Commons Sitting of 20 June 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2o Petroleum: Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation; Partnership Law Amendment.
3o Merchant Shipping Acts, &c. Amendment; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland); West India In-cumbered Estates Act Amendment; Sale of Spirits.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.

  [BILL NO. 15.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 11 (Property hitherto exempt from rating as being used for charitable or public purposes to be rated).
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he wished to move the insertion after the word "purpose," of the words "except churches and chapels used exclusively for religious worship and open to the public, graveyards where no charge is made for interments, school-rooms used for the gratuitous education of children, court-houses, gaols, and bridewells." He thought, that whilst the intention of the clause was that property of all other kinds should be subject to the payment of poor rates, all descriptions of property which were used for public or religious purposes ought to be excluded from the necessity of contributing to such payment.
  MR. VANCEexpressed his concurrence in the Amendment. A Select Committee on the subject of trading had recommended that charities and buildings used for scientific purposes should not be taxed.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he observed that several hon. Members had Amendments on the paper to move the omission of the clause altogether. He would suggest, therefore, with a view to save time, that the House should agree to the Amendment, and then discuss the question as to whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he had no objection to that course, but he should Vote against the clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he should move the omission of the clause, there being a strong feeling against taxing institutions established for charitable purposes, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would give way on that point.
  LORD NAASsaid, he did not desire to exclude from exemption buildings wholly devoted to religious purposes, but it was his wish to limit the exemption to certain cases. Year by year the evil of property being exempted from the payment of poor rates was increasing. In the two unions of the city of Dublin property of the value of nearly £67,000 a year was exempted from poor rates altogether. Under the operation of the law there was no definite rule to guide the Valuation Commissioners, and the consequence was that several inferior institutions in Dublin were exempted. Amongst them was the office of the Royal Agricultural Society, the Committee House of Charitable Societies, in Circus Street; sextons' dwellings, the Irish Church Mission House, the residence of the governor of the military prison, the Canteen, Royal Barracks, the School of Medicine. Trinity College, however, a building wholly devoted to educational purposes, was not exempt. In the year 1861–2, a Vote of £60,000 was taken by the Government in aid of the local assessment to the poor rate, upon property in their possession, thereby admitting the principle that that class of property ought to contribute. But, perhaps, the worst case was that of Dublin Castle, occupied by persons living in commodious nouses and drawing Government salaries, but who contributed nothing to the rate. He was in favour of the clause as amended, not wishing that exemption should be extended beyond the classes of property comprised in the Amendment.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he concurred with the noble Lord in thinking that a great deal of property was improperly exempt from poor rates. It would be, however, better to deal with these exemptions by a Tenement Valuation Bill, and he therefore thought it would be judicious to expunge the clause.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he was opposed to the omission of the clause. By passing the clause, as amended, they would exempt all property which was entitled to be exempted from the payment of rates, and would leave all other property rateable. The clause would not interfere with tenement valuation. It would exempt places of worship and schools from taxation; but not convents, and buildings of that character.
  MR. BLAKEsuggested that the landlords should pay the rate on buildings used

  801
  for charitable purposes, and that the occupier should be exempted.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the objection to retain the clause was, that it did not properly find its place in a Bill for the relief of the poor, and he thought, therefore, it would be desirable to omit the clause from the Bill. Besides, its object was already provided for by an existing law, which said that buildings used for charitable purposes, science, literature, and the fine arts should be exempted from rating.
  MR. SCULLYproposed that the clause should be rejected, and that another well-considered clause should be brought forward on the report.
  MR. M'MAHONobserved that a reference to the statutes showed that the landlord of a public establishment was liable to poor rate in respect of the rent he received for it.
  Question put, "That Clause 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 62: Majority 16.
  Clauses 12 to 15 were then agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Limitation of Property and Proxy Claims).
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he would move the omission of the word "five" in order to insert "two," his object being to limit the time during which a person should be entitled to hold a proxy for the election of a guardian to two years instead of five. Such was the law of England, and he could see no reason why a different law should be made to apply to Ireland.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 39, to leave out "five," and insert "two."
  MR. VANCEsaid, he should support the clause as it stood.
  MR. COGANsaid, he should support the Amendment. The Chief Commissioner of the Poor Laws in Ireland had stated before a Committee which sat last year to inquire into the Poor Laws, that in many instances proxies were held and votes given in respect of property which no longer belonged to the person who gave the proxy. It was therefore desirable to limit the time during which a proxy should be held.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the subject had been well considered in the Select Committee, the members of which thought assimilation undesirable; and he trusted that the clause would be retained unaltered.
  LORD NAASsaid, the circumstances in Ireland were altogether different from those in England; and assimilation of the machinery of voting was therefore not a desideratum.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he disliked proxies altogether; but if they were to be retained, it was desirable that they should he frequently renewed. Therefore he should support the proposed restriction.
  MR. BUTTsaid, the objection to five years was that it opened the door to fraud. Proxies might be held at a time when the person who had given them had lost his properly.
  MR. GEORGEvindicated the system of landlords voting by proxy, and contended that the clause as it stood, with the larger number of proxies to be in existence for five years, was preferable to the proposed restriction.
  MR. MORE O'FERRALLsaid, a proxy was given to the landlord for the purpose of protecting his property. Now, it might frequently happen that a proxy might get into bad hands. It was advisable, therefore, that frequent opportunity should he given to the landlord for revising his proxy, and on that ground he should vote for the Amendment.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he should support the clause, which rendered it necessary to renew proxies once in five years, and preserved power in the landlords to revoke them at any time.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he advocated the stricter limitation. Railway proxies could only be given for a particular occasion.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he thought that the checks against fraud were so effectual that the limitation to two years would be injurious to the rights of property, without in the slightest degree affording any additional protection against fraud.
  SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, that as a landlord, he would prefer giving his proxies for the shorter period, since it would be a very disagreeable step to take to recall a proxy.
  Question put, "That 'five' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 32: Majority 69.
  LORD NAASsaid, he thought it would be a fair compromise to substitute "twenty" for "ten" as the limit of proxies which any one person was entitled to hold. From

