Commons Sitting of 4 August 1862

PUNISHMENT OF A SOLDIER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if there is any truth in the re-
  1190
  port that a soldier at Woolwich has been scrubbed with sand, as a punishment for some barrack offence; and, if true, whether any inquiry into the circumstances has been instituted by the War Office?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it was true that a soldier at Woolwich had been punished in the way described by the hon. Member. He (Sir G. Lewis) understood that the sergeant-major who had ordered the punishment had been dismissed by the Commander in Chief. The inquiry ordered into the circumstances had not yet terminated. If it should be necessary to have a further inquiry, the War Office would see that such an inquiry took place.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH BELGIUM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question respecting the Commercial Treaty with Belgium.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, his hon. Friend was doubtless aware that the Treaty between this country and Belgium had not been ratified, and therefore it could not be submitted to the House. However, he would explain its chief provisions. The Treaty contained what was usually called "the favored-nation clause," with one or two exceptions, the nature of which he would state presently. The Treaty was a Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, and gave to British subjects all the privileges which were accorded to the subjects of any other nation. It provided that no duties of tonnage or others should be imposed on British vessels which were not imposed on Belgian vessels, and that no privileges should be accorded to the vessels of any other nation which were not extended to British vessels. It provided that goods of every kind legally importable into the ports of Great Britain and Ireland, our Colonies and Possessions, should be imported into such ports in Belgian vessels without being liable to other or higher duties than if such goods were imported in national vessels. It also provided that goods of every kind should be exempted from transit duty; but the prohibition with respect to gunpowder was maintained, and the two Powers reserved to themselves the right to subject the transit of arms to special authorization. The coasting trade of the two countries was to be reciprocal; and this article was applicable to the coasting trade of such of

  1191
  the British Colonies as should apply for it, conforming with existing Acts of Parliament. The Treaty also provided that the regulations for goods imported from France into Belgium under the Treaty of Commerce of the 1st of May, 1861, should apply to the same goods imported from Great Britain. But with respect to pure or mixed tissues taxed ad valorem, and the value of which was a matter of some difficulty, the Belgian Government reserved to itself the right of admitting such goods by the Custom House at Brussels. It was likewise provided that the subjects of both Powers should enjoy the same protection as native subjects in all that related to trade-marks, patterns, and models, subject always to the special regulations in each country. This stipulation of the Treaty was not to come into operation until the expiration of a year from the date of the signature. The Treaty also provided that British vessels should be exempted from payment of the Scheldt dues as long as the Belgian flag was exempted; and that if the Scheldt dues should be capitalized by a general European arrangement, the tonnage dues imposed in Belgian ports should cease altogether, and the pilotage dues in Belgian ports, as in the Scheldt, should undergo a reduction of 20 per cent on sailing vessels, 25 per cent on vessels towed, and 30 per cent on steamers. The Ionian Islands were to enjoy all the advantages accorded to the subjects of Great Britain, provided the Ionian Government would extend to the subjects and vessels of Belgium the same advantages which were granted to the subjects and vessels of Great Britain. Ionian vessels were to be furnished with a document signed by the Lord High Commissioner or his representative. The Treaty to continue in force for ten years, to be terminable at one year's notice after that period As a temporary exception to that article, it was provided—
  "For two years, from October 1, 1862, the new system will be applied in the following manner:—Cotton yarns, twisted, warped, or dyed, are to pay the duties imposed upon single yarns unbleached or bleached, with an addition of five centimes for twisted yarns, ten centimes for warped yarns, and fifteen centimes for dyed yarns, per kilogramme. The duty on stuff or wool mixed with cotton is to be 22½ per cent until October 1, 1863, and 20 per cent until October 1, 1864. During the continuance of this transitory system, the importer may, at his choice, pay either 180 francs the hundred kilogrammes, or the duties stipulated. The duty upon printed cotton tissues shall be 150 francs the hundred kilogrammes. The present duty on the importation of foreign
  1192
  prints is to be maintained in the British tariff; the article relative to spirits, which is contained in the treaty between Belgium and France, of May 1, 1861, is not to be applied to British spirits, so far as regards the reduction therein stipulated, until October 1, 1865."
  The Treaty had not yet been ratified by the Belgian Chambers; when it had been, it would be ratified by the Government of this country, and would come into operation.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD AND THE ACT OF UNIFORMITY.—QUESTION.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURwished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to an Injunction, published in The Times of August 1, from the Bishop of Oxford, as Ordinary, to the Archdeacons of his Diocese, requesting them to communicate to the Clergy of their respective Archdeaconries an official command to use a prayer at the conclusion of the Nicene Creed with regard to the war in America? And whether such a proceeding is not a violation of the Act of Uniformity by adding to the prayers contained in the Prayer Book; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take any steps to prevent a violation of the Law?
MR. CLIVEsaid, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who was in attendance on Her Majesty, he had, in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, to say, that he had read the letter to which he had referred. As far, however, as he understood the matter, there did not appear to have been any violation of the Act of Uniformity. There had been some alteration made with regard to certain special services; but as no new prayer had been introduced, it could not be said that the matter came within the cognizance of the Act of Uniformity. He would, however, suggest that the hon. Gentleman should repeat the Question on Thursday.

