Commons Sitting of 19 April 1861

MINUTES.
For Southwark, v. John Locke, esquire, Recorder of Brighton.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—For Marylebone, John Harvey Lewis, esquire.
PUBLIC BILLS—1o Reformatory Schools (Scotland); Volunteers, Tolls Exemption (No. 2); Courts of Justice Building.
2o Queensland Government.
3o Queen's Prison, &c.

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION IN SPAIN.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any objection to state to the House the nature of the Communications which have passed between Sir A. Buchanan and the Spanish Government with reference to the present persecutions in Spain?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that Communications had passed between Her Majesty's Government and that of Spain, but that they more particularly related to the treatment of British subjects in that country. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice in Spain had both declared that they desired to do everything in their power to enable British subjects to exercise their just rights within the Spanish dominions. There were, he might add, further communications of rather an unofficial character with respect to those persons in Spain who had been condemned to endure severe punishments for professing and exercising worship in conformity with the Protestant faith; and, with respect to those persons, the Spanish Government said that, whatever they might be disposed to do—and they were, he believed, inclined to recommend a pardon—they were, however, very much embarrassed in their action in the matter by the fact that the discovery

  801
  had been made that secret societies existed in Spain which were in their nature of a socialist and republican tendency, and whose object was supposed to be to promote revolution. It appeared, moreover, that the Spanish bishops and clergy had in consequence expressed great alarm, and that the Government felt bound to do nothing at the present moment which would be likely to foster the spirit by which that alarm was occasioned.

MARYBOROUGH LUNATIC ASYLUM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DUNNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the decision of the Lord Lieutenant with regard to the Manager of the Maryborough District Lunatic Asylum will be carried into effect, and whether the Manager, when removed, will be appointed to any other Asylum?
  MR. CARDWELLreplied that the result of the inquiry which had been issued under the Statute proved that the relations which subsisted btween the resident and the visiting physician in the Institution in question were such as to render it desirable that the former should be removed to some other establishment. He would take an early opportunity of doing so, and it was, he might add, the intention of the Government that the promise made in the matter should be carried into effect.

AFFAIRS OF POLAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he wished to ask, Whether the Government have any objection to lay on the Table of the House any communications which they may have received from the Consul General in Warsaw?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, those papers could not be produced without injury to the public service. None of them, however, were of a very recent date.
  Motion, that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday next,

REFORM OF CONVICTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he would beg to inquire of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the system introduced by Captain Crofton into Ireland
  802
  for the discipline and reform of Convicts will be taken into the consideration of the Government? He (Mr. Ewart) was not a partizan of any system, but he believed the result of that adopted by Captain Crofton in Ireland was that only 20 per cent of the liberated convicts were recommitted to gaol. The advantage of the system was that the prisoners were broken up into small parties, and were thus more easily reformed. They were individualized, as it were. The gang system must have a tendency to contamination. Captain Crofton's system inculcated a feeling of self-reliance, and had been most successful in amending the character of the convicts. If that were true, as he believed it to be, the system was certainly one well worthy of adoption.
  MR. CLIVEsaid, he had no hesitation in stating, that anything done by Captain Crofton in connection with the subject of convicts, would gladly be taken into consideration by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department. His attention had not, however, as yet been closely directed to the matter, but it would, no doubt, be duly inquired into.

INDIGO PLANTING IN BENGAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he rose, pursuant to notice to ask the Secretary of State for India
  "Whether, notwithstanding the Minute of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal upon the Report of the Indigo Commission dated 17th December last, a Bill has been introduced into the Legislative Council of India to enforce contracts for the delivery of agricultural produce; and, if so, whether such measure has been introduced with the sanction of the Government of India?
  "And, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of that Report and Minute, and of the Act XL of 1860 of the Indian Legislature, together with the Correspondence thereon between the Governor General of India, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, and the Indigo Planters' Association, and other Documents and Papers relating to the cultivation of Indigo in Bengal?"
  He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman again present in the House, and, therefore, in asking the question of which he had given notice last week, he would accompany it by a statement. He wag well aware of the inconvenience of making these statements upon occasions like the present, and he had to apologize for intruding one upon the House that evening. He would not have done so, did he not believe the question to be one of great importance. Upon the answer to which

  803
  might turn the fate of interests of the greatest moment to India. We were rightly informed upon the course which the right hon. Gentleman might take would depend whether or not an outbreak took place in Bengal. He, therefore, earnestly but respectfully called the attention of the House to the question. When Parliament transferred the Government of India from the East India Company to the Crown, it had—while taking, in his opinion, a wise step—assumed, at the same time, a great responsibility. It was bound to see that justice was done to the vast population of India—a duty which he regretted to say did not, in the case of a considerable portion of that population, seem to have been faithfully discharged. The facts by which the justice of that view was supported were, he might add, of such an appalling nature that, unless he were in a position to verify them by a reference to official records, he should scarcely have ventured to submit them to the consideration of the House. When, two or three years ago, on his return from India, he had called attention to the treatment to which the Natives of that country were, in many instances, subjected, he had been assailed by all that vituperation in which the Indian press knew so well how to indulge; but he should not be deterred by that circumstance from seizing the present opportunity to draw the attention of the House to what, he repeated, he could not help regarding as a question of the greatest importance. And what, he would ask, was the nature of the case to which he was about to invite their attention? Last year an outbreak had taken place in that part of Bengal in which indigo was extensively cultivated, the native ryots refusing to cultivate that plant. The authorities had interfered, a riot had ensued, and bloodshed had been the consequence. It appeared that a Bill was then introduced into the Legislative Council of India making the non-fulfilment of indigo contracts a criminal offence, the cultivation of indigo being, he believed, of so peculiar a nature that unless it took place within a very short period of the year, extending over one or two weeks—a failure, and great consequent loss to the planter, was likely to ensue. Be that, however, as it might, the extraordinary Bill to which he had adverted had been introduced, and it enacted that any cultivator of indigo who should not fulfil his contract would be
  804
  liable to a heavy fine or three months' imprisonment, the law to be administered by magistrates and deputy-magistrates, with no appeal from their decision, at the same time a Commission to inquire into the whole subject was promised. The Commission had been issued composed of Mr. Seton Karr, Mr. Temple, Mr. Sale, and a very intelligent native named Chatterjee, and Mr. Fergusson, the Secretary to the Indigo Planters' Association. It had held many sittings in Calcutta, had examined a large number of witnesses of all classes of the population—planters, clergymen, officers of the Civil Service, and Natives, and had taken down more than 4,000 answers. The Report of the Commission, in a large folio volume, larger even than one of our blue books, had subsequently been published and submitted to the Legislature of India. The Commissioners, he might add, had held their sittings with open doors, and every opportunity had been afforded for the contradiction of the statements which were made before them. He had read their Report from beginning to end, and he must say had risen from its perusal, as well as that of the other papers connected with the subject, with mingled feelings of pity, shame, and. indignation which he could find no words to express. The evidence taken before the Commission described the cultivation of indigo as being conducted by means of a system of advances, many of those advances having been made many years ago to the fathers, and even the grandfathers of the present ryots, while very few had been made of recent years. The ryot, he might add, was a tenant with a kind of tenant-right, and was, to all intents and purposes, owner of the soil, or, as the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal called him, "a small capitalist;" but, the advances once made, he became attached to the soil, and was nothing more than a slave. The planter occupied the land of the unhappy man; armed men entered upon his property, destroyed his house, cut down his trees, rooted up his garden, murdered those who attempted resistance and seized others, carrying them off and confining them in prisons built by themselves; a state of reckless lawlessness prevailing which, he ventured to say, was never equalled in any civilized country in the world. He would not trust himself to make any statement not derived from official sources, but would read one or two extracts from the evidence given before the Commission. Mr. Latour, a civil and sessions Judge, told

  805
  the Commissioners that in his district the hand of the planter was systematically lifted up against the life and property of the ryot—a system which, he said, appeared to him to recognize neither the existence of magistrates on earth nor that of a God in heaven. Considerable odium, he added, had been thrown upon the missionaries for saying that not a single chest of indigo reached England without being stained with human blood; but that expression was his, and he adopted it in its broadest and fullest sense, for he had seen ryots who had been speared through the body, and others who had been shot down at the instigation of planters. The evidence of the Hon. A. Eden was no less important. That gentleman said he believed that deeds of this violence were not frequent, but still they were such as to keep up and perpetuate a feeling of terrorism, without which the cultivation of indigo could not be carried on for one day. Any act of great violence committed in any district, such as a certain attack in which three villages were gutted, three cultivators killed, and six wounded, would be enough to strike terror into the hearts of the ryots in that part of the country for many years. He believed there were many planters who did all in their power to avoid having recourse to such expedients, but it would be found that one or two outrages of the most serious description had occurred within the remembrance of men in every district and with every concern. Mr. Eden added, that prosecutions were scarcely ever attempted, partly because Mofussil magistrates knew the difficulty of procuring a conviction in the supreme court, partly from great unwillingness among prosecutors and witnesses to subject themselves to the liability of going to Calcutta to attend the court, and partly owing to the bias in favour of the planters, which had been too frequently displayed by men in all positions. The witness gave a list of forty-nine cases of outrage, some of the most horrible description, including not only the destruction of villages, but the actual murder of the villagers, and all reported as having occurred within the last few years. Similar evidence was given by clergymen and others. A great number of ryots were also examined before the Commissioners; but their evidence might be thought to be prejudiced, and, therefore, he would not trouble the House with it. One thing came out very clearly during the inquiry
  806
  —namely, that nothing on earth would induce the people to cultivate indigo any more on any terms. The Commissioners made a very moderate and impartial Report, in which they stated that the relations between the planters and the zemindars, of which the former had complained, were on the whole satisfactory; but that the relations between the planters and the ryots were not satisfactory and required considerable change. They reported that the planters as a body stood acquitted of the grosser and more violent forms of outrage which had occurred of late years; but that they were not acquitted of kidnapping and illegally confining individuals. They condemned the appointment of honorary magistrates, a body which included many indigo planters, who were thus constituted judges in their own causes; and they recommended that the compulsory Act of 1860 should be abandoned and not renewed, concluding their Report by stating that our character as a nation was at stake, and that at all risks we were bound to see justice done to the ryots. The Report of the Commissioners, including the evidence taken before them, was presented to the Legislative Council, and a minute was made upon it by Mr. John Peter Grant, Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. A more impartial, a more able, or a more statesmanlike document than that minute it had rarely been his good fortune to read. Mr. Grant deserved the utmost credit for the moral courage he had shown in the matter, and that no small amount of moral courage was required on his part would be apparent, when he stated that the minute had no sooner been published than all the phials, he would not say of wrath but of filth of the Indian press were poured out upon Mr. Grant and those who had given evidence before the Commission. The indigo planters pretended to show great indignation; they denied the truth of the statements made against them, but they offered no proof in support of their denial. No expense was spared to intimidate Lord Canning, Mr. Grant, and the other authorities in India considered unfavourable to the indigo planters, and everything was done that could be done to influence public opinion in this country. A costly pamphlet had been circulated among the Members of that House, but he would not refer to it further than to say that a work which comprised more mendacity and audacity he had never seen before in the