  803
  information that had reached him he did not doubt, that if ten proxies were the maximum, it would practically amount in many cases to an act of disfranchisement.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the question was one of importance, inasmuch as in Dublin there was the case of one person holding 2,000 proxies, and of another holding more than 1,000; whilst in England no one was at liberty to hold more than four. He saw no reason for departing from the Resolution of the Committee, which fixed the number of proxies at ten. In selecting ten as the maximum he had only followed the precedent set by the noble Lord in an Act brought in by him in 1858. He hoped the Committee would adhere to the conclusion which had been arrived at by the Select Committee.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he objected to any limitation. Supposing that he had given his own proxies to an agent, was that a reason why the agent should not hold the proxies of other landholders? He denied that any gentleman in Dublin ever held 1,000 proxies. Proxies were held by agents pro hac vice; and he denied the right of any one to interfere in the matter.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would move an Amendment, of which he had given notice, that the number of proxies to be held by the same person should be limited to five.
  Amendment proposed, in line 43, to leave out "ten" and insert "five."
  MR. COGANsaid, that in reference to the denial of the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Grogan) that 1,000 proxies had been held by one individual, it appeared from the evidence taken before a Committee last year that an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner stated that he had known 1,000 votes given by one agent.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment proposed, in line 43, to leave out "ten," and insert "twenty" (Lord Naas).
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he could not set his opinion against that of the Committee, and he felt bound to say that the number "ten" had been adopted after careful consideration by the Government.
  LORD NAASexplained, that since he had expressed the opinion to which the right hon. Baronet had referred, he had
  804
  received information which led him to the belief that the restriction to ten would practically lead to disfranchisement in many unions.
  LORD FERMOYexplained, that the object of granting proxies was to give to landlords votes for elections to seats at boards of guardians; not to give the power of interfering with the transaction of any business before the board.
  Question put, "That 'ten' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 62: Majority 28.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to move additional words, providing that all persons exercising the privilege of voting by proxy should each time previous to availing themselves of it make a solemn declaration that they still held unchanged the franchise on which it was founded.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, it was impossible for the Government to entertain the proposition. A solemn declaration meant a declaration before a magistrate.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 17 to 20 were also agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Paid Officers and others incapable of serving as Guardians).
  MR. COGANsaid, he wished to move the omission of certain words which would prevent the election to a seat at the board of any officer who had been dismissed by the Commissioners within five years previously. He thought it monstrous that it should be in the power of the Commissioners to brand a man so far as to disqualify him from being re-elected by the votes of his fellow-ratepayers. It by no means followed as a matter of course that the decision of the Commissioners must be in all cases right.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, line 15, to leave out the words "nor any person who, having been such paid officer, shall have been dismissed."
  LORD NAASobserved, that he thought the provision in the clause was a very good one.
  MR. WALDRONsaid, he should support the clause. He knew a case in which a paid officer, who had been dismissed for misconduct, took his seat next week as a member of the board of guardians, which refused to act with him.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, he should support the clause. Indeed, he thought

  805
  the words "by the Commissioners" should be omitted, so as to extend the disqualification for re-election to officers dismissed by the boards of guardians, as well as to those dismissed by the Commissioners.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsuggested the withdrawal of the clause, in order that another might be framed narrowing the restriction.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he must decline to withdraw the clause, which was analogous to one in the English law.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 28: Majority 88.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would move to insert the words "for fraud, embezzlement, or any criminal offence" after the word "dismissed," so that only grave misconduct should incapacitate a person from serving on the board.
  LORD NAASsaid, that in that case the words "by the Commissioners" should be omitted also, so as to make the clause extend to dismissals by boards of guardians.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he must object to the words "gross misconduct." The phrase was not a legal one.
  MR. MAGUIRE: Then I withdraw "gross misconduct."
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he would recommend that the words should run, "any person who should have been dismissed for any criminal offence." These words would enable the question of criminality to be raised in a court of justice, if a man were dismissed by the Commissioners on any such alleged ground. It would be "gross misconduct" in that House to consent to brand a man, whose only offence might be difference of opinion with the guardians or Poor Law Commissioners.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he would move an Amendment to omit the words "within five years previously." If an officer had been dismissed for misconduct, he ought not to be eligible to sit upon the board by which he had been dismissed.
  Amendment proposed, in line 17, to leave out the words "within fire years previously."
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 33: Majority 67.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday next, at Twelve of the clock.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
SIR ROBERT PEELstaled that he proposed to ask the House to go into Committee on the Bill at another morning sitting on the following Friday, after the Poor Relief Bill had been gone through.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that the question of the registration of marriages was intimately connected with that of births and deaths, and the principle involved was too important to be discussed at a morning sitting.
MR. GEORGEsaid, he objected to come down to a morning sitting to discuss a Bill which there was no serious intention of passing.