RAILWAYS IN CEYLON.—QUESTION.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies Whether he has received any and what Tenders for a Railway from Colombo to Kandy; and if the Secretary of State for the Colonies has received any communication relative to a proposed Tram Railway from Colombo to Trinco

1193
malee, with a branch to Kandy, so as to develop the vast agricultural capabilities of the Colony?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEreplied that several tenders had been received for the construction of the railway, but it would be unadvisable to state publicly the amounts of those tenders. A proposal, or rather a letter, relating to the construction of tramways, had reached the Secretary of State, from a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of parties at present unknown, and his noble Friend (the Duke of Newcastle) had replied that he had no objection to forward the statement to the Government of Ceylon.

OUTRAGES IN PERU.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Whether any steps have been taken to obtain from the Government of Peru satisfaction for the outrages committed against Captain Melville White and Captain Cardwell?
  MR. LAYARDin reply said, the treatment by the Peruvian Government of British subjects had been such as to call for the most grave remonstrance on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The two cases referred to by the hon. and gallant Member were only examples of the unjustifiable proceedings which the Peruvian Government had taken with respect to Englishmen in Peru. Captain White had been arrested, thrown into prison, treated in the most barbarous manner, refused a statement of the charges against him, and suddenly sent out of the country. He was now preparing a statement of his case, which, as soon as it was received at the Foreign Office, would be acted upon by the Government and redress demanded for Captain White. Captain Cardwell had had the misfortune to fall into the jaws of what must in courtesy be called a Court of Justice. Until the legal proceedings were exhausted Her Majesty's Government could not interfere; but the case had been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and further papers were expected from Peru. When the Government were in a position to act, they would endeavor to obtain justice for Captain Cardwell. Both these cases were most serious, and the House might rest assured that Her Majesty's Government would insist on full reparation.

FLOGGING AT THE PATRIOTIC FUND ASYLUM.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT RAYNHAMsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether it is true that the Ladies' Visiting Committee of the Asylum of the Patriotic Fund have resigned; and, if so, whether such resignations have reference to the fact of a girl of the age of sixteen having been flogged in the Asylum?
SIR GEORGE LEWISin reply said, he understood that in January, 1861, a girl between fifteen and sixteen years of age received corporal punishment in the school which was under the management of the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund, and that punishment was administered by the lady superintendent in the presence of two of the schoolmistresses. The Ladies' Committee, who were a portion of the superintendence of the school, did not take any notice at the time of this matter; but lately they had raised a question upon it, and the General Committee of the Patriotic Fund School had investigated the matter, and decided the question against them, and in support of the discretion of the school authorities. In consequence of that decision a portion of the Ladies' Committee had resigned; and he believed that the Patriotic Fund Commissioners had prepared a Report upon the subject which would shortly be presented and which would contain a full narrative of the circumstances.