  807
  whole course of his life. Mr. Grant recommended that the Act of 1860 should not be renewed, and, although he did not agree with the Commissioners that honorary magistrates should not be appointed, he expressed the opinion that they should not be allowed to decide in their own causes. In a second minute submitted to the Governor General he answered the complaints of the indigo planters, and then Lord Canning—who, during a most critical period, had shown a courage worthy of an English gentleman and an English Christian in opposing an unreasoning cry for blood—published a minute approving all that Mr. Grant had done, with one unimportant exception, and assuring that gentleman of his warmest and most entire support. He accepted the recommendation that honorary magistrates should be appointed, with the reservation, that they should not be allowed to decide in their own cases—a very plain and simple maxim of justice. The House might wish to know what had been the actual operation of the Act of 1860. The evidence which had been published was conclusive upon that point. Mr. Long, a clergyman, said that the clauses added, upon the suggestion of Mr. "Wilson, made the Act essentially a slave law, and the working of it virtually an attempt to sow indigo at the point of the bayonet. The administration of the Act was entrusted to a large number of young, inexperienced men, sent up to the indigo districts. The alarm created by their proceedings led to an inquiry. It was found that hundreds of agreements between planters and ryots were forgeries, that great numbers of ryots were in prison, and that, in short, the indigo districts presented one horrible scene of reckless injustice and oppression. In an official letter of the 17th of August, mention was made of a ryot who had been in prison for three months, though no judgment had ever been given against him; and there was another man, who had had all his property seized, without any award. The Indigo Commission found two ryots imprisoned under this law, who were stone blind, and therefore could not be cultivators. Such was the haste with which these cases had been adjudicated upon, that one magistrate disposed of seventy-nine cases in four days, and assessed the damages at double the rate set forth in the alleged agreement. At one time and in one gaol, there were no less than 588
  808
  prisoners, criminally convicted under this Act, which made a common civil default a criminal offence. One poor man was made to pay 217 rupees, when he had only had an advance of six rupees; and another, who had got an advance of two rupees, was ordered to pay 161 rupees. He had said that many of these agreements were actually forged. That had been denied by the planters; but it was proved by the evidence of Mr. Bell, who, in a letter to Mr. Seton Karr, declared that those agreements bore internal evidence of forgery. For example, in a decision purported to have been given in July, 1860, the documents on which it was ostensibly founded were dated in December, six months afterwards. Mr. Bell said, that—
  "From a review of numerous cases he had arrived at the conclusion that to meet the particular exigencies of the time, and to coerce the ryots, a vast number of agreements had been called into existence, to which the ryots were not assenting parties; and to do this, documents had been fabricated, and details of account entered in written books prepared for the occasion."
  The execution of these deeds was of course solemnly sworn to by the agents of the factory. The same gentleman, after referring to an instance in which it was proved that the ryot, who was named, had actually died some time before the date of his alleged agreement, proceeded to say—
  "Such then were the cases I had to try; and, besides these, I could enumerate others equally false, in which loathsome lepers, infants, men bedridden from age and disease, and who, being unable to walk, were brought up in carts and doolies, and propped up because they could not stand in court, when their cases came under trial, were charged with having received advances under covenant to sow and to deliver indigo."
  A letter from Mr. Lushington, dated in January last, related that in one factory 609 of these agreements were put into court, of which forty-two were written on stamped paper, bearing forged endorsements. Mr. Lushington justly spoke of this as an "appalling fact," and he added that there were good grounds for believing one-third of the whole number to be inscribed on stamped paper with a forged endorsement. A magistrate much respected, Mr. Herschel, stated that between 200 and 300 were prepared by the same hands, seven or eight forgers having been employed on the work. And what were these indigo contracts? He had that morning received an official statement from India mentioning a case in which by a contract an unhappy ryot bound himself and his heirs

  809
  never to pay back his advance in money or in any other way than by continuing to cultivate indigo. The date of this agreement was so recent as the 29th of November, 1859. It was a forged agreement. The poor ryot was thrown into prison upon this forged agreement which bound himself and his heirs to be for over a slave to the soil of which an indigo planter had thus virtually obtained possession. The planter's books in which the contract and advances were entered, contrary to all law, were received in evidence against the ryots without further inquiry. Of one of these books the Commissioner, Mr. Lushington, pays:—
  "It was to all appearances as if it were only a week old, with clear edges and unruffled red cloth cover; while the writing looked as if it had been written continuously, instead of the entries being jotted down opposite each name as payments were made."
  Some of the Native residents of Calcutta, hearing of the horrible injustice thus perpetrated against their unhappy fellow subjects, the ryots, determined to send legal assistance to them, and employed a Native councillor to go and advocate their cause. But would it be believed that the magistrate, at least in one district, taking advantage of a clause in the Act which made any one aiding or abetting its violation liable to a fine, or six months' imprisonment, condemned a legal adviser to imprisonment and fine. Such a state of things was perfectly horrible. One mooktar or lawyer was sentenced by Mr. Betts, for the offence which was no offence at all, to six months' imprisonment and a fine of 200 rupees—the Act being alternative, and, in default of payment, to a further imprisonment of six months. Of course, after that, the unhappy ryots could get no legal assistance and the prosecutors had it all their own way. Did not such a stale of things as regards the ryots demand an expression of sympathy from that House? They could not be surprized to find that a general feeling of discontent prevailed throughout the indigo districts. In any other country in the world such a system would already have raised a general rebellion. The state of things in Bengal was most alarming, and they might by any mail hear of an outbreak in southern Bengal, entailing on the country the most grievous calamities. In Mr. J. P. Grant's minute, dated 17th of September, 1860, he said—
  "On my return, a few days afterwards, along the same two rivers (the Koomar and Calligunga),
  810
  from dawn to dust, as I steamed along these two rivers for some sixty or seventy miles, both banks were literally lined with crowds of villagers claiming justice in this matter (the forced cultivation of indigo). Even the women of the villages on the banks were collected in groups by themselves; the males, who stood at and between the riverside villages in little crowds, must have collected from all the villages at a great distance on either side. I do not know that it ever fell to the lot of an Indian officer to steam for fourteen hours through a continued double street of suppliants for justice. All were most respectful and orderly, but all were plainly in earnest. It would be folly to suppose that such a display on the part of tens of thousands of people, men, women, and children, had no deep meaning. The organization and capacity for combined and simultaneous action in the cause, which this remarkable demonstration over so large an extent of country proved, are subjects worthy of much consideration."
  In the most urgent terms Mr. Grant besought the Governor General not to renew the Act that had led to such terrible injustice. He received from the Secretary to the Government of Bengal a proclamation to be addressed to the ryots in these words—
  "It is not the intention of the Government of India to re-enact the temporary law for the summary enforcement of indigo contracts by the magistrates, which law will expire on the 4th of October next, corresponding with the 19th Assin. After that date actions for breach of existing contracts will be cognizable as before by the civil courts. But it is the intention of the Government to provide as soon as possible for the more speedy adjudication of such cases by increasing the number of courts and by simplifying procedure."
  That proclamation was sent with a despatch, by which Mr. Grant was instructed to explain it to the ryots. It was translated into Bengalee, and circulated through the indigo districts. Last May, too, the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for India, in reply to a question asked of him by the hon. Member for Perth, said that the Act complained of was only a temporary Act. After those pledges and promises, what must be the indignation and consternation of the ryots and of their fellow-countrymen in India to find that a Bill precisely similar had been introduced into the Legislature of India. True, by a subterfuge, the Act did not appear altogether the same, as it was extended to all articles of produce, but it was only the indigo planters of certain districts that asked for such protection for his special and petty interests. Neither sugar, jute, rice, nor any other article of Indian produce required it. He was glad to find from the despatch of the Secretary of State for India on this subject for which he had moved

  811
  that he disapproved this procedure. It was monstrous to suppose that such an act was required, putting aside the fact that it was such a breach of good faith as must shake for ever the confidence of the Natives in our word. In the Bengal districts the export of every article of produce but one had increased within the last twenty years a hundredfold; indigo alone had remained nearly stationary because it was a forced cultivation, and was not a paying crop. As an instance of the feelings of the Natives upon the subject of indigo, he would refer to the evidence of Mr. Morrell, who lived among them and had won their confidence, but his gardener having planted by chance some indigo seeds, which came among others from Calcutta, the Natives when they heard of it became so much excited that a riot was nearly taking place. It was true that to some extent British capital was embarked in the indigo cultivation; but he was informed that a large portion of the cultivation was carried on with borrowed capital advanced by Natives at 16 or 20 per cent interest. It was only in Lower Bengal that there was any necessity for such an act as he referred to, and the produce of this district formed, it is stated, only one-fourteenth of the indigo cultivation of India. It was not needed in the North West Provinces, nor in Madras. He wished to say one word more as to our treatment of the Native race. When he was in India he had been often shocked at the injustice the Natives met with at the hands of Europeans, and when he remonstrated he was told in reply that they wore only "niggers." He remembered that when in Persia and in Turkey he had heard officers of the Indian Army and Civil Service apply the same epithet to the inhabitants of those countries who were nearly as white as ourselves. It would, he thought, be useful to know how the term "niggers" was applied; did it apply to those who differed in colour from us, or in religion, or in language, or in country. Because if we are to have one measure of justice for the nigger and another for those who are not niggers, it is important to know who niggers are. What might be expected to ensue from such conduct towards the Natives of India? The last accounts from India stated that the ryots were repudiating payment of their rents. Such proceedings were not unnatural, but he hoped the intelligent native gentlemen of Bengal who would read with interest the
  812
  account of that night's discussion would prevent their fellow-countrymen from engaging in what would undoubtedly be an illegal proceeding. The rents should be paid, and if they were not they should be enforced by civil process, but this was no justification for an act making the breach of a contract to grow indigo a criminal offence. He had heard that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India had expressed disapproval not only upon the general principles involved in this compulsory act, but also of the particular act itself. He hoped that what he had heard was true, and, if so, the right hon. Gentleman would have rendered eminent service to India and to this country. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman still hesitated, he (Mr. Layard) would earnestly entreat him to repudiate an act which would be fatal to our credit, destroy the confidence of the Natives in us, and annihilate that respect for the Englishman's aye or nay which had heretofore made the British name venerated in India. If the right hon. Gentleman had repudiated that act he had done an act of justice, of humanity, and of true policy. The hon. Gentleman concluded by putting his questions.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Indigo Commission with the Minutes of Evidence taken before them, and Appendix dated Calcutta, April 27, 1860, and, if so, whether he has taken any steps to carry out the recommendations contained therein? He had seen the despatch of the right hon. Gentleman, dated the 8th of this month, to the Governor General, which had been placed on the table since the notice of his Motion; but, as it appeared to him to be incomplete, and it did not allude at all to the separate report of Messrs. Temple and Fergusson, the minority, he was obliged to proceed with his question. He thought the statements of the hon. Member for Southwark were so unfair, so illiberal, and so one-sided, that if they were allowed to go forth to the public uncontradicted they would do serious injury to an enterprising body of Englishmen—the indigo planters of India. With respect to the charges of forgery which had been urged against the planters he might observe that in one case where a planter was tried his innocence was proved, and Mr. J. P. Grant had recognized the fact by conferring an

  813
  appointment under the Income Tax Act upon a member of the firm. With regard to the disputes between the indigo planters and ryots of Lower Bengal, he had read the whole of the voluminous papers and reports connected with the question, and was bound to say that the planters had been acquitted of the grave charges which had been brought against them, and that the Lieutenant Governor, Mr. Grant, had also admitted that fact in the 19th paragraph of his Minute on the Report of that Commission. Although he was aware that the system which prevailed in Lower Bengal and the terms which were offered by the planters to the ryots were different to and contrasted unfavourably with those which prevailed in Tirhoot and the North Western Provinces, yet he must confess he thought that had Mr. Grant displayed greater tact in the first instance, instead of giving way to his inordinate love of writing long and unnecessary despatches—a habit in which old Indians were too apt to indulge—these serious disturbances would not have occurred. In corroboration of that view he referred to a Report which was made a few months since to the Indian Government by Mr. Yule, the Commissioner of the Bhaugulpore division. A more practical man than Mr. Yule was not to be found in India. That gentleman was thoroughly acquainted with the habits, prejudices, and language of the people. Mr. Yule in passing sentence on some misguided ryots who had been convicted of plundering and burning some factories in one of the districts which formed a part of his Commissionership, recorded that they confessed all they wanted was a hakim, or special commissioner, to be deputed to inquire into their grievances, and had that been done no disturbances would have occurred. Instead of adopting that course, Mr. Grant appeared to have prejudged the case, as he threw the whole weight of his official influence and authority into the scale against the planters, instructing the magistrates to transmit to him their decisions in all cases between planters and ryots, reprimanding those who decided in favour of the planters, and applauding those who favoured the ryots. In point of fact, he had abdicated the dignified position of a Lieutenant Governor for that of a Superintendent of Police. What had been the result? The planters of Lower Bengal were ruined and crushed, and there was now scarcely a factory left standing in
  814
  that province. But, unfortunately, that was not all. It so happened that the planters were in the habit of taking putni leases of the zemindars. A putni, as stated in the glossary of terms used in the evidence and the appendix, meant—
  "An estate within an estate, created by the voluntary act of the zemindar. The tenure is created in perpetuity, and the holder obtains the full and entire rights of the zemindar, paying only the due rent to the latter. The zemindar's connection with the land ceases when a putni is created."
  The great disadvantage under which the planter laboured by that arrangement was that he had to pay down the first year three times the amount of his annual rent to the zemindar. For instance, if a planter took a putni at a rental of £10,000 a year he was obliged to pay £30,000 the first year to the zemindar. Many of the zemindars were rich, money-making people living in Calcutta, and were what would be called in this country "absentee" landlords. They were fully aware of the feeling of hostility which, unhappily, existed between the Government of Bengal and the great mass of the European community at present, and they very adroitly availed themselves of it to ruin the planters and to break the putnis. They had induced the ryots, through their agents, to combine together so successfully that even those ryots who were under engagements to sow other crops besides indigo refused to pay a single rupee to the planters. The zemindar at the same time pressed him for a quarter's rent. He was unable to pay, and the collector was compelled by the regulations in force to put the estate up to auction to meet the Government arrears. This was exactly what the zemindar wanted, because he ousted the planter, broke the putni, and enriched himself by £30,000. The evil had reached such a height that the very existence of Europeans was said to be at stake in the Mofussil, and the ryots now threatened to withhold the payment of their rents both to Government and their native landlords. With regard to the general subject, he would merely add that affairs had been brought to that sad state that, although that enterprising body of our countrymen, the indigo planters, had been already subjected to a loss of property estimated at several millions of pounds sterling, yet he feared that they would be driven out of Bengal altogether if they did not adopt the recommendation of Mr. Temple and Mr. Fer-