THE BOMBARDMENT OF BELGRADE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether accounts have been received that the Turkish Fortress at Belgrade have bombarded the Servian portion of that town? Whether Baron Hubner has offered, at Constantinople, the assistance of Austrian Troops to co-operate with the Porte, either in Bosnia, Servia, or elsewhere; and whether any such intervention by one of the Great Powers, independently of the others, is compatible with the existing Treaties?
  MR. LAYARDstated in reply, that the Government had received information that the Turkish fortress at Belgrade had bombarded the Servian portion of the town. He understood that the Servians had offered considerable provocation to the Turks. Two or three of the latter had been murdered, and on the 16th the Servians, by a surprise, took possession of two of the gates of the Turkish quarter. On the 17th, some shots having been fired at the fortress, the Turkish garrison was led to believe that an attack was going to be made upon them, and opened a bombardment on a part of the town. The

  807
  Consuls immediately interfered; and as soon as the British Government were apprised of the occurrence, they took such measures as they thought most calculated to stop the effusion of blood. The bombardment, he believed, did not last more than four hours. A telegram had just been received from the Turkish Government stating that a Commissioner would be immediately despatched to Belgrade to investigate the matter, and that every effort would be made to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the differences which had arisen. He was not aware that the Austrian Ambassador had offered to send troops to co-operate with the Porte in Bosnia, Servia, or elsewhere. With regard to the third question, he could only say that the interpretation of European Treaties could not be decided by a mere question and answer in that House, and any expression of opinion on his own part could be but that of an individual.

BLOCKADE OF MEXICO.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on what grounds the French commenced to blockade the Mexican coast on May 1st; and whether the French Government did not notify this blockade until June 5th; and why Her Majesty's Government did not give notice of the Blockade until June 17th. He also wished to know what time would be allowed to vessels now on the voyage out, or at present loading in England, to enter the Mexican ports?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, the noble Lord was in error in supposing that the French Government had notified the blockade on the 5th of May. The notice which appeared in the Moniteur of that date did not amount to an official notification to this country. The official notice did not reach the English Embassy at Paris until the night of the 13th. On its arrival in London it was sent to the Law Officers of the Crown to be examined, and was then published in the first Gazette on the 17th. He had not received notice of the last question of the noble Lord, and could not therefore answer it satisfactorily at that moment. He would give a reply on Monday.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he wished to know whether the blockade did not commence on the 1st of May.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he understood that before a blockade could be properly established official notification must be given to the countries affected by it.

THE OPIUM CROP IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any truth in the statements which have been published in various Newspapers, of a deficiency in the yield of Opium for the season; and if so, whether it is likely that any loss will ensue in the Revenue in India; and whether any representation of grievances has been made to the local Government by Ryots in different Zillahs in Bengal, who receive advances from the Government there, to enable them to cultivate the Poppy plant; if so, will he describe generally what are the grievances complained of, and whether the Governor General or the Lieutenant Governor has appointed a Commission to inquire into them?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he had received no official information upon any of the points to which the hon. Member had directed attention. He had reason to believe that there had been some failure in the opium crop, but it by no means followed that there would be a loss of Revenue, because the sale of a smaller quantity at a higher price might produce as good a Revenue as that of a larger quantity at a lower rate.

ARMSTRONG GUNS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GORE LANGTONsaid, in the absence of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Berkeley), he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, The reason why the Returns respecting the Armstrong guns, moved for on the 7th day of March and withdrawn, and renewed on the 18th day of March with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for War, have not been laid upon the table at this late period of the Session?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that this Return had to be founded upon the accounts of the Royal Gun Factory for the year ending the 31st of March last. These accounts had only lately been made up in a complete form. The Return would shortly be ready.

THE FORTS AT SPITHEAD.

  QUESTION.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Plans of the Forts proposed to be erected at Spithead have been finally determined on; and, if so, what is the estimated cost of each of those Forts; and whether it has been decided what shall be the number and calibre of the guns to be placed in each Fort, and what is the estimated cost of such armament.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that he should on Monday next move a Resolution with respect to Fortifications, and he would then give the information which was desired by the noble Lord.

MURDER OF DR. MACCARTHY AT PISA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the murderer of Dr. MacCarthy at Pisa has been brought to justice; and, if so, with what result; and whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the table of the House the Correspondence and Papers on the subject?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that the murderer of Dr. MacCarthy was brought to trial on the 10th of March and sentenced to ten years' confinement, and to pay an indemnity to the family of the deceased. Upon the subject of the trial our Consul wrote, after giving some details—
  "I have to add that the case was most carefully got up. The examinations were conducted with great regularity, and it was evident that the proceedings were watched with interest by members of the Bench and the Bar who were not conducting the case. The other business of the Court was made to give way, and, as regards the expedition with which the case was carried through, it ought to be remembered that two months only elapsed from the commission of the offence to the punishment of the offender. No authorities could have acted with greater consideration, firmness, and efficiency than had the Italian authorities."
  The Consul went on to state, that although some people might take exception to the punishment as too lenient, it was according to the Tuscan code, by which the punishment of death was abolished; and as the imprisonment was accompanied by solitude and silence, although the murderer was a very hale man, there was scarcely a chance of his surviving his punishment.

TRADE MARKS BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, having fixed the Trade Marks Bill for Monday next, he will be prepared to state the day when the Government will bring it on?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he hoped to be able to fix a day on Monday,
MR. ROEBUCK: Will it come on next week?
MR. MILNER GIBSON: I will say on Monday.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

UNITED STATES—RECOGNITION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES OF AMERICA.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. W. S. LINDSAYsaid, that it had been his intention to have submitted to the House that evening a Resolution the object of which would have been the recognition of the Southern States of America; but many hon. Members whom he had consulted, and whose opinions he was bound to respect, had recommended that he should postpone the Motion. In deference to their opinions he proposed to postpone it until the 11th of July. Before that time he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would see the necessity of taking in hand a question so grave and important, and one which properly belonged to the Executive, and would thus render it unnecessary for any private Member to submit to the consideration of the House the desirability of recognising the Southern States, because it must be apparent to all men that before long those States must become an independent nation.
THE "BRITISH STAR" NEWSPAPER.