CLAIMS AGAINST OUDE.—QUESTION.
COLONEL FRENCHput a question which for some time had stood in his name relating to claims on the State of Oude.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that the papers respecting a portion of the claims were already on the table of the House, and these included the original letter and a Report upon the claims of the representatives of Colonel Frith, and others. The answer of the Secretary of State for India in Council was also laid upon the table; and he could add nothing to the information which was already in the hands of Members. There had also been laid on the table the Report of a Commission with respect to other claims upon the Government of Oude, and the Report was under the consideration of the Secretary of State for India in Council. No answer had yet been sent out to the Report, which had only been lately received.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL NO. 170.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee:—
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, a period of the Session had now been reached at which it was hopeless to expect that this measure could be carried. Even if it passed through all its stages in the House of Commons, it would have to be submitted to the other branch of the Legislature, whose sanction it could not possibly hope to receive in the present year. It therefore was clearly useless to press the measure on the attention of the House; but he wished before taking any final step in reference to it, to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he would undertake, on the part of the Government, to introduce a Bill dealing with the question of Irish fisheries? The subject was one of so much importance, and affected such large and varied interests, that it ought really not to be left in the hands of a private Member. The salmon in the Irish rivers ought, under proper management, to form an important element in the food of the people; but, if the present system were persevered in much longer, it must end in the extirpation of that fish, which had already disappeared from an important area of the Irish waters. He hoped his noble Friend would be able to give a distinct assurance that a Bill would be brought in by the Government next Session; or, if he was not prepared to go that length, that the attention of the Government would be directed to the subject during the recess. There was nothing to deter them, but, on the contrary, everything to encourage legislation on the subject. The principles of this Bill had already been sanctioned in England and Scotland, and all that was sought was to assimilate the law in the various parts of the United Kingdom.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he was anxious to say a few words before the noble Lord at the head of the Government answered the question which had just been addressed to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon (Colonel French). He could not agree with the description of the Bill given by his hon. and gallant Friend. The Bill went much beyond a mere assimilation of the law of England and Ireland. On the contrary, it was proposed to do in Ireland that which had never been attempted in England, and which, he believed, in that country would
  1196
  not be tolerated. The English Bill preserved all existing rights; the Irish Bill, on the contrary, proposed to extinguish them, although they had been secured, if not created, by an Act of Parliament. He had no wish to enter into a discussion of the general subject, but the noble Lord ought clearly to understand that this Bill was strongly opposed by a large section of the Irish Members, and by a still larger proportion of the Irish people. If Government wished to consolidate the fishery laws, or to make any regulations for the better preservation of fish, he should offer no opposition to any measure intended for the general benefit; but he hoped the noble Lord would not think of giving a direct pledge on the part of the Government to legislate in the partial and oppressive spirit of the present Bill, or to give any support to a measure embodying such mischievous and unjust provisions.
  SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEfelt compelled to express dissent from the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt). Legislation was not only desirable, but imperative, if the supply of fish was to be kept up in Ireland, and if, instead of continuing to be a monopoly, the public were to enjoy the benefits of that article of food. It must be remembered that there were public as well as private rights, and the latter were sometimes acquired at the expense of the general community. Such, in fact, had been the case in 1842, when the Act of Parliament which had been referred to unjustly created and endowed a new body of proprietors with privileges previously belonging to the public at large. He ventured to say, that if the hon. and learned Member for Youghal had been in the House at that time, he would not have been able to give his adhesion to a measure so diametrically opposed to the public interests.
  LORD FERMOYcriticized the constitution of the Select Committee to whom the Bill had been referred. With possibly one or two exceptions, the Members were all enthusiasts in favor of this scheme of spoliation; they hurried over the inquiry, taking just as much evidence as favored the views of the majority, and refusing to hear either arguments or testimony on the other side. He felt bound to oppose any measure which might have been sent down embodying such foregone conclusions.
  COLONEL FRENCHdefended the constitution of the Committee, asserting that

  1197
  it had been impartially chosen, that the various points of controversy were fully discussed in the course of the fourteen sittings which had taken place, and the earnestness with which the Committee devoted themselves to their labors was evident from the fact that they even adopted the unusual course of sitting upon Saturdays. No one could allege that they had been in any degree taken by surprise, as the measure was introduced at an early period of the Session.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was very obvious that the Bill could not pass this Session; he therefore concurred in the propriety of the course proposed to be adopted. He could not pledge himself as to the course which the Government might adopt next Session; but it was a very proper one for discussion, and one upon which hon. Gentlemen seemed to entertain widely different views.
  COLONEL FRENCHasked the noble Lord at least to promise that the subject would be considered during the recess. It was a measure to which great importance was justly attached in Ireland, and the statement that Government would have its attention directed to the subject would be attended with beneficial results.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONhad no hesitation in stating, that the matter should be considered by the Government.
  COLONEL FRENCHthen moved, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."
  Motion agreed to.
  [No Report.]