  815
  gusson. These two gentlemen dissented from the majority of the Commission, and drew up a separate Report. It should be borne in mind that Mr. Fergusson was one of themselves, an indigo planter, and Secretary to the Indigo Planters' Association. In paragraph 13 of their Report they stated—
  "An apprehension that considerable concessions by the planter to the ryots would be necessary in several districts, or nothing short of actual force would induce them to sow. In such places, any attempt to perpetuate the present system the ryots would resist by force. Judicious concession was the best policy."
  Again, in paragraph 15, they said that—
  "The deductions now made, which cause so much dissatisfaction to the ryot, should be discontinued. The charges for cutting, weeding, carryings stamp-paper, seed, &c., should all, or nearly all, be borne by the factory."
  He could not understand the policy of destroying the indigo interest in Lower Bengal. It was acknowledged by all impartial authorities that by their skill, energy, and capital, if properly directed, the material well-being of the zemindar and ryots was considerably improved, and that they added to the security of the tenure of India. He found that no less than eighteen commissioners and collectors of the North-Western Provinces bore willing testimony to this fact. He would read a few extracts of their Reports on the subject, dated August, 1860. Mr. Gubbins, the Commissioner of Benares, wrote—
  "The planters were almost invariably a blessing to the surrounding country. In eleven years he had never heard of any oppression on the part of the planters, whom, on the contrary, he always found firm supporters of the law, and ever ready to assist in looking after the peace of the district, and in caring for the roads and public thoroughfares."
  Mr. Alexander Ross, Officiating Commissioner of the Agra Division, stated that—
  "The cultivation of indigo appeared to be highly popular both with the zemindars and the cultivators. Affrays were unknown, and litigation was comparatively rare."
  Mr. Court, the collector of Allahabad, and Mr. Thornhill, the collector of Etawah, and the collectors of Azimghur, Juanpore, Mirzapore, Ghazeepore, Cawnpore, Furruckabad, Agra, Mynpooree, and elsewhere, all reported in a similar strain; and their Reports would be found to be contained within pages from 114 to 125 of the Appendix, No. 26, referred to in the question which he now begged to put to the right hon. Baronet.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he also would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received a Copy of the Correspondence regarding the cultivation of Indigo, between the Government of India and the Government of Bengal, which took place between July and November, 1860; also of the Correspondence connected with the issue of the Indigo Proclamation, dated September, 1860; and whether he had any objection to lay the same on the Table of the House? He felt deeply indebted to his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) for the full and able statement he had made to the House, and deeply grieved that such a statemant had been called for by what had so unexpectedly occurred in the Legislative Council of India. Strong, however, as was that statement, his hon. Friend had not exaggerated the case. Had it not been for the assurance of the right hon. the Secretary of State for India, last Session, that the Act introduced into the Legislative Council, in March, 1860, for summary jurisdiction was a temporary and exceptional measure; accompanied by the promise of the Commission to inquire into the relations between the ryots and the planters, he should not have allowed the question to drop last year. But he very much feared, that the little attention given to the subject in this House had emboldened those whose interests were antagonistic to the ryots, to put a pressure upon the Supreme Government of India, which they had not had the firmness or moral courage to resist. Bad as the proposed law was, he hoped that the House would not be blind now to the extreme gravity of the question, and that the recommendations of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal would be acted upon, and his warnings not disregarded. When they read, on the highest authority, of "burning indignation," and "bitter hostility to the ruling authorities," on the part of the labouring population, it would be nothing short of madness to trifle with this matter. The fact was, that the present system of indigo cultivation in Bengal was a forced cultivation, utterly unprofitable to the cultivator, and under it, it was false to consider the ryots as free men: and as to the contracts talked of, they were often blank paper signed under compulsion; and were they to institute criminal proceedings if they were broken? Let the planters go to the civil courts and enforce them, if they were lawful con-

  817
  tracts, which he much doubted in most oases; but it was perfectly monstrous to bolster up an unjust system of forced cultivation, by the power of tyrannical laws, and in the face of pledges to the contrary. What would they think, if the hop planters were to come to them, and ask for a law to compel the farmers of their districts to grow hops, even though its cultivation should be unprofitable? And yet that was what had been done in India in regard to the cultivation of indigo. They had undertaken the Government of India, and he trusted that the House would not only support the Secretary of State for India in his disapproval of these compulsory acts, but that they would appoint a Committee to inquire into the truth of the facts which were disputed.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he rose merely for the purpose of stating, according to information he had received from India, what the grounds were on which the Government had based their proceedings of the planters. Mr. Lane had said, in bringing in the Bill, it was only to be had recourse to in cases of absolute refusal on the part of the ryots to carry out their contracts, and that it was not to be expected that Europeans would come into the country and invest their capital if contracts were to be repudiated with impunity. Certain punishment of fraud was essential to the true progress of the people, and it was only by false sentimentality at home that fraudulent debtors had been treated with lenity to the great evil of public credit. The same sentiments wore uttered by Sir E. Napier and other members of the Legislative Council, and they had pointed out the great loss that would be occasioned if in a climate like that of India the cultivation of indigo, rice, or sugar, could only be proceeded with after the settlement of Chancery suits arising out of contracts, long before the determination of which the land would become a vast jungle.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he did not think that the hon. Member for Southwark had taken a fair view of the subject. The case of the indigo planters was a special one, and required special legislation. Indigo must be sown during a single shower. If the ryot neglected his duty during one day the advances were lost; and it was not for the ryot to take the advances and neglect to deliver the produce. The House should remember that this special legislation was no new thing. It
  818
  was introduced by Lord William Bentinck, than whom there had been no truer friend to the people of India, and it had existed till it was repealed by the Home Government under the influence of a false sentimentality. The fact was that there could be no greater injury to the ryots of Bengal than to drive British planters and British capital out of the country, and believing that that effect might be produced unless some measures were adopted by the Government, he approved the course which the Legislative Council had taken.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was very sorry that he had been unable for some time to make his appearance in the House, and he thanked his hon. Friends for their courtesy in postponing their questions until he was better able to answer them. With regard to the papers which had been asked for, the fact was that they had been for some time on the table of the House, and the first part had been actually delivered, and, therefore, there was no need for a Motion on the subject. He could not, however, allow the occasion to pass without a few observations in reference to what had fallen from hon. Gentlemen. With regard to the cases which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) though he was willing to believe that they were exceptional cases, every syllable uttered by the hon. Gentleman was literally true. Of course, he did not wish to throw blame upon the indigo planters as a body. Many of them, he believed, were honourable and good men. There was not the slightest doubt that in many instances the owners of factories were perfectly ignorant of what had happened. In one of the worst cases which had occurred, the planter (Mr. Hill) was in England at the time, and had been there for three or four years. So, in other instances, no doubt, the indigo planters were not cognizant of what had been done on the part of the establishment with which they were connected. Kay, more, many of them had done their best to mitigate the evils of the existing system, and to bring about better relations between themselves and the ryots; but the truth was that the present generation of planters had inherited evils which were the result of a long-existing and a vicious system, and, however well-disposed individual planters might be, everybody could see how difficult it was to root out a system of this kind which had continued for so many years. Although the abuses—the gross abuses—

  819
  which were perpetrated a short time ago might have been mitigated of late years, it was indisputable that instances like those quoted by the hon. Member (Mr. Layard) had occurred during the last three or four years,—ay, within the last few months. It was admitted on all hands that the kidnapping, confining, and removing the ryots from place to place were offences of no uncommon occurrence up to a very recent date. It was indisputable that only last year one of these unfortunate ryots was moved from place to place, and had never been heard of since. These circumstances really reduced the cultivation of indigo in Lower Bengal to a system of forced labour. He was afraid that many of the indigo planters had been subjected to considerable loss. For them as individuals he was very sorry, and everything which could be done to mitigate their loss ought to be clone. But this consideration was the only justification for the temporary Act which had been passed last year on this subject. The storm, if such it could be called, broke out unexpectedly, and the Government of India, under the pressure of circumstances, passed an Act which he thought would be perfectly unjustifiable under other circumstances than those actually existing. He had already expressed that opinion in the House, and in writing to India he stated that it was only in consequence of those exceptional circumstances that he was induced to sanction that Act. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Danby Seymour) said the growth of indigo was an exceptional case, and that, therefore, there must be special legislation. No doubt, to a certain extent, the growth of indigo was exceptional; but it was not more exceptional than the cultivation of many other products, and he knew no reason why it should be subjected to a different course of legislation. The very argument used by the hon. Gentleman had been urged on behalf of the West India planters. It was said that the making of sugar was an operation which, if interrupted for an hour, entailed the most serious injury on the planter, spoiling his whole produce; and then it was added, that as there would be no inducement to the free negro to work when slavery is abolished, it will be impossible to cultivate sugar in the West Indies. The special circumstances of sugar cultivation were the argument for the East. He did not think that a case could be made out in regard to indigo for any departure from the or-
  820
  dinary law. The cultivation at present was a forced one, because the price given to the ryot in these particular districts was perfectly inadequate. If that were not the case there would be no difficulty in obtaining the proper cultivation of the plant. The proof of that was furnished by the fact that elsewhere in India indigo was grown with the greatest facility. In Behar and other districts the relations between the indigo planters and the ryots were perfectly good. No difficulty was experienced in obtaining the delivery of the crop from the ryots there. In Madras, also, indigo was grown to a considerable extent, and was grown successfully. Why? Why, because the planters paid a fair price for the produce. But, in three or four districts of Bengal—and only in three or four—the old and vicious system prevailed; contracts were forced upon the ryots; they were seldom entered into voluntarily, and in some instances these contracts were forged. Even last year there were cases in which contracts were produced and were declared to have been entered into by those who at the time alleged were bedridden, blind, and dead. The extraordinary rise in the price of other produce having made it more profitable to grow rice and other crops, the ryots, not unnaturally, refused to grow indigo, and, considering what an uneducated class they were, he must say he thought they deserved great credit, upon the whole, for the little violence that had taken place. A more striking scene never occurred than that which was described when Mr. Grant went into the district. The whole population turned out as he went up the river and asked for relief without the slightest appearance of violence. The fact was that we had escaped a great calamity. Earl Canning had assured him that since the siege of Delhi he had never been in such a state of alarm as when these disturbances took place. By very judicious conduct on the part of the authorities, from the Lieutenant Governor downwards, a general outbreak was avoided; but still a very serious crisis had been gone through. Since then the advice of Mr. Fergusson to the planters, that they should endeavour to establish better relations with the ryots, had been acted on, and a great deal of indigo had been sown. In a large extent of country a much better state of feeling existed, and if matters were left to be arranged between the parties in the ordinary course of things, the same good relations

  821
  would prevail in the disturbed districts as prevailed elsewhere than in these few districts of Bengal. Then he was asked if it were true that the Government of India had sanctioned the introduction of the Bill to enforce by criminal procedure these contracts between the planters and the ryots. He was extremely sorry to say that such was the case. He thought it a great mistake, because he believed that the ryot was just as susceptible of the principles of profit and loss and amenable to the process of the ordinary courts in matters of this kind as any other person. He had, therefore, very distinctly stated, in a despatch which was before the House, that he did not consider that sufficient reason had been shown for applying to the Legislature to enact a law for the summary enforcement by the criminal courts of the country of contracts for the delivery of agricultural produce. It was not a question which arose now for the first time. There was a similar Act in 1830, which was abused to the gross injury of the ryot immediately after it was passed, and which was abolished by orders from homo in 1835. The Government of India was not in possession of that despatch when they had introduced the Bill, and he trusted that when they did receive it they would of their own accord withdraw the Bill; but, at any rate, he had written a second despatch, expressing his desire that if not withdrawn before, it should be withdrawn immediately on the receipt of the second despatch.