  PAPEKS MOVED FOR.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I appear, Sir, not only on behalf of a British, subject who has been wronged in his property, but in vindication of a principle which every man in this House holds dear. It has been proclaimed over and over from the Treasury Bench that England is not alone the home of liberty, but the propagandist of freedom. The case to which I am about

  811
  to refer, proves that Her Majesty's Government have violated that principle of freedom; and I stand here to demand an explanation of the reasons which induced them to commit an act which, if properly understood by this country, ought to bring a blush of shame to the cheek of every Englishman. Liberty of the press is no longer a cant phrase in this country; it is a household word—a creed which the nation professes, and, better than professes, believes. Her Majesty's Government have violated that principle; and in their manner of doing so, they have done more to degrade the dignity and character of the country than any misguided Government has almost ever done by their official blunders. The British Government have, so far as they could, suppressed a British paper, published in London by a naturalized British subject, an elector of the City of London—one who pays his rates and taxes like any Englishman. The gentleman to whom I refer—M. Zenos—is a Greek by birth, but he has lived fourteen years in this country; and if he have any one feeling stronger than another, it is admiration of the laws and institutions of England, and of the genius and virtues of her people. I am rather stating the feelings of M. Zenos than my own. This gentleman, who is engaged in extensive mercantile transactions, and who is well known in the City, having also a taste for literary pursuits, established a paper, some two years since, with the noble and patriotic object of infusing, so far as he was able, European ideas and civilization, together with a knowledge of European progress, into European Turkey, but especially among his compatriots of the East, whether in Greece proper, or in the Ottoman Empire. The main portion of this paper, which is printed in modern Greek, and profusely illustrated, is devoted to literary, scientific, and artistic subjects. The illustrations are of the highest order of art; and as to the literary portion of it, those who have had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the British Star, speak of it in terms of praise. I hold in my hand a copy of the paper; and it is necessary that I should call particular attention to the fact that the political part, which consists but of four pages, can be easily separated from the main body of the paper. The political portion of the British Star, consists of articles partly original and partly copied from the leading journals of England. Among the latter there
  812
  would occasionally appear a thundering leader from the Times, or perhaps a spicy article from the Saturday Review. Only four pages, however, are devoted to political matter; the great bulk of the paper being devoted to subjects of a literary, scientific, or artistic nature. It is essential that this description should be borne in mind, as the sequel will show how important it, is in understanding the hard case of this British newspaper. On the 3rd of May, M. Zenos, the proprietor of the British Star, received a communication from Mr. Hill, the Tinder Secretary of the Post Office, informing him that, at the request of the Ottoman Government, received through Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, the Postmaster General had given directions to the British Postmaster at Constantinople not to deliver, but to return to this country, all copies of the British Star which might reach his office. Practically, this order amounted to a suppression of this newspaper in European Turkey. Could anything be worse than this in France? No; this was worse than that which we deprecate in France. In France, before a newspaper is suppressed, two warnings are given to its conductors. But the British Government, without any warning whatever, practically suppressed a British newspaper. The representative of the greatest Power has thus degraded himself, his Government, and his country, by becoming the instrument of one of the vilest despotisms in the world. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but I will prove what I assert. In this letter of the 3rd of May, the reason why the paper was suppressed is thus given—" it being alleged by the Porte that such newspaper contains articles inciting to revolt against the Government and laws of Turkey." The letter did not state that the allegation had been proved, or that the noble Lord the Foreign Minister, or the Under Secretary, had read these articles, and endorsed the statement of the Ottoman Government. The paper was suppressed in consequence of a simple allegation; and thus the British Government, the representative of the greatest Power in the world, made itself the catspaw of the vilest despotism in the world. M. Zenos immediately wrote to the noble Lord the Foreign Minister, denying that any such articles had appeared in his paper; and in proof of that assertion he forwarded to the Foreign Office a file of the paper for the current year. After