MR. FARNALL, POOR LAW INSPECTOR.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS, in moving for Copies of Reports made to the Poor Law Board on the education of Pauper Children, availed himself of that opportunity to call attention to a letter addressed to him by Mr. Farnall, one of the Poor Law Inspectors, which, in justice to that gentleman, he felt bound to read. Mr. Farnall considered that a speech recently made in another place by a noble Lord affected his character, and he was desirous that he should be set right in that House. In a letter addressed to him (Mr. C. P. Villiers) Mr. Farnall called attention to the report of the speech in The Times——
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was out of order in reading a letter with reference to a debate in the other House.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: I did not say the other House; I said "another place." A noble Lord made a statement affecting the character of Mr. Farnall. ["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not in order.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: A statement has been made respecting the character of Mr. Farnall. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must again call the right hon. Member to order.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: I trust the House will not be unwilling to allow this gentleman to vindicate his character. He has done so in an extremely respectful communication, in which he replies to a statement which he considers erroneous, ["Hear!" and "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot read a letter commenting on a debate in the other House.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: When a public servant whose reports have been referred to in this House has been assailed, I thought that the House would allow me to make some statement in his vindication. ["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: It would be equally out of order for the right hon. Gentleman to comment on any statements made in the other House, as to read the report of any Poor Law Inspector upon them.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: I hope I may be able to say that a statement has been made by a noble Lord somewhere——["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. If the right hon. Gentleman proceeds with his observations, he will be out of order.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that he would take the opportunity of moving for the Returns, if he was not allowed any other, of referring to an Inspector whose name had been much mentioned in their recent discussions. Mr. Farnall had been appointed by the Government as a special Commissioner to proceed to and report upon the distressed districts in Lancashire, and he had been selected as a man of judgment, intelligence, and humanity. Members in that House, and many persons out of that House, had borne favorable testimony to his conduct and to the wisdom of the choice; the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel W. Patten) had specially referred in that House to the excellent manner in which Mr. Farnall had discharged the difficult

  1199
  task imposed up on him; and he believed that he had given offence nowhere, unless it might be where that small-minded pedantry prevailed which seems to believe that the Poor Laws are never soundly administered unless when done in a spirit and in a language that makes them hateful to the people. He had cautioned Mr. Farnall against adopting this course himself, and counseled him to conciliate, and, if possible, to acquire the confidence of all those who were engaged either in administering the relief, or who were destined to receive it. This Mr. Farnall had faithfully accomplished, and those who employed him had been well satisfied with the manner in which he had performed his duty.
  Motion agreed to.
  Return ordered,
  "Containing Copies of Reports made to the Poor Law Board on the Education of Pauper Children by W. H. T. Hawley, esquire, Robert Weale, esquire, Sir John Walsham, baronet, and Andrew Doyle, esquire, Poor Law Inspectors."

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Moved, That the House, at its rising, adjourn to Thursday next.
THE LAW OF MARRIAGE—THE YELVERTON CASE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask a Question of the noble Lord upon a matter which he brought under the attention of the House at the same period last year. He believed that upon the last day of the last Session he asked whether the Government intended to take any steps to remedy the extraordinary contradictions in the marriage law of different parts of the kingdom. A recent case exhibited not only a different state of the law, but a different mode of judicature. He referred, of course, to the recent decision by the Lord Ordinary in the Yelverton Marriage Case. The Lord Ordinary of Scotland gave a decision at variance with the direct verdict of an Irish jury, composed one half of Protestants, and the other half of Catholics. The Lord Ordinary did not examine witnesses; but, having before him a mass of depositions, he ventured, upon that written evidence, to give an opinion upon a question of fact directly opposite to that at which twelve Irish gentlemen had previously arrived. He might also add, that the witnesses at the trial were examined and cross examined before the
  1200
  jury, and that such was the effect of the cross-examination of some of the witnesses, that the counsel who called them refrained from adverting to their evidence, so completely had it been destroyed; yet the same evidence was referred to by Lord Ardmillan, who did not see the witnesses. It was an extremely unfortunate state of the law, that in any part of the United Kingdom two adult persons—not children—should be able to come into a place of public worship, kneel down at the altar of God, make solemn vows upon such a solemn subject as matrimony (the man placing a ring upon her finger, and declaring that he would take the woman to be his lawful wife, and the woman declaring that she would take the man to be her lawful husband), and that such a ceremony should be called in question—not set aside—by the decision of a Scotch judge. He maintained that the law was eminently defective, and that the system of jurisprudence was likewise defective, and he asked the Government what steps they would take with regard to such a state of things. He saw present a right hon. and learned Gentleman who was well acquainted with Irish law, and also with this particular case, and he would like to know what was his opinion upon a case in which the majority of his country men took a most lively interest.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he thought the subject to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had called attention one of great interest. It was said by lawyers, perhaps ironically, that a man might have a wife in each of the three kingdoms, although polygamy was not permitted. The difference between the law in England and Ireland might be remedied, and there was a measure before the House which, with certain limitations and provisions, might have got rid of the difficulties which an old statute in reference to Ireland occasioned. But the decision to which the hon. and learned Gentleman adverted placed the law of marriage in a peculiar position. It was said that severe cases and great practical abuses sometimes led to an amendment of the law. What had happened in this case might happen again. A gentleman might be bound by the decision of a jury to support a lady as his wife in Ireland. The question might be submitted to the Court for its decision, and the Court be so divided as to make the verdict stand, which was exactly this case; yet in Scotland, in that same case,