ATTENDANCE OF VOLUNTEER CORPS AT PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL PEEL: The question I am about to put to the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton arises out of the following account of the recent election for Tiverton, which appeared in The Times newspaper of the 29th of March:—
  "The election was fixed for 2 o'clock at the Town Hall to-day; long before that hour the streets were crowded, and the excitement was heightened by the presence of the Tiverton Rifle Corps, a very fine body of men, commanded by Captain Heathcote Amory, a near relative of the late Mr. Heathcote, M. P., who sat so many years for the borough. Lord Palmerston was escorted by the Volunteers from the Three Tuns Hotel to the Town Hall, where the ceremony commenced about half-past 2 o'clock. The election took place within the building, but Lord Palmerston afterwards addressed the Electors from one of the windows. The Rifles were drawn up in front, and the strictest order was maintained."
  822
  My object in asking the question of which I have given notice is to prevent the establishment of a precedent upon what if true was certainly a very novel and, in my opinion, a very improper proceeding, and I hope to obtain from the noble Lord an assurance that an order will be issued from the War Office to the lords-lieutenant of counties to prevent the appearance of Volunteers at elections. I have no hesitation in saying that I should be prepared myself to go much further, and to say that with the exception of drill and exercise and everything connected with them, I should wish to see Volunteers prevented from appearing in arms on public occasions without the previous consent of the lord lieutenant of the county to which they belong. I do not think it ought to be left to the Volunteers themselves to decide to whom and upon what occasions military honours are to be paid. But be that as it may, I think the House will agree with me that their appearance at elections is most undesirable, and that whatever objections are felt to the appearance of regular troops are increased with respect to the attendance of Volunteers, who are much more likely to be influenced by local causes and party feelings and are not subject to that military discipline and subordination which can alone render safe the presence of armed men in crowded assemblies. I have no doubt I shall be told that this was not a contested election, and that the object of the demonstration was to pay a mark of respect to a very distinguished individual, to a man whose connection was a great honour to the borough. But in that sense if they had taken another occasion, so far from finding fault with them, I should be one of the very first to approve of what they have done. I can assure the noble Lord that it is from no want of respect to him that I make these remarks. But to say that an election is not to be a contested election before the question has been put by the returning officer is hardly justifiable. How could it have been known that Mr. Rowcliffe would not be a candidate and—though it was not likely—he might have been intimidated from becoming the opponent of the noble Lord, At any rate, a man of less nerve than Mr. Rowcliffe might be intimidated under such circumstances, and prevented from acting up to what he felt to be his duty at that opportunity? Nothing but the reliance I place on the general accuracy of the reports in The Times could make me believe that the

  823
  Volunteers drew up in front of the hustings, and that the noble Lord actually referred Mr. Rowcliffe, not to the electors, but to these Volunteers, to know whether it was wished that the army should be reduced, and that that reference was met by cries of "No, no." I do not mean to say that much harm was occasioned by the presence of the Volunteers on this occasion, but I wish to prevent the recurrence of such an event, and I think it ought not to he passed over in silence, in order that we may ensure its not occurring again. If they have a right to support one man they have a right to support another; and what would be the case supposing a popular colonel of a Volunteer force were to become a candidate in a locality with which he and his corps were connected? I mean no disrespect by these remarks to the noble Viscount. I mean no disrespect to the Volunteers. No man can feel more interested than I do in the Volunteer movement, because I am responsible for recommending the acceptance of their services, which had been refused by the previous Government, but I certainly wish to see them relieved from occupying such a position as that which they filled at the last election for Tiverton. I wish, therefore, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it be true that at the recent election for Tiverton he was escorted to the hustings by the Tiverton Volunteer Rifles, and if it is the intention of Government to sanction the attendance of Volunteers with their arms at elections?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am sure, Sir, I have no ground, nor do I think that the Tiverton Volunteers have any reason, to complain of the manner in which the the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked his question. I quite admit that as a general principle it is improper that armed bodies should participate in an election; though I do remember, undoubtedly, that in the borough of Sligo, upon the occasion of an election some years ago, the police were put into confinement, the militia were ordered out of the town, and the regular troops were brought in to ensure freedom of election. But these are exceptional cases. It is perfectly true, as stated by the right hon. and gallant Officer, that I found, upon going from my hotel to the Court House, where the election was to take place, that the Tiverton Volunteers—a remarkable fine body of men, whom it would have gladdened the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's sol-
  824
  dier's heart to see, as likewise the accuracy of their movements and soldierlike appearance—wished to accompany me to the Court House. I really thought that, as there was no contest, and no probability of one, it would have been a sort of political pedantry and prudery if I had objected to walking with them, and I certainly accepted the honour they intended to do me. As to intimidation, there certainly could be none. The gallant Officer said that Mr. Rowcliffe might have been a candidate, and might have been intimidated; I can only say for my friend Mr. Rowcliffe—for, notwithstanding our occasional sparring matches, I call him my friend—that, in temper of mind, he is a true-born Briton, and
  "Si fractus illabatur orbis,
  Impavidum ferient ruinæ."
  He is the last man to be intimidated even by the Tiverton Volunteers. Having marched with me to the Court House, the Volunteers then went to deposit their arms in the usual place of deposit, and attended to the proceedings of the election, though in uniform, like the rest of the unarmed population; and it was not until the election was over that they marched with me back to the hotel. This was an act of kindness on their part, which they carried further, for in the afternoon they insisted on going the first stage with me by railway, and while I was waiting for the train at the Tiverton junction, they performed several admirable military movements, and gave me some excellent volleys. I wish it, therefore, clearly to be understood that the Volunteers did not attend the electon at Tiverton as an armed body, but in their capacity as citizens. With reference to the latter part of the question, I may add that it is the intention of my noble Friend Lord Herbert to send a circular to the Lord Lieutenants of counties to the effect that he does not think it desirable that volunteer corps should in any way take part in the proceedings at elections.

  NEW ZEALAND—TRIBUNAL FOR NATIVE CLAIMS.—QUESTION.
  MR. HOPEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies Whether it is intended to endeavour to institute a Tribunal in New Zealand to decide upon conflicting claims of Natives in cases of proposed sales of land by them to the Government. By the present system in New Zealand the Government

  825
  themselves, who were the purchasers of land belonging to the Natives, were obliged to decide upon the validity of the title to the land offered to them for sale. That such a state of things was not desirable was shown by the present disturbed state of New Zealand. The settlers were anxious to acquire land and the Natives to sell it; but, complicated as the land titles wore before we took possession of New Zealand, they were gradually becoming still more complicated by the addition of several of the characteristics of land titles in civilized nations. He thought a tribunal composed of persons representing the Government, and of those of best repute among the various tribes of the Natives, and resembling a mixed commission, should be appointed by the Crown to adjudicate upon any questions of land title that might arise between Natives on proposed sales by them, and he would suggest that those tribunals should not be composed merely of nominees of the Crown, but should contain Members elected by the Natives themselves. A question arose whether the tribunals should be constituted by the authority of the Government of New Zealand or by the Home Government. He was personally very strongly in favour of the principle of making the colonist governments responsible for the management of their own affairs. But this was a matter of the colonists managing other people's affairs than their own. The Natives practically were unrepresented in the Legislature. He thought, therefore, that it ought to be taken up by the Home Government. Unless some satisfactory conclusion was come to on the subject, there would be very great difficulty in dealing with the Natives.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he could hardly answer the question satisfactorily without clearing the way by a few preliminary observations with regard to the purchase of land from the natives. In New Zealand no definite code of laws on the subject of the sale and purchase of the native lands existed; nor was there any regular court or tribunal for the adjustment of disputes between the native owners of property and the Government. In dealing with the natives in regard to land the Government proceeded by way of direct negotiation with the native owner, obtaining the consent to the disposal of property of those who were looked upon as having a title to sell it, being guided in each individual case by the customs pre-
  826
  vailing in the particular district in which the land happened to be situated. Such was the course which the Colonial Government had always pursued, and which had been attended with considerable success. It was justified, not only by the necessity of the ease, but by the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi. The treaty provided that the Governor should treat for the purchase of land with the native owners by moans of authorized agents. On the other hand, there did not exist in New Zealand any such native title or claim to land as could be treated as a uniform and definite code of law, the native customs with respect to the ownership of land varying in different parts of the country. Moreover, the condition of the people had been and was such as presented almost insurmountable obstacles to the establishment and working of an ordinary court of justice for the decision of land claims. The natives in the northern island were, to a great extent, merely nominal subjects of the Crown, living apart from the Europeans in a state of semi-independence, and all dealings with them, as in the case of those respecting land, had hitherto been carried on by means of negotiation rather than of the regular and ordinary law of the Colony. In the purely native districts, in short, the natives were not wholly in the position of British subjects, and he might add that the small portion of them who were now engaged in hostilities with the Crown could not justly be regarded as being wholly in the position of rebels. For some years it had been strongly felt both by the Colonial Government and the Government at home that the system of negotiation which he had described and the condition of the natives was not a satisfactory one; but he should inform the House that the evils experienced had consisted not in difficulties arising between the Government as purchasers and the natives as sellers, but in feuds among the natives themselves and in the communistic tenure of land which prevailed among them, and which discouraged industry and led to indolence and demoralization of every kind. The best friends of the natives believed that nothing could be more desirable than an improvement in the native tenure of land, and some approach to the system of individual property. Several attempts had already been made to effect the desired change. In 1858 a Bill, called the Native Territorial Eights Bill, was sent home; but, upon full consideration by the Go-

  827
  vernment of the day, the Colonial Office being then presided over by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir Bulwer Lytton) was not assented to, on the ground that in endeavouring to improve the native tenure of land the Bill gave the authorities in the Colony too large a discretionary power as to the purchase of land, and enabled them to issue to native owners certificates of title which the Crown could not assume the responsibility of maintaining. A second attempt was made by the Duke of Newcastle in the course of last Session, by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose of establishing a Council appointed, not by the popular voice of New Zealand, but by the Crown itself, and by whose advice and assistance the Governor might be able, with the assent of the natives themselves, to introduce improvements into the administration of their affairs and to create a tribunal for the settlement of their land titles, and, consequently, for the arrangement of all disputes with respect to those titles when they came to be purchased by the Colonial Government. The House would remember that when that Bill was submitted for their consideration there was a general feeling that it related to a subject which ought to be left to the Colonial Legislature, and that it was consequently not passed into a law. Within the last month a third measure, having practically the same object in view, had come under the consideration of the Government. The Legislature of New Zealand had sent home a Bill for the purpose of creating a Council similar to that proposed last year, and that Bill was now under consideration. Should that or any similar measure be assented to, one of its main objects would be to enable the Governor, with the advice and consent of gentlemen of the highest authority in New Zealand, appointed directly by the Crown itself, independent of any undue pressure on the part of the settlers, and possessing the confidence of the natives to introduce law and order into those districts which had hitherto been independent of British authority, and, above all, to provide means for defining native rights to land, for issuing certificates of native titles, and for inducing the Maories to submit their disputes with respect to the ownership of land to the adjudication of some regular tribunal. At the same time he was bound to add that he did not believe the existence of such a tribunal, however desirable in itself, would have sufficed to prevent the
  828
  late unfortunate events. The conviction of the Governor throughout the entire transaction was that William King had never advanced any claim which would have admitted of investigation by any authority representing the British Crown. Whatever claims pretending to be of a legal and peaceful character were made had been invariably entertained and investigated; and had any such claim been made in this case it would have been entertained and investigated in the usual manner. The conviction of the Governor was that Wirimu Kingi rested his opposition to the sale of this land on entirely a different footing, setting up, in fact, his own authority as a native potentate in opposition to that of the Sovereign. In carefully considering the question his noble Friend was most anxious, in co-operation with the Governor of New Zealand, to see what improvements could be made in the native administration, introducing law and order into the native districts and leading the natives themselves to bring their disputes within the regular range of law; and with that object he hoped before long instructions would be sent out to the Governor of New Zealand. But in judging the conduct of the Home Government it must be remembered that with the institution of responsible government in New Zealand the Crown had already handed over to the colonists the power of legislating for every part of the island, including the native districts, the whole power of taxation, and the power of administering the revenues derived from land. The power of the Crown was very small. That of the Governor was very limited indeed. It was hard to say how far a very able and energetic mind armed with ample power and funds might have prevented the unfortunate state of things which now existed; but the Government must take things as they found them. They must recognize the power already given to the colonists, which was administered with very great intelligence and ability both by the Ministers and Legislature of New Zealand. The object would be in co-operation with the local authorities to improve the administration of native affairs, and, above all, to endeavour to introduce some system under which native titles to land should be subject to the decisions of regular tribunals. If this unfortunate war should lead the natives to the conclusion that their interest and wisdom lay in submitting themselves to the Queen's authority, which then would be

  829
  every desire to exercise for their benefit, great good would arise to the native race themselves. As long as they stood on their own petty independence and hostility to the Crown their difficulties appeared hopeless—their true position was that not of independent tribes but of subjects of Her Majesty.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he begged to state, with reference to the question of which he had given notice, as to the case of Captain Macdonald, that, having just received intimation from that gallant gentleman himself that there were further papers he hoped to obtain in the course of the week, he thought it better, as the matter had so much excited the angry passions on both sides of the water, in order to have full information before them, to postpone the question he intended to put to the noble Lord till Friday next. With reference to what had just fallen from the hon. Under Secretary of State he must say the courage of that hon. Gentleman exceeded anything he had ever witnessed before in that House. In spite of all that had been said the other night by his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn), he was surprised to hear it now stated that Kingi had never put in any claim. His hon. and learned Friend had read to the House four different claims. The assertion of the hon. Under Secretary was, therefore, utterly unfounded. The hon. Gentleman had also rather mistaken the drift of his hon. Friend's (Mr. Hope's) recommendation. The right course, in dealing with the question of native titles, would be not to establish a local tribunal, bound by legal forms, but a tribunal of arbitration. The real difficulty was that the natives did not believe the Governor to be fair and impartial in his conduct with regard to this matter. The state of the case was this:—A great agitation arose for land. Land was wanted to enable the Colonists to make their fortunes, and the Governor was in danger of losing his popularity if land was not rapidly acquired; he bought the land; Kingi disputed the right to sell; the Governor told him his claim was worth nothing, and he would take the land by force. The essential vice of the proceeding was that the Governor was plaintiff, judge, and jury all at once. Instead of referring the case to a court of arbitration, the Governor referred it to his own paid official, whom he might dismiss at any time; the question was settled in the re-
  830
  cesses of his office, and, of course, in favour of the Governor. It was settled by a man named Parris, who was not only a removable officer of the Governor, but a settler in the very province that was urging the acquirement of more land; he had, therefore, not only a political interest for the Governor, but a pecuniary interest to serve by the rejection of Kingi's claim. Could it be supposed that under these circumstances the natives, who were sharp, shrewd men, would believe the Governor to be strictly impartial? So long as these things went on they would never govern New Zealand with success. If they intended to govern the Colony on such a principle, they must keep 10,000 soldiers there, and that the good sense of the country would not permit. If they intended to govern the people with justice, the Governor must appear to be absolutely impartial; and the only way to secure that would be to establish a court of arbitration—the Governor naming so many members, the natives so many more—and leaving to these the settlement of all disputed questions connected with land. If, after a court of arbitration so constituted had given its decision, exceptions were taken to it by native chiefs like Kingi, they would receive no support from the great body of their countrymen in the island. If the present state of affairs was to be put an end to, it would be necessary for the Government to take stronger and more decisive measures than had yet been adopted.