  813
  stating what his object was in establishing the British Star, M. Zenos adds—
  "My paper has been very often in opposition to the Government of King Otho, and has pointed out, from time to time, the abuses that exist in the administration of affairs in Greece. It is this opposition, I fear, my Lord, that has caused the Government of the Sultan to apply to that of England, to prevent the circulation of my paper in Turkey. For, a short time since, M. Barotsi, dragoman of the Greek Legation in Constantinople, meeting my father, who is my agent in that capital, told him, that as I persisted in my opposition to the Government of King Otho, he, Barotsi, would use all his influence with the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Turkey, to get him to suppress the circulation of the British Star in that country."
  I hope the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary will be able to state that he was ignorant of any such contemptible intrigue. M. Zenos however makes a proposal, to which I beg to call special attention—
  "Should your Lordship, after what I have stated, still feel not justified in removing the prohibition placed on my paper, I beg to propose, that my paper being divided into two sections—one literary and scientific, and the other political, the former be permitted to pass through the British post-office, pending the settlement of this question. I have been at very considerable expense in preparing woodcuts illustrative of the International Exhibition. All this expenditure will be in a great measure thrown away if I be prevented sending my paper to Turkey, and the Greek population of that country will also be deprived of any knowledge of this great exhibition of international industry; and as the British Star, independently of its political views, has been the chief literary as well as scientific instructor of my compatriots of the Ottoman Empire, I trust your Lordship will see fit to grant my petition."
  What did the noble Lord say to this reasonable and moderate request? He had the following curt and snubbing answer written to this gentleman:—
  "I am directed by Earl Russell to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 8th inst., in which, after adverting to the fact that the British Postmaster at Constantinople has been ordered not to distribute a paper called the British Star, you request that the literary and scientific portions of that journal maybe forwarded separately, and I am to state in reply that Lord Russell cannot comply with your request."
  M. Zenos was utterly amazed. For what had he proposed to do? To eliminate from his journal all that was political, or that could possibly give offence, and to confine it exclusively to that which would not only be harmless and unobjectionable, but useful and beneficial. You take pride in your International Exhibition, and you boast of the advantages which it is certain to confer on this country, as well as on all
  814
  other countries that obtain a knowledge of the advance which it evidences in the material and artistic progress of the world M. Zenos was anxious to impart that information to his compatriots in European Turkey; but the British Government denied him the means and opportunity of so doing. M. Zenos was bewildered; he could not understand what this refusal meant; and after acknowledging the receipt of the last communication from the Foreign Office, he ventured to ask his Lordship the Foreign Minister his reasons for not granting his request. The House has often heard of Irish bulls; but the noble Lord—who has none of the vivacity of character which accounts for trivial mistakes of the kind, and which even redeems some of the faults of my countrymen, but who is distinguished, on the contrary, for all the coldness of the genuine John Bull—fell into one of the most absurd blunders of which I have ever heard, in his reply to M. Zenos. On the 16th of May this reply was sent; and with respect to the language and its sense I certainly cannot congratulate the noble Lord or the hon. Gentleman opposite, if he had any hand in its composition. It was as follows:—
  "I am directed by Earl Russell to state to you, in reply to your letter of the 13th inst., that the political character of the newspaper called the British Star is sufficient to justify the British Post Office at Constantinople."
  M. Zenos proposed to eliminate the political portion of the journal, and only to send abroad the literary and scientific sheets, which were not only unobjectionable but positively beneficial. This the noble Lord could not allow—why? Because of the political character of the paper? Was that a practical bull, or was it not? Now, I ask for the demand, or request, made by the Ottoman Government, in which this correspondence originated, and for the correspondence between the British Ambassador and the Home Government, in order that some explanation may be given of an act which is a disgrace to this country. When I was asked by M. Zenos to bring this subject before Parliament, I urged him to tell me if any articles really had appeared in the British Star of the character attributed to them—namely, of inciting to revolt in Turkey; and the answer given to that question was, that no such articles were published in his paper; and that in addressing, as he did, the highest class of

  815
  his comptriots in the East, his chief object was to bring about as speedily as possible the realization of the solemn promises made by the Turkish Government to the Great Powers, and guaranteed by treaties in favour of the Christian subjects of the Porte. I then asked him, "How can you account for this hostility to your paper? I cannot discover any valid reason on the face of the correspondence. Have you offended any one in authority?" M. Zenos could only account for the hostility shown towards him by the British Government or the Foreign Office, by the fact that he had inserted an article throwing ridicule upon certain statements of the hon. Gentleman opposite in reference to the Turkish loan, and which may have hurt the susceptibilities, financial or otherwise, of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. That hon. Gentleman is no longer Chairman of the Ottoman Bank, the agent for the Ottoman Loan; he is, I understand, only a shareholder in that concern; but he still no doubt regards it with a kind of parental affection, and anything said against the Turkish Loan naturally excites his indignation. On the 14th of March, in reply to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Freeland) the Under Secretary gave a glowing description of Turkish finances and Turkish reforms. He was asked by the hon. Member for Chichester to produce a document which was one of the ablest State papers ever presented to the House, and which, if anything could, might, if acted upon, prove the salvation of the Ottoman Empire. The document I refer to is the Report of Mr. Foster and Lord Hobart on the financial condition of Turkey. It was signed at and sent from Constantinople on the 7th of December, and reached the Foreign Office on the 20th of December. When the hon. Member for Chichester moved for that paper, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, asked him not to persevere in his request, as the production of the Report might defeat the object for which it had been drawn up, and which the Turkish Government had in view. I venture to think that the object with which the Report had been refused on that occasion was to prevent it from damaging the Turkish Loan, which had been puffed from the Treasury Bench. If I had not a high respect for the personal honour of those who sit on that bench, I would say the Turkish Loan had been puffed by them for the purpose of "rigging the market;"
  816
  but I would not say anything of the kind, for I have too much respect for the personal honour and character of the gentlemen who occupy an exalted position. I must however ask, whether, in his speech, in reply to the hon. Member for Chichester, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs faithfully represented the financial position of that rotten empire, Turkey? His statements on that occasion and those contained in the Report do not agree; and if the latter had been analysed, and if that analysis had been read over at the Stock Exchange, hon. Members would not have heard much of the success of the Turkish Loan. The article of the British Star combated the statements of the Under Secretary, and ridiculed the alleged progress and prosperity which he described. The Under Secretary described a number of reforms which had been inaugurated in Turkey. He stated, among other improvements, that the Sultan had cut down his Civil List, and effected certain reforms in his palace, and that his Majesty's example was certain to be followed by the officials of the empire. It is, I believe, the fact that the present Sultan dismissed certain employés who had been in the service of his brother, and that he has likewise discharged a number of the unhappy women who formed the harem of the late ruler of the Turkish empire. It is a fact that he has effected the latter reform; but having applied the broom of reform pretty freely to the seraglio, the reigning potentate sent his agents into Georgia and Circassia, and culled some of the fairest flowers to be found in the mountains and plains of those countries, which have been so long famous for the beauty of their female inhabitants, and which have contributed so largely to form the harems of successive sultans. Indeed, I believe it may be asserted that the harem of the present ruler of Turkey is furnished as well, and with as little regard to cost, as that of any of his illustrious predecessors—a fact which may be of some slight interest to those who are influenced by Oriental sympathies. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs proceeded to say that the very first selection made by His Majesty the present Sultan was that of a distinguished financial reformer, whom he (Mr. Layard) lauded to the stars as a man of genius—a gentleman named Achmet Effendi. To him was intrusted the property given to mosques and religious bodies for religious purposes; and he (Mr. Layard)

