MR. BRYAN: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? he is deprived of the opportunity of dis- | territory of which we thus gradually becussing the question at the proper time, came the possessors. And the condition in raising this discussion on the Indian on which that Treaty was signed, sealed, Budget. and delivered was, that there was a certain annual sum to be given to his posterity. I am quite aware that this is not the time to argue that question; but as it is so broadly stated that this is a mere benefaction and favour, I cannot, as an independent Member of this House, entertaining the opinions shared by many hon. Members near me, sit silent and let that statement go unchallenged. I think, on the contrary, the Nawab's title is a good and substantial one; and I think it most lamentable that the Government of a great country like this should set up special pleas of any kind, because they know that the person entitled to plead against them for a sum of money is helpless to enforce his rights. But this House has rights of jurisdiction which it can—and, I believe, eventually will-exercise above all Executive Governments; and I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Bryan) will take this or some other opportunity before we separate, to show that he will next Session follow up this matter in the way in which he has begun it, when the whole mass of mystery in which it is enwrapped will be thoroughly investigated by a Com MR. GRANT DUFF: Whether the Government considers itself liable to give an account of this fund to the head of the Nizamut family? Most certainly not. The head of the Nizamut family is one of those persons who, by the favour and kindness of the Indian Government, have for the last 100 years enjoyed certain benefits. He is, on the whole, the most favoured-by far the most favoured member of that family, and receives very much the largest amount. The Government does not recognize in the head of the Nizamut family the very slightest right of any sort or kind to be consulted as to what is to be done with regard to this matter. It from time to time makes grants to the head of the Nizamut family of the day, and it has made very large grants to the present Nawab Nazim; but it never has recognized-at any moment, at any period of history-any right or title whatsoever in the Nawab Nazim of the day to give his opinion as to what it ought to do, or how it ought to apportion its grants. MR. W. M. TORRENS: Sir, I can-mittee of this House. case. I and learned Member seems to have admitted what is entirely destructive of his own case, because he admitted that if a Committee had been granted, there would have been brought forward facts which would have entirely altered the aspect of the case. MR. W. M. TORRENS: As presented by the Under Secretary. not sit here and listen to the doctrines SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: The hon. laid down by my hon. Friend without strongly protesting against them. deny, with all the emphasis of which I am capable, as a matter of fact, the accuracy of the Under Secretary's statement, that there is no right or title, further than that of a recipient of mere benefits or favours in the present head of the Nizamut family. I believe that is entirely contrary to the history of the SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I did not I have taken no part in the dis-hear those words. The hon. and learned cussion in this House upon the subject; Member said "Would have entirely but I venture to say that if you give a altered the present aspect of the case.' Committee-as I think you ought to have done last year, and as you have prevented the hon. Member for Kilkenny from asking this year-facts would be adduced which would change altogether the aspect of the case-as presented by the Under Secretary. I believe the facts to be that the present Nawab Nazim is the legitimate successor of the person with whom you made a solemn Treaty to surrender-first, the finances of his country; then the control over his army; and, eventually, the control of the MR. W. M. TORRENS: The hon. Member has no right to put words into my mouth. I know best what I intended to say, and I am entitled to repeat or explain what I said; and he has no right to repeat afterwards that that is what I said when I have denied it. SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: The hon. and learned Member did not contradict my statement. MR. W. M. TORRENS; I did, distinctly. SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg pardon. My statement was, that the hon. and learned Member said that he would be prepared to adduce facts which would alter the aspect of the case. The hon. Member did not deny this, but he said he added the words " as presented by the Under Secretary for India.' MR. W. M. TORRENS: I was replying to the observations of the hon. Member the Under Secretary of State for India. He put forward a case. I challenged that case. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that it is not according to the courtesy practised in this House-in which I have perhaps had more experience than the hon. Member for Maidstone-for one hon. Member to persist in construing the intention with which another hon. Member used words, when he has explained that such was not his intention. SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I do not wish to press the mafter against the explanation of the hon. and learned Member below me. I was only explaining that I did not hear him say the words he uses now. MR. W. M. TORRENS: I did not say I used those words, but their equivalent. SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: Then I do not understand the point of the hon. and learned Member below me. He does not deny having said that evidence was producible which would alter the present aspect of the case. He appears to have used those words in some sense which I do not understand, and, of course, accept his explanation. I Motion agreed to. House adjourned at quarter HOUSE OF LORDS, Wednesday, 7th August, 1872. sions Commutation Act (1871) Extension (284). Third Reading-Parish Constables Abolition, now Report-Pawnbrokers* (292). Parish Constables * (280); Kensington Station and North and South London Junction Railway Act, 1859 (Repayment of Moneys) * (276); Greenwich Hospital* (273); Military Forces Localisation (Expenses)* (278); Public Health (279); Law Officers (England) Fees* (254); Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds)* (264); Public Works Loan Commissioners (School Boards Loans) * (274); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* (275); Merchant