PERSECUTIONS IN SPAIN.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Sir, I am sorry to detain the House for a very few minutes while I refer to the reply given by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to the question I put to him in the earlier part of the evening as to the communications which had passed between Sir A. Buchanan and the Spanish Government with reference to the present persecutions in Spain. I do not know whether I correctly gathered what the noble Lord stated. If I did, I can only suppose what he uttered had been put into his mouth by people interested in the matter, and not the expression of his own undivided opinion.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I beg to say I gave no opinion. I stated facts.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: That makes the case a great deal worse, as I shall endeavour to show in a very few words. I

  831
  know there are men in Spain at present who are persecuted solely on the ground of their religious faith. I have myself presented petitions very numerously signed from different parts of this country, urging Her Majesty's Government to take some steps by the exercise of their moral influence with a view to obtain their liberation. The noble Lord on a former occasion admitted the fact, but he said he thought he was unable to take any very active measures, owing to the sensitive character of the Government. Now, the noble Lord, in answer to questions which I adjourned on two or three occasions, said the Spanish Government, Marshal O'Donnell, and the Minister of Justice were anxious to give every liberty to religious opinion in Spain, but the fact was that those persons who called themselves Spanish Protestants were connected with secret societies for the dissemination of doctrines which were subversive of good Government. In the act of indictment against those men, however, it is expressly stated that they are imprisoned in consequence of their religious opinions, and not upon political grounds. It is very well for the noble Lord to have that clever answer put into his mouth, but I should ask the Spanish Government why they do not try these men? Why are they treated worse than thieves or murderers, and debarred from all communication with their families? I have received letters respecting the conduct of the Spanish Government towards these unfortunate men which would bring tears into the eyes of any hon. Gentleman who should read them. The men are positively dying in a cold, damp prison, and yet the Government will not bring them into a court of justice to be tried. The persecution, too, is extending. At Seville twenty or thirty men were arrested for assembling together in a room, but it being found afterwards that they only went to discuss newspapers and pamphlets, they were discharged with the exception of two who were thrown into prison. Such persecution is an insult to the nineteenth century. It is high time that the noble Lords the Members for Tiverton and for London should, from their antecedents on this question, show some spirit, and tell the Spanish Government how they look upon this subject. They should have the moral courage to tell the Spanish Government that this conduct is quite incompatible with the liberal feelings of modern Europe. Until the other day the Austrian
  832
  Government was the most arbitrary Government in Europe on religious questions. The concordat made with Borne was supposed to be one of the most extreme documents ever published in Europe; but on the 8th of April last the most complete liberty had been given to the professors of that Protestant religion throughout the Austrian dominions. Now here are the Spaniards continuing in this dreadful course of persecution, and the noble Lord gets up in the House of Commons and pretends to say that these men are suffering not from any question of faith, but solely because they are connected with secret societies whose principles are subversive of the authority of the Government in Spain.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I beg to say that I never stated that these men were suffering on account of being connected with a secret society, nor did I say that the allegations applied to those particular persons. I said that it was the allegation of the Spanish Government, that these men would have been pardoned, but that could not be done, because, since they had been in prison, the Government of Spain had discovered that several societies did exist, which, under the guise of Protestantism, were endeavouring to promote the establishment of a republic in Spain. I did not vouch for the allegation, but I said that such was the allegation of the Spanish Government.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I want to know, then, why the men have not been brought to trial? The noble Lord knows well that the same allegation has been always made in times of religious persecution. I am convinced that these men are not connected in any way with any political movement, and I charge the Spanish Government with a subversion of the truth in pretending to assume that they are. These men are entirely innocent. and I hope the British Government will act as it did in 1852 and 1853, and will point out to the Spanish Government that such persecution is offensive not only to the feelings of England but of all Europe.

CONSULS IN CHINA AND JAPAN.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to call attention to a Consular Notification dated Shanghai, February 8, 1861; and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What circumstances have occasioned this Notification in which Mr. Consul Meadows

  833
  announced his intended withdrawal from the principal post of his consular duties? No doubt Mr. Meadows found himself in a false position, the treaty having imposed upon him duties which were subverted, and undermined by the Tartar authorities. Complaints by Chinese merchants of evasions of the treaty were made to him which he could not redress. In the North China Herald there was an advertisement that the office of Inspector of Customs would be closed for two days, upon the occasion of the Chinese new year signed by an Englishman. It appeared, in fact, that we had established Inspectors of Customs at each of the treaty ports who, as servants of the Tartar authorities, collected the duties and handed them over to the Tartar Government to be employed against the national party. Even, during the late war, a large amount of duties was collected at Shanghai, and handed over to the Tartar Government, who employed it in fighting us. Great complaints were made to the British Consul at Shanghai of the oppressions practised by the Tartar authorities upon Chinese merchants in levying what were called "squeezes;" two traders were said to have been "squeezed" out of 40,000 taels each or nearly £13,000, and the Consul was unable to do anything to redress them. The Coolie slave trade was carried on at all the treaty ports with all the atrocities that marked the African slave trade, and a report from Swatow is in the following terms—
  "The deportation from this port of Chinese Coolies calls for remark. It is the slave trade in its worst form. Five hundred Coolies have been recently despatched to Singapore for sale. The whole subject of this Coolie trade demands investigation. It appears that it has become an adjunct of the gambling table, and that the miserable gamester will often stake his body for the sum it will fetch at the emigration depot. The Friend of China affirms that the same evil is at work in Canton."
  At Swatow, also, alarming riots had taken place on the proclamation of the treaties with foreigners; the proclamations had been torn down by the populace, and the Yamun or Palace of Taotoe was burnt, and the lives of foreigners were threatened, yet our consuls could do nothing, and we were looked upon as accessories to these slave captures. These disorders were extending throughout China. A rebellion, independent of the Taepings of whom the noble Lord had lately done him the honour to say that he (Colonel Sykes) was the only friend in that House had sprung up, and
  834
  it was said that Prince Sang-ko-lin-sin had been beaten by the insurgents. He (Colonel Sykes) was the friend of the Taepings on the same principle that the noble Lord was the friend of the Italians,—sympathy in their struggles for national independence. Another account was, that the Tartar troops had mutinied at Pekin for want of pay. The Tartar Government was thoroughly rotten, and if not supported by foreign bayonets could not stand for a day against the rebels. With these prospects of anarchy he was afraid the expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of benefit to the revenue from the trade with China would not be fulfilled unless some other policy were adopted, a continuance in which would impose upon us the necessity of maintaining half a dozen garrisons of troops on the Coast of China, and half a dozen fleets in the internal waters. It was right the House should know that we had forty-nine steamers and ten sailing vessels in the waters of China. How long was this source of expenditure to last? He would also beg to ask the noble Lord on what grounds the Consul General in Japan has abandoned his position at the capital? He understood that when he left he was guarded by 160 Japanese soldiers and two field pieces, so that there was no reason to be apprehensive for his personal safety.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he concurred with what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member, and considered the question one of great importance. He would take that opportunity of asking the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) whether any inquiry had been made with regard to the papers for which he had lately moved—the correspondence between Mr. Meadows, Sir John Bowring, and the Earl of Elgin, regarding the Custom-house system of China?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Before I advert to the question of the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) I wish to correct an error I made on a previous occasion as to the sums paid under the Chinese indemnity. I had mistaken two sums, the one for the other—the sum which had been received, and the sum we are entitled to receive. I stated that the former was £650,000, but I find it was £212,000, and that the sum we are entitled to receive is £650,000 or 2,000,000 taels. With regard to the other questions put to me by my gallant Friend, I find, on reference to the papers in the office respecting what

  835
  passed at Shanghai, that as early as 1859, Mr. Consul Meadows wrote to say that the work he had to discharge was more than he could bear, and asked for assistance. In April of that year, accordingly, further assistance was despatched to him; but before that assistance could arrive a further despatch was received from him, dated the 8th of February, and stating that his health was entirely unequal to the performance of his duties, and that he proposed, therefore, to confine himself to the routine duties of his office and to that portion of the political business which as consul he was required to superintend. In a subsequent despatch addressed to me Mr. Consul Meadows stated that after having been for twelve months engaged in the performance of very arduous duties in that trying climate he felt that his health was unequal to the task, and that he felt compelled to resign. We felt much regret that he should have come to this decision, because he has been a most deserving officer, and—what I am sure the gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) will appreciate—he agrees with the gallant Officer in his opinions about the Taepings. With regard to another statement which my hon. and gallant Friend has made, it refers to an arrangement which was made some time ago, and which may be considered as still on its trial. The arrangement is this, that the Chinese custom-houses should be superintended by officers appointed by the Chinese Government, but themselves Europeans, and recommended by European consuls. The object of that arrangement was to put an end to that partiality and openness to bribery that was supposed to characterise the Chinese Custom House officials, and to establish a system of neutrality as well as to secure a proper collection of the duties. Whether that arrangement will answer the purpose for which it was intended I am not now in a condition to state; but, on the other hand, I am not disposed to put an end to it at present. My hon. and gallant Friend has described the anarchy that prevails in different places in China. There is nothing in that to surprise me, because for many years past, ever since the commencement of the Taeping rebellion, the central Government has been in a very weak state, and possesses little or no authority. That may be; but that fact is not to prevent the British Government from redressing any wrongs which our fellow-countrymen may receive, or in-
  836
  duce us to refrain from giving protection to the persons and property of British subjects in case of injury. I do not understand the purport of my hon. Friend's observations, unless he meant us either not to interfere when British subjects were outraged, or that we should acknowledge the rebel general as the Emperor of China. For our own part, what we have done is to acknowledge the existing authorities of the Empire; and with regard to the contest that is carried on by the Taepings we remain neutral. It is true we defended Shanghai on one occasion, but our reason for doing so was that there was danger of British subjects and British property being injured in the attack the Taeping threatened. As to maintaining the present Emperor against the Taepings, we have no such intention; and even with regard to Shanghai, if it should be necessary again to employ a British force in its defence we do not think it ought to be at the expense of this nation, because Shanghai is not a place which we have a right to occupy with troops under treaty. My hon. Friend next asks what is the use of having a consul general at Japan, if he is to abandon his position. The reason of his doing so is detailed in a despatch he has addressed to the Foreign Minister at Japan, and which I shall have no objection to lay upon the table of the House. The circumstances were that for a considerable time past a system of intimidation has been pursued in Japan against all the Foreign Ministers. That system of intimidation, though not openly countenanced by the Japanese Government, was allowed by it to be pursued without giving them any protection against it. A servant of the British Minister was murdered, and no redress was obtained. Some time afterwards the Secretary of the American Consul was murdered. When this occurred the Foreign Ministers expressed their indignation; but no redress was given, and nothing was done. When the Foreign Ministers proposed to attend the funeral of the person thus murdered, and carry the American Secretary to his grave, the Japanese officials said they would probably all be massacred, and that they could give them no protection against any attack, by which their lives might be endangered. Notwithstanding this covert threat, the several Ministers attended the funeral, and no attack was made on them. But they held a meeting to consider what course to pursue, and decided, that if this intimida-