  817
  mentioned some of the reforms which Achmet Effendi had been able to carry out. But did the hon. Gentleman know at the time that this distinguished reformer had been dismissed shortly before his laudatory statement was made. The dismissal of Achmet Effendi took place before the time the hon. Gentleman made his statement. In reference to this department and this minister, the Commissioners— Mr. Foster and Lord Hobart—say, in page 30 of their Report—
  "The Minister, however, who was appointed to take charge of this department, since our arrival here had commenced the introduction of a superior system of accounts, and by his reforms had, in the few months of his administration, greatly improved the financial position of this department. We heard, therefore, with regret that this intelligent officer had been dismissed."
  So much for the reforms, and the manner in which the reformer has been treated by a reforming Government. The hon. Gentleman represented that the Turkish debt amounted to only £14,000,000. In the Report of Mr. Poster and Lord Hobart that amount swelled out to £46,000,000, which did not include enormous sums taken under various pretences from Greek and Armenian merchants. These sums, borrowed from the Christian subjects of the Porte, have not been paid back, and in too many instances the loss of this money has brought ruin and bankruptcy upon eminent mercantile houses. If hon. Members look into the subject, and read the valuable Report of the English Commissioners, they will find that the state of things existing in Turkey is very bad indeed. With respect to "income tax" in that country, the local authorities to whom the tax is farmed could assess a man to any amount they pleased, and it depended afterwards upon the correctness of the accounts of the provincial or district authorities, whether a taxpayer might not have to pay his portion three or four times over. The Report says that—
  "The amount of 'verghi' payable by each person is decided annually by the authorities of the town or village to which he belongs. The distribution, which is ostensibly based upon the relative wealth of each member of the community, has hitherto been made in the rudest, most informal, mid most arbitrary manner. The consequence has been that all kinds of unfairness, favouritism, and unjust exaction, have prevailed in the assessment of the impost, and that the wealthier classes have usually escaped with a very light application, or with no application at all, of the tax, which therefore falls with additional weight upon the poorer portion of the community."
  818
  Some attempt at reforming this monstrous abuse has been made in one or two places. Let Gentlemen who feel so uneasy at an additional penny in the pound on their income tax appreciate this delightful state of things, and then consider how pleasant it would be if they had to pay their taxes two or three times over, instead of once. And yet the Commissioners tell us that this kind of thing frequently occurs. The taxpayer is in ignorance as to the amount he has to pay—no receipt or written discharge is given to him—and "the payers are liable to be, and frequently are, called upon to pay the same amount of tax twice, and even three times over." The collection of the "Rachat," or tax for exemption from military service, is equally unsatisfactory, equally arbitrary, and equally oppressive to the individual. This is levied on the Christian subjects, who are not allowed to bear arms. The Customs are farmed out, the clerks are badly paid, and the corruption of the officials is matter of notoriety. I believe there is scarcely any other country, boasting of even the rudest civilization, in which there is not an effective system of postage established by the Government; but even the environs of Constantinople are without the most ordinary means of communication by letter. Twenty times over, in their Report, the Commissioners urge on the Government of the Porte the necessity of roads for internal communication. One instance of the neglect of this progressive Government may be given, and I take it from the Report of the Commissioners. Corn is worth thirty to forty piastres per kilo, at the seaboard, which same corn does not pay the cultivator more than four to five piastres—the difference being made up by the cost and the difficulties of transit. Yes, there was an attempt at reform last year, but it was in the wrong direction. Under the head of "Ministry of Commerce and Public Works," there is a reduction of £20,000; but this is at the expense of the repairs of streets, roads, and bridges. There is another attempt at reform, but it is also stupid and jealous. Some facilities, though under restrictions of a capricious nature, are to be allowed to the subjects of the Porte to work mines in Turkey; but no encouragement is given —in fact, no permission is to be allowed —to any Frank or foreign Company to work the mines of that country ["Question !"] I am keeping to the question. M. Zenos endeavoured to show up that