Shipping and Passenger Acts Amendment (281), and passed. PUBLIC HEALTH BILL-(No. 279.) (The Lord President.) THIRD READING, Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read. LORD BUCKHURST said, he thought it a most unfortunate thing that a Bill of such great importance as that should pass through their Lordships' House without any discussion on any one of its provisions. He could not but think that the public interests would have been much better consulted if a measure of such moment had been brought under the consideration of their Lordships at an earlier period; neither could he see why a measure of this kind should not have originated in their Lordships' House. A sanitary Bill was one on which there ought to be some discussion; but on the eve of the Prorogation the discussion of such a measure was impossible. LORD REDESDALE concurred with the noble Lord who had just spoken. This important Bill had been only three days in their Lordships' House, having been brought up and read a first time on Saturday last. It was impossible to consider a Bill of such importance in so short a time; and he would ask the noble Marquess whether he would dare to treat the House of Commons in this way? THE MARQUESS OF RIPON said, that the measure was not under any circumstances likely to have given rise to much discussion, because it did not effect any change in the sanitary laws, but merely MINUTES. PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading-consolidated the authorities charged with # their administration. Moreover, in answer to the noble Lord (Lord Buckhurst), he must say that several important Bills had been originated in their Lordships' House this Session, and the fate of one of them, the Inclosure Bill, was not such as to encourage the Government to originate measures in that House. The last remark of the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) was misplaced, because the House of Commons had not had much more time to consider the Licensing Bill, on which it was at present engaged. LORD REDESDALE: But that is not the fault of this House. The Bill was sent down a long time ago. MINUTES.] — NEW WRIT ISSUED-For Ponte- PUBLIC BILLS-Ordered-First Reading-Homi- priation). Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a." Considered as amended-Irish Church Act Amend-(The Lord President.) Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a. ment (No. 2) [284]; Statute Law Revision (Ireland) [285]. * Considered as amended (re-committed)—Committee Third Reading-Union Officers (Ireland) Super- SUEZ CANAL.-QUESTION. THE MARQUESS OF RIPON said, that the Bill did not increase the sanitary powers conferred by existing Acts. All it did was to vest their administration in one authority in each town or rural district. Motion agreed to; Bill passed, and sent any negotiations have been entered into to the Commons. MR. GOURLEY asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If with the Turkish Government relative to the navigation of the Suez Canal, and REVISING BARRISTERS BILL-(No. 289.) the increase of dues imposed by the (The Lord Chancellor.) SECOND READING. Company since the 1st July; and whether, if he could inform the House it Order of the Day for the Second Read- was not a principle stipulated for in the ing, read. THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its first object was to provide that no barrister under seven years' standing should be eligible for the office of revising barrister. At present only a standing of three years was required. The second object was to limit the power of the Judges on circuit to appoint additional revising barristers to cases of want of sufficiency" of revising barristers. It had been expected that the Bill would have become law before the Summer Circuits of 1872, and therefore the date 1872 had been inserted in the Bill. It would, therefore, be necessary to alter this to 1873, in order that the Bill might not be retrospective. a Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3 To-morrow. House adjourned at a quarter before Six VOL. CCXIII. [THIRD SERIES.] construction of the Canal that its international neutrality as a highway to and from the East should be preserved for the use of the shipping of all nations? VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, in consequence of communications from the Italian Government and other quarters on the subject of the intended position by the Suez Canal Company of a tonnage due of 10 francs on the instead of gross the registered tonnage of vessels, Sir Henry Elliot was instructed to ascertain the views of the Turkish Government in the matter. He reported that the Porte were at first disposed to think that the Company were not justified under the terms of the concession in considering the tonneau de capacité as gross tonnage; appears from a further despatch of Sir Henry Elliot that the Porte had, after examining the question carefully, come to the conclusion that the Company might charge the gross tonnage duty, making the same allowance for engine and coal space as had been done by the but it Y Danube Commission. That is also the view taken of the question by our own Law Officers. The second Question of the hon. Member as to the neutrality of the Canal appears to be answered by the following extract from Article 14 of the concession: "Nous déclarons le grand Canal et les ports en dépendant ouverts à tou jours, comme passages neutres, à tout navire de commerce traversant d'une mer à l'autre sans aucune distinction, exclusion, ni préférence de personnes ou de nationalités." THE ROYAL GARDENS, KEW-THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS AND DR. HOOKER.-QUESTION. MR. FAWCETT asked the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone, Whether he intends to bring forward his Motion relative to Kew Gardens; and, whether the Government has afforded him any facilities, as they promised to do, to assist him in bringing forward the Motion; and, if so, what those facilities are? SIR JOHN LUBBOCK said, that in consequence of the answer he received last week from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, that he could not give an opportunity for bringing on the discussion relative to Kew Gardens till the measures necessary for winding-up the Session had been passed, he had abstained from placing any Resotion on the subject upon the Order Book, because he did not consider that at that period of the Session, when so few hon. Members were remaining in London, any discussion which would arise would be worthy of the subject or of the House. But he might add that negotiations were in progress which he sincerely hoped would bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. MR. FAWCETT wished to know whether the Government had not given a distinct promise on Tuesday week that they would afford the hon. Baronet every facility to bring on his Motion the first thing after the necessary Bills were disposed of. Those Bills would be all disposed of to-day, and he wished to know whether the Government had shown no disposition to carry out the arrangement? the first opportunity of bringing forward a Motion; but as it had taken so much time, he did not consider it right to bring the Motion forward. ORDER-RULES OF DEBATE. CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.