  837
  tion, so culpably permitted by the Japanese Government, were allowed to go on they would leave Jeddo; they stated to the Government that, for the future, they expected sufficient protection for persons and property, not only for themselves but for all merchants and strangers. This resolution was taken by the English, French, Russian, and Dutch Ministers. But the American Consul, whose Secretary had been murdered, did not agree with this resolution, and proposed to remain in Jeddo. It certainly appears the Ministers then received a general assurance of a wish to protect them; and, in fact, their houses have been guarded by Japanese troops. I ought to explain that the Ministers have not broken off connection with the Japanese Government; there is no interruption of diplomatic communications; they have only retired to a place where men of war can protect them, for armed vessels cannot approach Jeddo till their relations with the Japanese Government become more satisfactory. I hope to receive further accounts in a short time, and then I shall have no objection to lay all the papers on the table of the House. Mr. Alcock, our consul there, is a most deserving officer, and his conduct, both in China and throughout these trying affairs, has been such that I felt I might place the greatest reliance on his knowledge of the country, and of the tone which was most likely to produce an effect on the Japanese Government.
  There is a question at the end of the paper, referring to the injury that a British subject, the owner of the cargo of a vessel, the Mio Zeo, is alleged to have suffered from the Spanish authorities of Port Mahon, in the Island of Minorca. I find that this is altogether a private case, the dispute as to the cargo was tried before the ordinary tribunal, and has now been carried to a superior court, and it is a question that the Spanish tribunal alone can decide.
  As to what the hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth has said respecting the religious persecutions in Spain, I must explain again that in what I said before as to the reason for the imprisonment of these men I stated only the allegations of the Spanish Minister, and I beg that it may not be supposed if I state from the despatch of our own Minister what was related to him by the Spanish Minister that I, therefore, identify myself with all the statements of the Spanish Minister. But further, the Spanish Minister himself never
  838
  said that those two men, Alhama and Matomoros, were connected with secret political societies; far from it. He stated they were condemned by the laws of Spain to a certain period of imprisonment for non-compliance with the rites of Roman Catholic worship, and for holding Protestant opinions, and having Protestant books in their houses; but he did not charge them at all with being members of secret societies. What he said was this—
  "I shall be glad to give British subjects every possible kind of indulgence that is compatible with law and with my official authority; and I should be Tory glad to appeal to the Crown for a pardon for those men who are now suffering on account of their religious opinions. But since their imprisonment it has been discovered that there are secret societies in Spain with ramifications through all parts of the country, and inculcating socialist and republican opinions; and therefore this is not a moment in which I can advise that the clemency of the Crown should be extended to those individuals."
  Now that statement may be good or bad. I am only responsible for it so far as that I am repeating the allegations of the Spanish Minister. With regard to this subject generally, I will add, that any one holding the office I have the honour to fill, and thus representing the British nation, must be averse to religious intolerance, and in favour of religious liberty. But it does not follow that we are to inculcate our views of religious liberty on the Governments of foreign nations. We must wait for proper opportunities. If this House will allow me I will state an incident which happened last year and the progress that has been made in the establishment of religious liberty, not in consequence of anything I have done, but of the events that have occurred. There were two rival Governments in Mexico—the church and the constitutional Governments. Prance and Spain and the British Government wished to mediate between them. But I said we cannot agree to any settlement. I cannot recommend the British nation to take part in any arrangement, unless the principle of religious liberty be established in Mexico. The reason of this was, that the constitutional party had previously declared that that was their inviolable principle, and I thought that if the British Government were to exercise any influence at all we could not use it to induce the constitutionlists to depart from that which we believe to be the just principle. As it happens, the constitutionalists have gained the victory, and the principle of religious

  839
  liberty is now firmly established in Mexico. So, in every instance, where British influence can be used I endeavour to oppose the principle of religious intolerance, and urge the right of leaving every man free to exercise his own religious opinions. With regard to the Spanish Government, I may say that they are perfectly well acquainted with what the hon. Baronet wishes to see carried out. The Spanish Government know that the religious intolerance they sanction is opposed to the feelings, principles, and opinions of the present times, as well as to the practice of the other nations of Europe. Some time ago I stated my views to a deputation that waited upon me on the subject. What I stated was reported in Spain, and the Spanish Government know what I said. But if we were to make an overt official representation to the Spanish Government on the subject they would naturally say, "We may be right or wrong, but we have a right as an independent Government to maintain our own laws and the principles of our constitution." I think hon. Gentlemen will see this. A century ago our laws forbade a Roman Catholic priest to perform mass—in other words the Roman Catholics were not permitted to practice the worship of their religion, though that law was administered with a great degree of mildness and forbearance. But if the Spanish Government had then said to England—"You have an intolerant law, and you must alter it," I think that Lord Chatham, who was Secretary of State at the time, would have listened with some indignation to these representations on the part of the Spanish Government. Therefore, though the opinions that prevail in Spain and the articles of her constitution may be repugnant to my feelings, and contrary to my opinions, I must use not only a certain degree of discretion but shew a certain degree of respect to the views of the independent Government of Spain in taking any official action on the subject. But I beg the House to believe that if I do not interfere actively it is not because I do not wish to see religious liberty prevail, not in Spain only, but all over the world. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Buchanan) I have not been able to find the papers he asked for.

SPANISH COMMERCIAL LAW.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLAKEfelt obliged to the noble
  840
  Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for answering his question before he had put it, and regretted he should give him the trouble of hearing fuller particulars of the case, which he expected would induce him to alter his opinion and give a different answer. He brought forward the matter at the instance of the owner of the cargo, one of the most respectable and extensive merchants in London, who, failing in his efforts to induce the Foreign Office to interfere with the Spanish Government in his behalf, had requested him to bring the matter publicly before the noble Lord. The gentleman in question bought the cargo of the Mio Zeo, which consisted of maize. The vessel sailed from Constantinople on the 27th of September, and put into Malta on the 30th of October, when no complaint of the condition of the corn was made. On the 13th of November, she put into Port Mahon, when the captain made a deposition that the cargo was in such a heated condition that it would be dangerous to proceed further with it, and induced the authorities to decree him the amount of his freight. The owner immediately sent out an agent from England, who protested against the proceeding, and the matter was carried to the higher court at Palma, in the Island of Majorca. Three months had now gone over, and no decision come to, and the cargo was deteriorating every day. It had been examined by competent persons, who gave certificates that it was never in a heated state, and quite fit for shipment. In the face of this, the Spanish court sided with the captain, and decided he should be paid his freight, although he had not performed one-third of his voyage. There was strong reason to suppose they were acting corruptly, as in the event of a sale some of the island functionaries would receive a per centage on the proceeds; and he believed the court at Palma was acting in concert with them—holding over their decision for three months in the hope of tiring the owner out. They were old friends of the captain, as he had played the same trick there before, to their mutual benefit. The owner was of opinion that it was a violation of international law for the authorities to interfere in the matter at all—the owner being an Englishman, the captain an Italian, and the contract to be completed in the United Kingdom. But whether this were the case or not, Government should interfere to prevent a wrong to a British subject. The noble Lord said the

  841
  affair was a private one, and he could not interfere. He begged to differ with him. The matter involved a very important principle; and if the Foreign Office were really good for anything, the case was one which should call forth its activity. He begged to put the question of which he had given notice, Whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has received any information respecting the case of a British subject, the owner of the cargo of the Mio Zeo, and the alleged injustice and injury to which he has been subjected, with the sanction of the Spanish authorities of Port Mahon, Island of Minorca.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the matter had been before him already, and the law advisers of the Crown had told him he could interfere. He had no objection to do so if it could be shown to him that he ought to act; and if the owner would again state his case in writing he would take the opinion of the law advisers of the Foreign Office.

  DOCKYARD LABOURERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANGERSTEINsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to the Wages of Dockyard Labourers, and to ask, Under what circumstances they have been recently reduced from 14 s. to 13 s. a-week, and whether the Vote taken last Friday is sufficient to pay them the former amount? Though superannuation was a great benefit to the established labourers in the dockyards, it did not extend to the class of hired labourers whose case he had in view. The price of bread now was again high, and house-rent had been raised immensely, so that he believed a single room in that district could not be had for less than 2s. 9d. or 3s. a week. The wages now given by the Admiralty were below the average in that district, for the labourers employed in the main drainage works had 21 s. a week, the builders' labourers had 18 s., and no field labourer was paid less than 15 s. a week, if the labour was not permanent, or 14 s. if it was. The number of the labourers employed in Her Majesty's dockyards was 2,269, and the reduction of 1s. a week on their wages amounted only to the sum of £6,000 a year, which was a saving of very small account to set against the severe hardship inflicted on that class of men. He, therefore, hoped the Government would reconsider their decision in this case.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he was not surprised that his hon. Friend, the
  842
  Member for Greenwich, should speak for these men belonging to Woolwich Dockyard. It was true the Admiralty had found it necessary within the last two months to make a reduction in the wages of a portion of the lower classes of labourers employed in the dockyards. The fact was that till 1857 they received only 12 s. a week, and he must say there had never been the least difficulty in obtaining as many men as were required. But in 1857 the wages were raised to 13 s., and would have remained at that, but during the great pressure of work in 1859 the task and job system was introduced in the dockyard. The artificers were stimulated to work more by the opportunity of unlimited earnings; and as they used a great deal more material, the labourers also had more to do. It was then considered that, as the artificers were getting an accession of pay under the task and job system, it was fair that the labourers also should have some benefit, and their wages were raised to 14 s. When, however, in February last, it was determined that the system of task and job work should cease, it was naturally decided that the labourers also should revert to the pay which they had before that system commenced.
  MR. ANGERSTEIN: But they still worked the same number of hours?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that that was true; but so did the artificers, and as they benefited when those had more pay, it was only right that when the task and job system ceased they should be put upon the old footing along with the artificers. The established labourers at present received 14 s., and it was only the second and third class that had been reduced. The latter were without superannuation, but they were eligible for promotion to the established class, and, when on the limited list of established labourers, they would receive 14 s. a week and be put on the superannuation list.

  IRELAND—EVICTIONS AT DERRY-VEAGH.—QUESTION.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland has he now received official information respecting the recent Evictions of 280 inhabitants from the Lands of Derryveagh, in the county of Donegal; and is it intended that the landlord who has caused these Evictions shall hold Her Majesty's Commission of the Peace for that county? He

  843
  did not recollect any circumstance which had caused such a thrill of horror in Ireland, and he thought a discussion in that House upon the subject would be attended with beneficial effect. The subsequent accounts had confirmed the reports which first appeared in the newspapers, to the effect that 280 persons, comprising 45 families, were flung out on the road on the side of a mountain. For the first two nights the people who wore evicted found refuge in the houses of their neighbours which were still left standing; but, on the third night, when all had been levelled, they were left without shelter of any kind. On the fourth day the relieving officer came, not having previously received notice, and conveyances having been provided for the sick and infirm, they were removed to the workhouse. Forty-three heads of families applied for admission, believing that the expense of their maintenance would be thrown upon the landlord off whose property they had been turned; but, finding it would be imposed upon their neighbours, they expressed their determination to suffer any extremity rather than become a burden to them. He did not press for an immediate answer to the second part of his question, but he thought it right to state that the landlord who had acted in this manner was not of ancient family in the county, and that his sole claim to the Commission of the Peace was founded on the property which he had purchased only four or five years before, and from which he had ejected every human being. The facts were not disputed—indeed, they were tacitly admitted in the letter which this gentleman had written to the clergyman of the district, both the Protestant and the Roman Catholic ministers having joined in a touching appeal to him. He (Mr. Vincent Scully) was delighted to see those clergymen united in a manner that was unfortunately so rare in Ireland. It was said that this question was arguable, and that the principle on which Mr. Adair had acted was an old Saxon one. Now, the Normans had certainly acted upon it, but it was neither an old Saxon principle nor a Christian principle. The Earl of Derby, who was thought at one time to contemplate a wholesale eviction, in consequence of a murder which went undiscovered upon his property in Ireland, had declared that it was not for a single moment his intention to countenance any wholesale or indiscriminate evictions, and thus to visit
  844
  with punishment both the innocent and the guilty. It was desirable that the Government should have an opportunity of expressing their horror at such acts as these. An Englishman said to him recently, "Such acts might legally be done here, but if I did so I should be quite sure that no gentleman in the county would associate with me." It might be impossible for the Government to apply any effective remedy in the case; but they might, at all events, indicate their disapproval of the conduct of Mr. Adair by removing him from the Commission of the Peace.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he had received information of what occurred on the occasion to which his hon. Friend had referred, and he learned that the resident magistrate, with a large force of the constabulary, was present for the maintenance of the public peace, while the sheriff proceeded to execute forty-seven writs of ejectment, involving in the whole 244 persons. The people stood by quietly and calmly, and saw most of their houses unroofed, some expressing their determination to emigrate; but the great mass declaring that they would seek for relief in the workhouse. His hon. Friend had asked whether the relieving officer had received the notice which the landlord was bound under the statute to serve upon him before ejecting, and whether he had discharged his duty or not? So far as his information went the relieving officer had received a statutory notice, and he had heard nothing which led him to suppose that the officer had not attended according to the notice, or that there was any failure of humanity as regarded the relief of the people under the Poor Law. These wholesale evictions were happily now becoming extremely rare in Ireland, and it was not possible to hear of any such case without feelings of the deepest commiseration for those who were the subjects of such a proceeding, especially for the aged and the young, who were necessarily involved in the sufferings, although they could have had no share in the guilty transactions which led to them. The hon. Gentleman would find from the papers for which he moved on the previous day that when the Government heard that it was the intention of the landlord to proceed to so extensive an exercise of the rights with which he was undoubtedly invested by law, they did not fail to call his attention to the serious responsibility under which he would