  1201
  it might be decided that there was no valid marriage. The decision of the jury in the case mentioned, involved two questions, one of which might be said to be unnecessary—Was there a marriage by the law of Scotland, and was there a marriage by the law of Ireland? The question of a marriage in a foreign country when tried here became a question of fact; and upon that question the jury, having heard the evidence of Scotch lawyers as to what was the law of Scotland, were asked, did the parties consent and agree to be husband and wife, and was that consent followed by cohabitation? Upon the evidence the jury came to the conclusion that consent was given and followed by cohabitation, and they found therefore that by the Scotch law as explained to them there was, in fact, a Scotch marriage. With reference to the Irish marriage a different question was raised—whether the gentleman had sufficiently long professed the Catholic religion to make a mixed marriage between a Protestant and Catholic by a Roman Catholic priest a valid marriage. One question of great consequence was determined by the Scotch Judge. He had always understood that consent especially followed by cohabitation constituted a marriage by the law of Scotland. He did not know whether it was attributable to the metaphysical genius of the Scotch nation, or to the law of the country, that any doubt should be raised; but he could not understand how consent was less consent because the parties knelt down at the altar, and, in the presence of a priest, declared that each took the other to be husband and wife. How was that consent to be got rid of? Was it by the singular interpretation that grown people did not intend to mean what they said?—because if it was held that they meant what they said, and it was followed by cohabitation in Scotland as married persons, one would suppose that there was a Scotch marriage. A very important point arose for the consideration of the Government in reference to the decision of the Scotch Court. In Ireland the witnesses in the Yelverton case were examined vivâ voce in open court. It was a very long trial, and it lasted six days. In England, owing to improvements introduced of late years, evidence was now taken vivâ voce in the Probate Court and in the Divorce Court, and all the abuses of written evidence were put an end to. But Scotch gentlemen proceeded in this way:—They
  1202
  issued commissions, and under those commissions in England, in Ireland, and in Scotland a vast number of witnesses were examined and a mass of paper evidence obtained. But those witnesses were never seen by the Judge, and yet he came to the opposite conclusion at which the jury arrived who did see the witnesses, namely, that cohabitation in Ireland preceded the ceremony of marriage instead of following. Would they for a moment tolerate that a man should be tried for murder upon paper evidence? He would like to know what chance any man would have in Ireland if tried on paper evidence. Men would in writing state things which, when face to face with counsel in court, turned out to be very different indeed. Letters were criticised by the learned Judge in the absence of all explanations by the writer. In Ireland the writer was produced, and had an opportunity of giving explanations. That person bore an examination of two days without varying her testimony: but it was a melancholy and painful fact, that this test of truth was omitted in Scotland, and letters were quoted by the Judge which, unexplained by the writer, might change the whole aspect of the case. It was a case of great hardship to the unfortunate subject of this anomalous jurisprudence. In Ireland she was entitled to support as the wife of this gentleman, and in Scotland she was not a wife at all. Irrespective of all sympathy for this unfortunate lady, it was a matter for the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown whether they could apply a remedy which might prevent such anomalies in the future. He agreed in the observation that it was a strange thing to find in any country a system of adjudicating on paper testimony, which could explain away the force and effect of facts deliberately affirmed by the jury to whom they were submitted. The imputations cast on those who tried the case were most unfounded and unjust; for no jury in the empire would have come to a different decision.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he would not follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman either in discussing the merits of the Irish trial, or the judgment in the Scotch Courts, arising out of the same transaction, inasmuch as the Scotch proceedings might be brought under review of the highest tribunal in the land, and nothing could be more improper than to discuss in that House whether this or that

