tax on the Table. THE LORD ADVOCATE said that, although the hon. Member had induced the House to pass the second reading of a measure on this subject, he thought he should best meet the wishes and expectations of those who desired the settlement of the question by proceeding with the Bill which the Government intended to introduce. He hoped to be able to proceed with it on an early day, but at that moment he could not name the day. Motion agreed to. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, no one could wonder at the cheers which greeted the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) when he rose to address the House, or indeed consider the various aspects that the debate had assumed, without feeling that the House had got into a situation of embarrassment. That position was attributable to various causes. In the first place, the main question with which they had to deal was one so complicated, and at the same time so important, that it was hardly pos House at rising to adjourn till Monday sible to propose any measure respecting it next. REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.-SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE. FOURTH NIGHT. Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [21st March], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was, to leave out from the word " to the end of the Question, in order to add the words That "This House is of opinion, that it is neither just nor politic to interfere, in the manner pro which would not be productive of embarrassment. That embarrassment was increased by the fact that the Government which brought forward the Bill were confessedly in a minority in that House; that their scheme of Reform did not originate altogether spontaneously with them, but was rather an answer to a call made by the country. And it was the more diffi"cult and embarrassing that this call for a measure, though loud, was anything but distinct as to the particular objects which were desired. But these which might be called the natural difficulties of the position were by no means all. Not only had the House to consider the circumstances under which the Bill was introduced, but the manner in which it was met, and the issue which was raised by the noble Lord's Resolution. That issue was a peculiarly embarrassing one. They were not now engaged in a fair stand-up fight on the second reading, nor had they the advantage of the open council of Committee; they were entering at one stage upon discussions MR. HORSMAN said, that before the which belonged more properly to another. debate was proceeded with, he wished to Then, too, the Resolution, though it dealt correct an error into which his hon. Friend only with two points, was so general in the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) its terms respecting them, and left mathad fallen last night in referring to his ters so uncertain, that no one was able speech on a previous evening. His hon. to say distinctly what was the issue posed in this Bill, with the Freehold Franchise as Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." Debate resumed. [Fourth Night. raised, or what was the alternative which they had before them. As had been pointed out by his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council, the Resolution of the noble Lord might be satisfied with the smallest Amendment, or include the largest change. It was an axiom in politics, that in considering a question you should look not only at the particular proposal before you, but also at the alternative presented. Political questions were both of a positive and a comparative character, and when asked to assent to a particular measure you were bound to consider the alternative as well. Now, what, he would ask, was the alternative which it was proposed to the House to accept in lieu of the Bill of the Government, should the Amendment be carried? Neither from the Resolution itself nor from the speech of the noble Lord in laying it before the House could the nature of that alternative be inferred. Hon. Members were therefore left to find out for themselves in what it consisted. It was but natural with that view to look back to the measure which had been introduced in 1854 by the noble Lord or to the scheme which had been shadowed forth out of doors by the hon. Member for Birmingham, by whom the Resolution was supported. But both those were questions upon which the noble Lord declined to commit himself; and upon both the Government were told they had no right to take issue. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton had told the House that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies (Sir E. Bulwer Lytton) wandered from the point, because he introduced the questions of universal suffrage and democracy, and other matters which were not before the House; but when the House was called on to reject one measure, and was not told what other measure was proposed as an alternative, it was quite fair to discuss the merits of all possible or all probable alternatives in comparison with it. The progress of the debate, however, had presented the very peculiar feature that many hon. Members who had announced it to be their intention to vote in favour of the Resolution did not seem inclined to commit themselves to the propositions which had been made on the subject of Reform by either the noble Lord or the hon. Member for Birmingham; but had discussed the question as if they thought that the alternative of which he spoke might be found in the suggestions of his right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Walpole) who had lately seceded from the Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Wilts (Mr. S. Herbert) had, for instance, spoken out very plainly in that direction a few evenings before, and it must be clear to the House that the course which had been taken by his right hon. Friends the Members for the University of Cambridge and for Oxfordshire in quitting the Treasury Bench must have seriously affected the position of the Government in dealing with the subject, the more especially as it was known that their resignation of office was connected with a principle which had given rise to so much difference of opinion--the principle of uniformity; for it could not have escaped the attention of hon. Members that no objection which had been urged against the Bill had been so loudly cheered as that in which the principle of uniformity had been denounced. Well, that being so, what, he would ask, was the proposal made in reference to the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilts, and the greater number of those hon. Gentlemen by whom the Resolution was supported? It amounted, in effect, as he had before stated, to an invitation to the Government to assent to the alteration of their measure in conformity with the views entertained by their late right hon. Colleague. Now, that was a course he should contend which it would be extremely difficult for Her Majesty's Ministers to adopt without placing themselves in a false position in a position so false as even to involve their personal honour. But he thought the matter had now gone beyond that. The point now was this:-Was it possible, after what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University on the one hand, and by the hon. Member for Birmingham on the other last night, any longer to look at the proposition of his right hon. Friend behind him as forming a basis for the solution of the question which there was any reasonable probability that the House would accept? But before he touched any further upon the proposal of his right hon. Friend he would, with the permission of the House, make a few observations on the question of uniformity or identity. The Government had been repeatedly asked what course they intended to take with respect to that question if the Bill should go into Committee, as he hoped might be the case; and whether they regarded it to be so |