  845
  act. Perhaps he had better enter no further upon that part of the subject. "With regard to the removal of this gentleman from the commissiom of the peace, he had, since the hon. and learned Gentleman had given notice of his question, communicated with his learned colleague the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, whose duty it was to advise the Crown upon matters of this description, and had received from him an answer, in the propriety of which he hoped that the House would concur. The Lord Chancellor said that as Mr. Adair had not acted in excess of his legal rights, and had not been guilty of a breach of his duty in his capacity of a magistrate, it would be an unusual, and too strong an exercise of power, to deprive him of the commission of the peace.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, he would refrain from giving any opinion with respect to the merits of the case which had been brought under their notice by the hon. and learned Member for Cork. The circumstances were, no doubt, of the gravest possible character, and it would require a very careful and a very extensive investigation of the state of the district to enable any one to pronounce a competent opinion upon the course which Mr. Adair had pursued. He had himself been, for the last ten or twelve years, a member of the grand jury of the county in which that transaction occurred; and he could state that there had not been one of those years in which their attention had not been called to outrages committed in that locality. Nothing could produce a more gloomy impression upon the mind than the yearly investigation of crimes of that sort, and there must be something deeply wrong in a district in which such acts were constantly taking place. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had introduced the subject, that when things had come to such an awful pass as that represented by those fearful evictions, all the facts of the case ought to undergo a searching inquiry on the part of that House; and it would afterwards require the most consummate discretion to determine what was the proper remedy to apply in the case. Under these circumstances, he had to express to his right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, his thanks for the discretion which he had shown in answering the question that had been put to him; he did not think the right hon. Gentleman could have proceeded upon the evidence before him to adopt the extreme
  846
  measure of depriving Mr. Adair of the commission of the peace, and he had only to add that he was afraid the condition of that district would be found, upon inquiry, to be far worse than people generally imagined.

CASE OF FREDERICK PERRY— THE GAME LAWS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, that it was possible that Mr. Adair might have committed no crime—although 200 years ago depopulation was a crime—but that his conduct in punishing 280 persons for a crime which had not been proved, and which could have been committed by only one or two of them, showed such a want of judgment as rendered him unfit to he in the commission of the peace for any county. In the Earl of Derby's case a man had been shot in open day, but in this case Mr. Murray was found at the foot of a precipice, with no marks but what might have been caused by his falling. There was no evidence whatever that there was a crime. He would now pass on to another subject. A week or two ago he saw a paragraph in the newspapers, which stated that at the Petty Sessions at Bridgnorth, a man named Frederick Perry, a notorious poacher, was about a fortnight ago convicted by the South Staffordshire magistrates at Bridgnorth of killing a partridge without a licence, and was sentenced to be fined £20, and in default of payment to be imprisoned during the pleasure of the Commissioners of Excise. This man had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment for a murderous assault upon a gamekeeper. While in prison he was summoned, under an Act of last Session, to answer a charge of killing game without a licence, and as he did not appear—as, of course, he could not get out of Shrewsbury gaol to do so—the case was heard in his absence, and decided with the result which he had mentioned. The blame of the transaction lay between the solicitor who appeared for the Excise and the magistrates. If what had taken place was lawful, then the sooner the law was altered the better. If it was unlawful, then there could be no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, should issue a warrant for the man's release.
  SIR. BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, the circumstances to which the hon. Member for Wexford last alluded to having taken

  847
  place in the county which he had the honour to represent he had been requested by the magistrates to lay their statement of the case before the House, and before he sat down he hoped he should be able to exculpate them from all blame. In the first place he wished to state that the prisoner had been in the county gaol twenty-one times, and had been four times imprisoned elsewhere. Of course it was no reason, because the man had a very bad character, that he should not receive justice, but it was a reason why the law should not be strained in his favour. The facts of the case were as the hon. Gentleman had stated. The summons was served on the Governor of Shrewsbury gaol, who served it on the prisoner, but the man was, of course, unable to appear. By the 7th of Geo. IV., c. 57, when a person charged with any violation of the Excise Laws happened to be in prison, it was provided that the summons should be served on the governor of the gaol, and that, if the accused could not appear, he should be treated like other defaulters, and that the case should be proceeded with in his absence. The magistrates of Bridgnorth, in the case referred to, adhered to that provision, and convicted Perry under the Game Licenses Act of last Session. Magistrates were not responsible for the law, but were bound to take it as it stood and give effect to it. He admitted that the Act was unjust and oppressive, and that it ought to be amended without delay, but he maintained that the magistrates only discharged their duty in carrying it out; and if blame was to be attached to any party it ought to fall on the Chancellor of the Exchequer who brought in the Bill of last Session, and those Members who enacted it into a law.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, that any one who knew nothing of the question which had been brought under their consideration by the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Scully) would imagine from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland that the evictions had been submitted to calmly and quietly, and had inflicted no great injury on any one. Now, the fact was that although the people were prevented from offering any resistance to the crowbar brigade by the strength of the military on the spot, the scene was one of most agonizing and heart-rending character. The Londonderry Standard, a Tory and landlord's paper, as other local journals, stated that the people exhibited the deepest grief and despair on
  848
  being driven from their homes, and that even the police officers could not refrain from weeping. He should not enter into the merits, as he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Cork would redeem his promise and bring the whole subject before the House in so grave and formal a manner that many Members might be able to take part in the discussion. He would only mention this important fact, that in the same county of Donegal a fraudulent presentment with regard to some sheep alleged to have been maliciously killed by the people, was made for the benefit of the landlord, and thrown out by Judge Monahan, who emphatically expressed his belief of the entire innocence of the people charged. The wool of the sheep was found in the house of the man who was called the caretaker, and there was little doubt that those who had the custody of the sheep had made away with them for the purposes of the presentment.
  MR. POLLARD URQUHARTsaid, he was quite sure that as long as the law allowed such atrocities to be perpetrated, so long would a vast amount of odium be cast upon landlords in Ireland, however much they might disapprove of them and however anxious they might be to improve the condition of the peasantry. The stereotyped reply of the Irish Secretary was simply to the effect that a man might do as he liked with his own; but that raised the whole question whether such unlimited rights ought to be permitted to vest in landlords. This horrible act of cruelty had plainly shown that previous legislation had failed, and the same kind of measures should be passed as were passed in England for the purpose of preventing evictions, which at one time excited great attention in this country. As long as these things were suffered to continue under the sanction of the law they could not expect the people to be well affected towards the English Government.
  MR. NAASsaid, he thought that with the little information which they possessed they were not in a position to form an accurate judgment. He had never advocated a system of evictions, as he believed that those who pushed that right to excess exercised it against the interest of themselves and the class to which they belonged. But if the remedy which Mr. Adair had adopted was a desperate one, the state of society in the country where the evictions had taken place was equally desperate. He had the honour to be ac-

  849
  quainted with that gentleman, and he knew him not only to be a humane man, but a man of considerable abilities, who had devoted those abilities to the improvement of the land and to the improvement of the people who were committed to his charge. A more lamentable picture of the state of society in a civilized country was never drawn than was to be found in the letter published by Mr. Adair, in which he stated—
  "All my personal interests, all my feelings, are against it. You will, however, recollect that a previous proprietor of my estate, Mr. Marshall, was murdered; that on these lands I myself was attacked by a large armed party, most of whom I recognized as inhabitants; that about the same spot my manager, Mr. Murray, was murdered; that while I was a guest in the house of one of you, investigating this murder, the offices were maliciously burned down (for which outrage you, gentlemen, offered a reward); that two or more of the coroner's jury in Mr. Murray's case, who found a verdict of 'Wilful Murder,' were attacked; that large numbers of my sheep have been from time to time made away with; that my dogs have been on two occasions poisoned; and that a system of intimidation, with threats of murder, has been carried on towards myself and my servants. In not one single instance were the perpetrators brought to justice."
  He would not offer any opinion as to whether such a state of society justified these evictions; but when hon. Gentlemen talked of them as being quite new things and not tolerated in any other civilized country, they seemed to forget that in Scotland such proceedings had taken place on a much wider and more systematic scale, without the authors of them ever being brought under the notice of the House. He did not defend these evictions in the least; he regretted them as much as any man, but in justice to the gentleman whose name had been brought before the House he felt bound to say that he was sure no one who had heard the unfortunate and sad story could feel more deeply the sufferings produced by the course which he had felt it his conscientious duty to take.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he had heard with great pain the speech just delivered by the noble Lord—the first that night which did not show a just appreciation of the Act which had been under discussion. There was no analogy between this case and those in Scotland to which the noble Lord in palliation of Mr. Adair had referred. There ample provision had been made for those who were dispossessed. Here 240 persons were in one day turned out of their houses, and thrown on the
  850
  bleak hill side to starve. Among them were 37 women and 121 children, who at least must have been innocent of all connection with the agrarian outrages. In answer to that the noble Lord had set up the statement of Mr. Adair himself, notwithstanding that all force had been taken from it by the letters written by the Protestant and Roman Catholic clergymen of the parish; in which they stated that after full examination of the circumstances it was their sincere conviction that the guilty parties might as well have come from some other part of the country as from Mr. Adair's estate. He asked whether anybody could for a moment palliate conduct attended with such frightful results to such a large number of people? If such an act, instead of having been perpetrated in the county of Donegal, had taken place in Rome, in Naples, or in Syria, it would have been denounced as an atrocity, demonstrative of the bad state of the Government which permitted it. The hon. and learned Member for Cork had signified his intention to bring this matter forward for discussion by a distinct Motion, and it would, therefore, be unreasonable to pursue the subject further at present, but he could not allow the noble Lord's speech to pass without expressing his dissent from it, and he considered the facts already brought before the House and uncontradicted by any one, amply sufficient to prove that Mr. Adair's conduct was an outrage against the first principles of humanity.
  MR. BRADYread an extract from the Dublin Evening Express describing the scene of the eviction as being most distressing and heartrending. He quite approved of the Motion of which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork had given notice, and at the proper time he should be bettor prepared to speak upon the question. He might observe, however, that there was this difference between the recent evictions in Donegal and the Sutherland evictions referred to by the noble Lord, as in the latter, instead of the poor peasantry being left to starve in the highway, they were provided with the means of emigrating to Canada.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he did not think that the hon. Member for Cork had acted in accordance with the principles of fair-play on this occasion; for, having asked for papers on the subject, the hon. Member, nevertheless, came down before the papers were produced, and asked the

  851
  House to concur in the complete condemnation of an individual. He (Lord Claud Hamilton) trusted that the House and the public would suspend their judgment until all the circumstances of the case were known. Mr. Adair had received great provocation. He had purchased the property in Ireland of the representatives of a man who was murdered, and did everything in his power to improve the land and elevate the people, but had to contend with constant opposition, and that of the most shameful and lawless kind. He had not, however, attempted to exercise this power until he came in contact with a system only paralleled by the secret courts of Germany in the middle ages—the Ribbon system. It was, indeed, a humiliating thing that such a scene as had been witnessed of late should have taken place in the British dominions; but it was more humiliating that within twenty-four hours' journey of that House the law should be systematically and continually defied. Many persons might say "Why did Mr. Adair not sell his property and retire?" but hon. Members must be aware that there were men who, exactly in the same proportion as they met with resistance, when they knew they were right, felt a determination to persevere. Mr. Adair felt it had come to this point—that it must be decided whether anarchy or Queen Victoria should rule in that portion of Ireland. There was there an organized system of disaffection and determined violation of the law—a hatred in fact to the rule of the Queen, so much so that recruiting officers were insulted. This was the wretched state of the peasantry, and they had been made what they were by those who ought to have known better. If they had not been encouraged to set at defiance the laws of the country, the late humiliating exhibition would never have been witnessed.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Cork would redeem his pledge of bringing this matter before the House in a manner in which it could be properly discussed. Notwithstanding the energy of the noble Lord who had just sat down the letter of Mr. Adair was in itself a sufficient condemnation of the conduct of which complaint had so justly been made, for that letter boldly propounded the principle that it was right to punish the innocent with the guilty. In his published letter, that gentleman had said that he was recently attacked by a number of peasants, among whom he recognised several re-
  852
  siding in the district, but although he was in the commission of the peace he had taken no steps to bring them to justice, preferring to act upon this principle of wild justice. Was it to be wondered at if the tenantry should follow the example which he had set them?
  MR. SERJEANT PIGOTTsaid, he understood the question before the House to be whether Mr. Adair was fit to hold the commission of the peace; and he thought they were indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Cork for having brought the matter before the House. The Secretary for Ireland had done his duty in the matter, for he had written to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to ascertain the opinion of that functionary; but it appeared that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was of opinion that Mr. Adair had done no more than what he had a legal right to do, and that he should not be removed. He thought the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had stopped short of his duty. he would recommend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to follow the example of the Lord Chancellor of England on a recent occasion under somewhat similar circumstances. It would be remembered that in a trial which took place at Guildhall it transpired that a gentleman in Warwickshire had conducted himself in private life in a way that became a public scandal. The Lord Chancellor called upon him to justify his conduct, and because he was not able to do so he removed him from the commission. If the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had pursued a similar course in this instance, and had called upon Mr. Adair to justify himself, that gentleman might or might not have succeeded in doing so; but at any rate the proceedings would have been more in accordance with public convenience and propriety.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he could not agree that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had been guilty of any dereliction of duty; the case cited was one in which the gentleman concerned in it had been shown, upon his own testimony, to have been guilty of the most shocking misconduct and a degree of moral turpitude which must be regarded as rendering him unfit for the due discharge of his duties as a magistrate. The case before the House, if he understood aright the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland was one in which a man exercised his legal rights in the manner he thought fit. It would be a serious question if the Lord Chancellor were called upon to strike out