  819
  state of things for the purpose of bringing about its reform. Is that a crime? Is it a crime of The Times to censure a Government for its short-comings, or to suggest reforms? If not, is M. Zenos to be punished for having followed so illustrious an example? It is of importance that the House and the country should know what is the real state of things which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary is constantly puffing. In the office of the Ministry of War, as in other public offices, the clerks, who are miserably paid, can only get an increase through interest. Superannuations, or pensions, depend altogether on the amount of interest which the recipients can employ to obtain them. In the army, the authorities demand payment in rations and clothing, and pay for more men than are actually in the different regiments. In the navy things are as bad. The Capitan Pasha has had his pay raised from £10,000 to £13,000; while the captains of vessels receive but £40 a year, and rations in proportion to their rank. All the inferior officers are miserably paid, and yet they must live. What is the state of the tribunals? The judges are paid by fees, and are liable and open to corruption. In fact, they are notoriously the most corrupt in the world. "It is asserted," say the Commissioners, "that in some instances (at Acre, for instance) the office of judge has been farmed out to the highest bidder." Of the provincial police, Lord Hobart and Mr. Foster say the people prefer the brigands to them. In the Admiralty stores there is a storekeeper, but there are no accounts—no regular check upon the articles received and issued; and when the Commissioners inquired if no books were kept, they were shown a rude memorandum book. In fact, there is no proper system of accounts, or anything approaching it, kept in Turkey; and the whole system is corrupt and rotten—one of peculation and robbery, plunder and oppression. The reforms are up to this merely nominal, and I believe that the few which have been attempted, have been attempted solely for the purpose of making a demand upon the purse of the English nation. We have been led to believe that the state of the Ottoman finances was most promising. But what is the fact? The Commissioners state that the deficiency on the current year— that is, the year 1861—was £2,920,000; and for this year they calculated on a deficiency, or an excess of expenditure over
  820
  revenue, of £1,700,000. And yet the House was told in March last of some telegram announcing a surplus for this year's budget of £800,000. I should like to know how that surplus, which must exist in the imagination rather than in reality, has been made out. I think it would require a more accomplished financier than the Under Secretary to reconcile this gratifying surplus with the figures of the Commissioners. Where, I ask, is the wonderful prosperity and progress we have been hearing of?—where the splendid field for the investment of British capital? M. Zenos has told the truth in his paper in reference to all this, and the result has been the practical suppression of his paper in our Constantinople post-office. But there is something more important than a mere question of finance. To save this rotten empire you spent £100,000,000 of money, and I shall not say how many human lives; and yet how have the promises made by this wretched Government been carried out? Turkey was saved from the grasp of Russia by France, England, and Sardinia—three Christian Powers; and by the treaty of Paris, in 1856, to which the Great Powers were parties, partly out of gratitude, and partly from necessity, it guaranteed to its Christian subjects certain rights, which up to this moment have not been conceded— not one of them. Is the Christian yet on an equality with the Turk before the judge of a native tribunal? Nothing of the kind; and yet it was by Christian arms that this wretched empire was saved from destruction. The law of Turkey at this moment is the law of the Koran, which says that the evidence of any one Turk is to outweigh that of a whole village of unbelievers; so that the evidence of a Turk, no matter how mean his position or how bad his character, would be received in preference to the evidence of any number of Christians, no matter how respectable or trustworthy. Is this a state of things which we, as a Christian people, are to endure? This is the year 1862—six years after the treaty of Paris, in which this equality of civil rights was guaranteed; and yet no step has been taken to redeem that most important of all the stipulations. Who are these Turks?—what are their numbers? The Turks in European Turkey are not 2,000,000 in number, and yet by a policy of savage cunning they keep down 12,000,000 Christians; because the latter are not allowed the use of arms—not al-

  821
  lowed to become soldiers, although they are subjected to a poll tax, arbitrarily imposed, and more oppressively collected. Again, no Christian can hold landed property in his own name; he might do so in the name of some female of his family, because it is thought that at one time or another she may become the property of the Mussulman. ["Oh!"] It is a fact. M. Zenos sought to purchase land in Smyrna in his own name, but he has not been allowed, though he might have done so in the name of his sister. Other matters were guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris, but, like those I have mentioned, nothing has been done to realize them to the Christian subjects of the Porte. Now, M. Zenos does not incite to revolt against the laws and government of Turkey; but he does advocate the fulfilment of that compact which this country was a party to, when it spent its blood and treasure in the vain attempt to prop up this rotten despotism.
  [The hon. Member then quoted passages from the Earl of Carlisle's "Diary in Turkish Waters," in which the decaying state of the Turkish Empire is vividly described. The hon. Member then proceeded—]
  And yet this is the country, and these are the people, for which and for whom we have laid heavy burdens upon ourselves, and imposed heavy liabilities upon those who will come after us. And when M. Zenos endeavours, through his journal, to infuse English notions, English civilization, into this country, is Her Majesty's Government to place an interdict on his Journal? I might give another reason why M. Zenos' newspaper does not find favour in the eyes of the hon. Member the Tinder Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The hon. Member last year made a speech, denouncing the Greeks, and treating them contemptuously, and a Greek gentleman wrote from Paris a stinging letter, which must have galled the hon. Gentleman, and that letter appeared prominently in this Greek journal. Upon the Christian population of Turkey rest its entire hopes of progress or prosperity. The Christian element is the only active element; and of the Christian population the Greeks are the most active, the most energetic, and the most enterprising. Lord Carlisle shows how it is the Greek peasant that tills the fields and thrives, while the Turk "reclines, smokes his pipe, and decays." The fact is that
  822
  the trade, commerce, and civilization of Turkey—at least such civilization as it possesses—are all owing to the Greeks. They are its greatest and most successful merchants there, as they are amongst the proudest merchants of this country. They love art, and literature, and refinement, and they diffuse some of that refinement around them. M. Zenos has the spirit of his countrymen in those respects, and he uses his paper as a means of promoting their improvement. Well, it is just at the moment when M. Zenos is going to a large expense in order to show his countrymen abroad the nature and Character of the International Exhibition, of which this country is so proud, that the British authorities deprive him of the power of diffusing that civilizing knowledge. I call upon the hon. Gentleman to state what is the real cause of this conduct. I cannot understand how a Government, which is the propagandist of revolution in other countries, would not allow the breath of free opinion to circulate in Turkey. Why did the hon. Gentleman, who can make speeches about the spread of light in Naples and Rome, prevent the progress of a journal, such as I have described, in a country which requires the breath of free opinion more than any other country in the world? I ask the hon. Gentleman to lay on the table the documents which I move for, and I call on the Government to withdraw from the perilous and shameful position they have assumed; perilous, because it compromises their honour and the great principle which they advocate—and to do justice at this late hour to this gentleman, who has expended much capital in the attempts to carry out the noble and patriotic object which he has in view. That object is the elevation and improvement of his compatriots in the East. I shall now conclude, Sir, by calling on the hon. Gentleman to explain what he has done in reference to the prohibition of which I complain, and to say whether he will allow free circulation to the British Star through the British Post-office in Constantinople; and I hope, Sir, that the hon. Gentleman will be able to show, from authentic documents, that the state of things in Turkey is more satisfactory and more hopeful than has been described in the paper of M. Zenos, or in the Report of our own Commissioners.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the