-COMMITTEE. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clauses and Schedules agreed to. On Motion, agreed to," "That the Preamble be MR. FAWCETT: Sir, before the Preamble is considered, I believe I am perfectly in Order in referring to the subject on which I have already put a Question to the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone. I consider that before this House— THE CHAIRMAN said, that the hon. Member was not in Order in referring in Committee to what had taken place in the House. Preamble agreed to. House resumed. Bill reported, without Amendment. On Question, That the Bill be read a third time To-morrow, MR. FAWCETT: I believe I am perfectly in Order MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, That the Bill be read a third time to-morrow. Ordered, That the Bill be read a third time To-morrow. MR. FAWCETT: I believe I am in Order MR. SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House. The Clerk will proceed to read the Orders of the Day. UNION OFFICERS (IRELAND) SUPER- THIRD READING. Order for Third Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time." MR. FAWCETT again roseMR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is, that the Bill be now read a third time. SIR JOHN LUBBOCK said, he certainly understood the Prime Minister to say that when the indispensable business MR. FAWCETT: I rise to a point of had been disposed of he would give him | Order. I understood that on the Appro priation Bill it was one of the privileges | to bring on his Motion in reference to of the House that I could refer to any Kew Gardens? The answer which the subject, and I understood distinctly that Government gave my hon. Friend the the Question was, that the third reading Member for Maidstone was, that after should be fixed for to-morrow. Was I the essential business had been disposed not in Order? I rose twice with the in- of, and accordinglytention of making some observations on that Motion, and I understood that I could have moved that the third reading be taken on Friday or Saturday. I rose twice. MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House was, that the Appropriation Bill be read a third time to-morrow. That was agreed to by the House. ["No, no!"] Afterwards, the hon. Member rose; when I had called upon the Clerk to proceed to the Orders of the Day. MR. FAWCETT: The instant you got into the Chair, Sir-I appeal to the House, for I scarcely sat down-I rose three or four times in order not to miss an opportunity, and I believe I was perfectly in Order. And, in fact, if I could not have obtained some distinct understanding from the Government in reference to the subject to which I had referred, I was going to move as an Amendment, that the third reading of the Appropriation Bill be not taken tomorrow, and that Question was not put. SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN: To put the hon. Member in Order, I move that the hon. Member for Brighton be now heard. MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is, that the Union Officers (Ireland) Superannuation Bill be read a third time. SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN: As an Amendment, I beg to move that the hon. Member for Brighton be now heard. MR. FAWCETT: I beg to move the Adjournment of the House to put myself in Order. I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that there was an entire mistake-probably on my part. I am sure no one is more anxious to treat every hon. Member with fairness than you are, and therefore I fear the mistake was on my part, and that I was not quite prompt enough. But I always understood that the Appropriation Bill gives private Members an opportunity of speaking on any subject; and the subject to which I am going to refer is this-My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone on last Tuesday week asked the Government what facilities they would afford him in order to enable him MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question before the House is, that the Union Officers (Ireland) Superannuation Bill be read a third time. According to the rules of debate the hon. Member must confine himself in his observations to matters relevant thereto. MR. FAWCETT: I am sorry to have occasioned this controversy; but I move as a distinct Motion that the House do adjourn, because the way in which business is conducted is such that we cannot possibly proceed. [" Order, order!"] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is altogether violating the rules of debate. The Question before the House is, that the Bill be now read a third time. According to the rules of debate, the hon. Member is bound to confine himself to matters which are relevant to the subjectmatter of that Bill. Any discussion with reference to Kew Gardens cannot be said to be relevant to the matter of the Bill which is now the subject of discussion before the House, and any reference to that matter will be out of Order. MR. J. LOWTHER: I would suggest to the hon. Member for Brighton that if he allows the Bill to be read a third time, he would be in Order to move the Adjournment of any Question before the House. MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to inform the House with reference to what has been said by the hon. Member for York, that, supposing this Bill read a third time, I have by direction of the House called on the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day, and he is bound by my instructions under the authority of the House to proceed through the Orders of the Day. MR. FAWCETT: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I will not for a single moment, after your ruling, attempt to address the House. The best thing I can do is to give Notice, that on the third reading of the Appropriation Bill I will bring the subject before the House. Bill read a third time and passed. |