  1203
  judgment was right or wrong. Apart from the circumstances of this particular case, which were very peculiar, and such as they might hope would not happen again, no person of candid and dispassionate mind could fail to see two things—first, the extreme desirableness of such a change as should, if possible, assimilate the laws of the three parts of the United Kingdom; and, on the other hand, the absolute necessity of consulting and considering upon such a subject the feelings and habits of the people in every portion of the kingdom. For his own part, he thought that the law of England on this subject was very satisfactory, and he should be well content to see it adopted throughout the United Kingdom; but to attempt to force it on Scotland or Ireland without regard to the feelings and habits of the people would certainly be impracticable. It would not, therefore, he thought, be advisable on the part of the Government to say more than that they were alive to the importance of the subject and the desirableness of taking such steps as might lead to the attainment of a wise assimilation of the laws of the three countries. The House was aware that a Member well able to deal with such a question—his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast (Sir H. Cairns)—had brought in a Bill having reference to Ireland, and the Government were most anxious to give him all the assistance in their power; but the character of the measure introduced, no doubt after communications with various parties in Ireland, did not excite in him very sanguine hopes that we were extremely near to a complete identity of law in all the three kingdoms. It was necessary to proceed with great caution and care on the subject. All he could say was that the Government were most anxious to undertake the matter; and if they could not see their way to propose a measure themselves, they would certainly be ready to give all the assistance in their power to any Member who should frame and introduce a Bill on the subject.
  MR. LEFROYalso hoped the Government would take this important subject into consideration before the House met again; and he begged to suggest, that if a Bill were brought forward at all, the heads of the Church should be consulted as to its provisions; for they had reason to know that the late most rev. Primate of all Ireland felt some objection to the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Belfast. He hoped Her
  1204
  Majesty's Government would bring in a Bill next Session, and that it would go as much as possible on the principle of regarding marriage in the light of a civil contract.

AFFAIRS OF SERVIA.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHexpressed a hope that the representative of this country at the Conference which was sitting at Constantinople would enter that Conference without any spirit of partisanship. Since the Turkish Government had obtained funds from this country, they had conducted themselves in a much more demonstrative manner, and they had made a new attack upon Montenegro. He could not help regarding it as a great anomaly that the Porte should have fortresses in a country where it did not otherwise possess a single acre of territory.

COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH AUSTRIA.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, it had come to his knowledge that a Circular had been addressed by the Board of Trade to the different Chambers of Commerce throughout the country, requesting their opinion with reference to a commercial treaty with Austria. The subject to which this circular referred was of more than ordinary interest at the present moment. It had been represented that Austria had notified her wish to join the Zollverein. Directly this was known in England apprehensions were excited, for it was supposed this was a further step in the direction of protection. As the circular stated that Austria was disposed to negotiate a treaty of commerce with the most liberal country in the world, these apprehensions had now been removed, and he hoped the noble Lord would be able to say that there were good grounds for this. The commercial relations between this country and Austria had hitherto been affected by the high protective tariff of Austria. This was manifest from the terms in which they were alluded to by the Secretary of Embassy at Vienna. The hon. Member then read the opinion expressed by Mr. Fane, to the effect that the spirit which animated the commercial legislation of Austria was thoroughly protectionist. Her Majesty's Government had been so successful in negotiating treaties of commerce with different