  853
  of the commission of the peace every landlord who should exercise his legal rights with the same severity as Mr. Adair.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he must protest against the demand which had been made by some Irish Members that a gentleman should be struck out of the commission of the peace before the papers relating to his case had been laid on the table. The present was not the first time that the attention of the House had been called to the county of Donegal. It would be recollected that four or five years ago heartrending statements were made about the frightful and abject misery of the people, and the tyranny and cruelty of the landlords. What was the result? A Committee was appointed to inquire into the matter, and it was found that the whole thing was entirely without foundation from first to last, a Roman Catholic priest having taken advantage of the ignorance and barbarism of the people to persuade them to hide away their property in order to give themselves the appearance of extreme destitution. The Irish were an extremely excitable people, and he believed they were stimulated to much of the evil which was too common among them by the violent and unjustifiable statements made in that House by those who claimed to be their representatives.

  THE PAPER DUTIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. TURNERsaid, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether is is the fact that in charging the Customs Duty on Foreign Paper a tare of 3lb. is deducted from the weight of each ream on account of wrappers, the duty being charged only on the naked paper; whereas, in charging the Excise Duty to the British Manufacturer the whole ream, including the wrapper, is weighed for Duty, and if such be the fact, what reasons can be given why this protection is given to the Foreign Manufacturer?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had made inquiries as to the practice of the Customs in charging import duties on foreign paper, and he found it was not correct to say that a tare of 3lb. was deducted from the weight of each ream on account of wrapper. It was the practice of the Customs, and had been so for some time, while charging in the first instance the whole duty according to the weight of the paper, afterwards to return 2 per cent of the weight. The Excise did pretty much the same thing, because, as, according to
  854
  the Paper Duties Act the turn of the scale was given to the Crown, there was an allowance afterwards made to the manufacturer of 2 per cent of the weight. There was, therefore, no protection to the foreigner as against the Englishman, as both the Customs and the Excise allowed 2 per cent of the weight when the paper was assessed for duty.
  Motion agreed to:
  House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. BUTT, in rising to make a Motion on the subject of national education in Ireland, stated that five years ago the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) exposed in a most able and temperate speech, and in an equally temperate Resolution, the grievances under which the Protestant population of Ireland laboured in relation to the national system of education. The right hon. Gentleman succeeded in carrying his Resolution for an Address to the Crown, but though both he and the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Whiteside) had subsequently filled high posts in the Government of the Earl of Derby, nothing had since been done to remedy the grievances of the Irish Protestants. But the Roman Catholics of Ireland also complained of the national system of education, and he, for one, would never ask for any one class of his countrymen a freedom of conscience which was not extended to all. He had endeavoured to frame a Resolution upon that principle; hut he was afraid, coupling a notice which bad been given by the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University with a circular which had been issued by the Church Education Society, that the members and friends of that association, holding peculiar views in which he did not concur, had determined to make a separate demonstration of their own. He reserved to himself the right of perfect freedom of action when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin brought forward his Motion; and before he sat down he now wished to refer to a statement made by the Secretary for Ireland when the subject was last under discussion. That right hon. Gentleman boasted of the success of the system as one of united education, and stated that

  855
  out of 5,400 schools, nearly 3,000 were schools of united education. The Returns, however, proved that as a system of united education it had entirely failed. In some of the schools there was scarcely more than a single representative of the religious class which happened to be in a minority in the particular districts. He would mention two instances. There would be found five schools, containing each 2,000 Roman Catholic children, with only one Protestant; and, on the other hand, five other schools, each containing 1,200 Protestant children, with only one Roman Catholic; and yet they were called schools of united education. To all intents and purposes, therefore, the system had separated the education of Protestants and Catholics, and mutilated and maimed the religious instruction of both. He was for perfect and entire freedom of religious education, both for Protestant and Roman Catholic. Though he did not intend to press his Motion, he would beg leave, in order to enable any hon. Gentleman to address the House, to move pro formâ the Motion of which he had given notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee, to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, representing that the rules now adopted to regulate the distribution of the sum voted by this House for the promotion of National Education in Ireland have caused dissatisfaction among a large proportion of the people of that country, and that this dissatisfaction has interfered with the complete accomplishment of the objects contemplated by that Grant; and praying that Her Majesty may direct inquiry to be made whether the rules may not be so modified as to remove all causes of just dissatisfaction, and thereby promote the more general diffusion of the advantages which this House intends for all classes of the Irish people."
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, it was not fair to charge the right hon. Member for Cambridge University with having carried a Motion upon this subject, and then doing nothing when he was a Member of the Government. Unfortunately for the interests of the country, the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged had not been in power daring five years. The Earl of Eglinton, however, when in Ireland, had investigated the subject, and arrived at the conclusion that some changes and modifications must be introduced into the system. He (Mr. Whiteside) had supported the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite when he made a similar Motion last year, but having himself given notice of a Motion, to
  856
  be discussed a few days hence, he could not support the hon. and learned Gentleman on the present occasion, but hoped for his support when the subject again came under discussion.
  MR. MACEVOYsaid, there seemed so great a desire to kill the monster—national education—that there was a rivalry between hon. Members as to who should be the one to slay it; and as a Motion that would accomplish all that the one before them proposed was to be moved in a few days, he would suggest that the time of the House should not now be consumed in a discussion which could have no practical effect.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DWELLINGS FOR WORKING CLASSES.

  LEAVE.
  MR. SLANEYsaid, he rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to facilitate the grant or sale of small portions of entailed lands near great towns, as sites of dwellings for the working classes, and for other purposes of a like beneficial and charitable nature. Owing to the dwellings of the poor being removed for the purpose of making improvements in towns, the working classes were driven into localities already overcrowded. He, therefore, proposed to obtain a Bill which would enable trustees of entailed properties suitable for the erection of dwellings, to grant sites of land near towns so that houses for the poor might be erected; they would thereby improve their moral and social position. This Bill would be solely of a permissive character, and all sales under it would require the approval of the Inclosure Commissioners or two magistrates. He hoped, therefore, there would be no objection to the Motion.
  MR. WILLIAMSseconded the Motion.
  Leave given.
  Bill to facilitate the grant or sale of small portions of entailed Lands near great Towns as sites for Dwellings for the Working Classes, and for other purposes of a like beneficial or charitable nature, ordered to be brought in by Mr. and Mr.

MEXICAN BONDHOLDERS.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he wished to move an address for the copy of any convention or conventions providing for the appropriation of the customs' duties of any of the

  857
  Mexican ports to the payment of the claims of the bondholders of the State entered into between Governor Juarez, or any other person representing the constitutional Government at Vera Cruz, and Captain Dunlop, or Captain Aldham, of her Majesty's Navy: and copy of, or extracts from, any correspondence or despatches relating to the affairs of Mexico since the assumption of the presidential power by Miramon. English capitalists had lent the Mexican Government £10,000,000 at the time that country declared its independence. All the South American republics, to which money had also been lent, had fulfilled their engagement, but Mexico, the richest of all, remained a disgraceful exception. An arrangement had been entered into by which the revenues of the ports of Tampico and Vera Cruz had been appropriated for the purpose of the payment of the interest, which was to be regularly transmitted to London; and, in consideration of that arrangement, the rate of interest had been reduced from 6 to 3 per cent. During the late revolution which had occurred in that country, Miramon and his associates, requiring money, had caused the house of the British Legation to be broken into; the officers in charge, British subjects, were clubbed with the butt end of Mexican muskets, and all the money abstracted. Neither Mr. Mathew, nor any one to represent him, was present at these proceedings, and it was left to the Spanish Ambassador to protest against them. In 1848, the noble Premier, then Foreign Secretary, laid down certain principles which ought to guide the British Government in dealing with such a case. He then stated that British creditors were entitled to the protection of their Government. Those principles, however, had not been carried out, and, therefore, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to afford some explanation of the extraordinary occurrences to which he had alluded, and to state how far he intended to protect British interests?
  MR. M'CANNseconded the Motion.
  Lord JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he had nothing to complain of as to the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated the case. A violent outrage, amounting to nothing less than felony, had been committed by persons calling themselves the Government of Mexico. He believed the fact was that Miramon and his companions were in a desperate state, and knowing the contest could not be carried on
  858
  any longer, they wished to get all the money into their hands which they could. They knew that a sum of 600,000 dollars was deposited in a room at the British Legation, and they determined to commit robbery in order to get it. There was not the slightest ground for the excuse they made for the act; and their assertion that the money was not the property of the bondholders, because not technically in their possession, was a mere subterfuge. It was an outrage, therefore, for which the British Government might have required redress and reparation. But it was not to the discredit of Mr. Mathew or the Foreign Office that such reparation was not demanded. Our position for years had been a peculiar one in that quarter. We could only operate against Vera Cruz, and if we had operated against Vera Cruz we should have acted against our own interest. But at that time Mexico fell into the hands of the constitutional party. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned it as a reproach that before that period neither Mr. Mathew nor any other Minister was at hand to protect the treasury. Mr. Mathew was not to blame. He had acted under his (Lord J. Russell's) instructions in leaving Mexico, where so many outrages had been committed—amounting even to murder—that it was thought improper and unworthy to leave a Minister there. The British Minister was directed to leave, and he did leave, having first put a padlock on the place where the money was, and sealed up the apartment with the seal of the British Legation. There was, therefore, no fault on Mr. Mathew's part that the money was left with no other protection than that of the British Consul; though he did not wonder that those who had lost their property should raise complaints. Sir Charles Wyke had now gone to America with instructions which it was trusted would be effectual for obtaining redress in reference to various matters complained of. There was no objection to give the first part of the Return moved, but the remaining part would be exceedingly voluminous, and he proposed on Monday or Tuesday to produce papers which would, perhaps, answer the object of his hon. and learned Friend.
  Address for
  "Copy of any Convention or Conventions providing for the appropriation of the Customs Duties of any of the Mexican ports to the payment of the claims of the Bondholders of the State entered into between Governor Juarez, or any other person representing the Constitutional Govern-

  859
  ment at Vera Cruz, and Captain Dunlop or Captain Aldham, of Her Majesty's Navy."

PUBLIC OFFICES EXTENSION BILL.

  NOMINATION OF COMMITTEE.
  MR. COWPERmoved the following gentlemen as a Select Committee on the Public Offices Extension Bill:—Mr. Cowper, Sir William Dunbar, Lord John Manners, Sir Stafford Northcote, Sir John Shelley, Viscount Enfield, and three Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he must protest against the exclusion of Irish Members, unless, indeed, it was intended that Ireland should not contribute to the new offices. If that system was to be adopted, let the Irish Members meet on separate days and manage the affairs of their country by themselves, and let them not be outvoted by hon. Members brought up from smoking rooms and coal-holes.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to inquire whether it was really intended to repeal the Union by their constant refusal to put Irish Members upon the Committee. The conduct of the Government in this respect was an insult to Ireland.
  MR. COWPERsaid, this Bill was what was called a hybrid one—that was a public Bill for a private purpose. It was for a very simple object—that of authorizing the purchase of four houses in Westminster. If he had had any idea that Irish Gentlemen would be willing to serve on it, he should have been happy to place on it two, or three, or four Irish Members.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, he must add his complaint to that of the other hon. Members of the studied exclusion of Irish Members from the business of the House.
  MR. HENNESSYasked for a more distinct pledge from the right hon. Gentleman that some Irish Members should be appointed.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsuggested, that two at least of the five Members hereafter to be nominated by the Committee of selection should be Irish Members, to be named by the hon. Gentleman.
  Select Committee on Public Offices Extension Bill nominated:—
  Mr. COWPER, Sir WILLIAM DUNBAR, Lord JOHN MANNER Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTER Sir SHELLEY Viscount ENFILED; and three Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection:—Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at Twelve o'clock till Monday next.