1205
countries during their tenure of office that they had stimulated the attention of the commercial communities in that direction; and he trusted that they would be as successful with Austria in this matter as they had been with Belgium. It was astonishing how limited the trade was between this country and Austria, compared with the trade between France and England; yet there was no reason why our trade might not increase with Austria as it had done with France, to the advantage of both countries, if the protective duties were lowered. There was this advantage attending sound commercial relations between this country and Austria—that whereas if war broke out between us and other European Powers, our commerce with those countries had been interrupted; but as England and Austria never went to war with each other, our commerce with her would always remain uninterrupted. The produce of Austria and Hungary was just such as we required, comprising cattle, grain, wine, tobacco, leather, wool, skins, &c.; while our cotton, cloth, hardware, machinery, and other manufactures might be readily exchanged for them. Of late years Austria had progressed in liberal institutions, and it was to be hoped that her people would adopt free trade and that the commercial intercourse between England and Austria might become more commensurate with the capabilities and resources of the two countries. Our commercial relations with America had been so seriously compromised that the Government could not grant a greater boon to our mercantile communities than by endeavoring to find new markets for their goods. His excuse for bringing that subject forward so late in the Session was, that the circular issued by the Board of Trade had come under his notice only the other day; and so much harm had been done through the delay in discussing the Commercial Treaty with Belgium in that House, that he thought he should have failed in his duty, as the representative of a large commercial constituency, if he had not on the earliest occasion drawn the attention of the Government to this important matter.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. COXobserved that very early in the Session he had put a Question to the
  1206
  noble Viscount on the subject of Reform in Parliament. The noble Lord gave him an answer which many of his friends did not think quite so courteous, so kind, or so good-humored as the noble Lord's replies usually were. The Session had been a very quiet one; the House had almost been a "happy family;" and after the noble Lord's answer to his Question the subject of Reform had scarcely been mentioned amongst them. He did, however, wish to refer once more to a matter in which he could assure the noble Lord his constituency and millions of other persons in this country took the deepest interest. He wished to know if during the recess the Government would turn their attention to Parliamentary Reform. He would ask the noble Lord to be good enough to look into the Bill which was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, and that at the same time he would also read the Resolution which was proposed by Earl Russell, and which affirmed that that Bill would not be satisfactory to the House or to the country unless it went a great deal further. With those two documents in his hand the noble Lord would have no difficulty in coming to a right conclusion.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I am sure it is unnecessary for me to remind the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) that the subject to which he has adverted is not only one of great importance, but also one beset with great difficulties, as events have shown; and on the last day but one of the Session I do not think it would be advisable for me to express any opinion as to what the Government might or might not think fit to do next Session on such a matter.
  With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. D. Griffith), he may be aware that the representatives at Constantinople of the Powers who were parties to the Treaty of 1856 have been authorized to meet in conference upon the question now pending with respect to that part of the Turkish territory to which he referred. I can assure him that the representative of the Queen will be, and has been, instructed to bear in mind, on the one hand the engagements which the six Powers—I may say the seven Powers, including Turkey herself—entered into under the Treaty of 1856—to bear in mind what are the just rights of the Sultan, and also what is due to the welfare of the Sultan's Christian subjects. More than that I can-

  1207
  not say. The Sultan has undoubtedly the right of holding garrisons in certain towns in Servia—Belgrade and others—and, of course, it is open to him, in concert with his allies, to determine whether there are any military posts which, consistently with his interests, he could abandon. I do not, however, think that is at all likely. Such are the instructions that have been given to Her Majesty's representative.
  In reply to my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Beaumont), I do not think it is advisable to state at present what is the condition of any communication passing between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Austria as to commercial matters. I can assure him that we are exceedingly desirous, if possible, to conclude a better arrangement with Austria upon those subjects. The Austrian Government, as my hon. Friend has well observed, has entered upon a course of policy far more liberal in all respects than that which heretofore it has pursued. The Emperor has given a representative constitution, and I believe in commercial matters, as well as in political, there is a great desire on the part of the Austrian Government to liberalize their system. At the same time habits of protection in favor of native industry—however ill-founded the reasons may be—are very difficult to be eradicated. The other day, when there was a question of the entry of Austria into the Zollverein, there were conditions attached to such entry by Austria which were thought still to be too much based upon the protection principle, and they have prevented Austria from joining the Zollverein at the present moment. Therefore people must not be over sanguine as to any great change in Austrian commercial policy. It is undoubtedly true, as my hon. Friend has stated, that the Austrian empire abounds with natural resources; and if, by a wiser course of policy than has hitherto been adopted, an interchange of commodities with other countries was encouraged, the empire possesses wealth beyond description, with which its people could purchase those articles which other countries produce at a cheaper rate than they themselves can produce them, and a more enlarged commercial system between Austria and this country and other countries would be highly advantageous to all parties, and I by no means despair that the Austrian Government may be led to adopt a course in harmony with those principles.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Thursday.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till Thursday.