  823
  end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of all Correspondence between the Foreign Office and M. Zenos in reference to the official announcement made to M. Zenos from the General Post Office, on the 3rd day of May 1862, informing that gentleman that directions had been given to the British Postmaster at Constantinople 'not to deliver, but to return to this country, all Copies of the "British Star" which might reach his office:'
  "Of the Correspondence between the Ottoman Government and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople in reference to the application, on the part of the Ottoman Government, to prohibit the transmission of the 'British Star' through the British Post-office at Constantinople; and between Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople and the Foreign Office:
  "And, of Articles alleged to have 'incited to revolt against the Government and Laws of Turkey,' specifying whether they were Articles written by the Editor of the 'British Star,' or copied from other journals, with the date of their publication,"
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. MACEVOYseconded the Motion.
  MR. LAYARDobserved that the hon. Gentleman had placed a notice of Motion on the paper for an Address for copies of correspondence relating to M. Zenos and his newspaper, and he (Mr. Layard) had come down to the House under the impression that the hon. Gentleman would confine himself to that subject. Instead, however, of that being so, the hon. Gentleman had gone over the whole Turkish question, and he must add that he had himself been treated with little courtesy by the hon. Gentleman, who had made a personal attack on him of a serious nature. Of that attack he had had no notice whatever; and therefore he had come down to the House unprepared to meet it, but he would do his best to discuss the matter with all the temper and discretion he could command, though labouring under great provocation. Before going into the question of Turkish finance, he would explain to the House the position in which the Government were placed as regarded M. Zenos and his newspaper. The Turkish Government, with a liberality unknown in any other country, permitted the English Embassy to have a post-office at Constantinople, through which letters were distributed to British subjects and others, without any interference whatever. Up to that day there had never been any complaint on
  824
  the part of the Porte of the manner in which the business of that office was conducted. The letters were delivered by our own agents, and there was no instance of a letter having been stopped or opened. With other nations this country had postal conventions, in which there was almost invariably a clause stipulating that each nation should have the right of refusing to deliver any printed papers which might be considered opposed to the laws and regulations of the country; and the British Government had no voice in the matter. It was well known that the authorities in a neighbouring nation sometimes took offence at a facetious publication published in this country, and stopped its circulation among their people, but the British Government never thought of calling for an explanation. His hon. Friend had denounced what he called the heinous despotism of the Turkish Government because they wished to do the same thing, and had used terms in speaking of that Government which were highly reprehensible as applied to a Power with which this country was in friendly alliance? The hon. Gentleman's complaint was, that the Turkish Government had prohibited the circulation of a paper containing articles which he himself described as most inflammatory. Those articles, they were told, sought to undermine the authority of the Sultan, and denounced the established religion of Turkey. Well, was it surprising that the Turkish Government should object to the circulation of such articles? He would remind the hon. Gentleman, that if he directed his attention to another quarter, he would find that the complaints which he urged against the Turkish Government would there be far more applicable than in the present instance; for he must be well aware that under the dominion of the Pope publications which contained doctrines not in accordance with the views of the Roman authorities were not only prohibited, but their authors consigned—over and above being liable to criminal punishment in this world—to everlasting perdition in the next. The Turkish Government objected to the publication in question on grounds which were quite intelligible. They alleged that it contained articles systematically hostile to the ruling Power, and that it habitually instigated the subjects of the Sultan to rebellion against his authority. Under those circumstances they naturally asked whether it was fair that the privilege of having a post-office under our own control which

  825
  they had granted us, should be taken advantage of, to disseminate such treasonable matter, and be made the instrument by which disaffection and disobedience to the law were incited. Let him suppose that, in answer to such an appeal, the English Government had replied, that they would insist upon the paper in question being circulated; would not the Turkish authorities have been justified in saying, "If you choose to avail yourselves of a privilege, which we with such unexampled liberality grant you, to exercise it in this way, we must, in justice to ourselves, withdraw it altogether?" But the hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong in asserting that the Government of this country had suppressed M. Zenos's newspaper. He might still send it through the Austrian or the French post; nay, he might try even the Roman post. But, to bring the matter to a closer issue, let him suppose that a French post-office, such as that which was established by the English Government in Turkey, existed in Dublin, and that by its means documents were circulated throughout the country denouncing the oppression under which the people of Ireland were suffering, and urging them on to rebellion—would the English Government not have a right to remonstrate with France and to take the necessary steps to prevent such a privilege as that which she enjoyed being thus abused? So far as the papers asked for by the hon. Gentleman—were concerned, he had not the slightest objection to produce them, with the exception of those embraced in the concluding paragraph of his Motion, which he was obviously unable to give, inasmuch as it called upon him to say which articles were or were not written by the editor of the British Star, or which were those copied from other journals. He could not possibly say what articles were written by M. Zenos, and any such Return, therefore, it would be impossible to give; but if he would be satisfied with the correspondence which had taken place between the Foreign Office and Her Majesty's Minister at Constantinople, and M. Zenos himself, he should have much pleasure in producing it. The hon. Gentleman, he might add, had charged his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office with inconsistency, but it was doubtful whether the hon. Gentleman had not in the fullest extent laid himself open to that charge, because, while he accused the Turkish Government of being the vilest of despotisms, he yet represented the free Greek Govern-
  826
  ment of which he spoke with so much enthusiasm, as calling upon the Forte to suppress a paper circulated in Turkey which reflected upon the Government of Greece. In fact, it was the Greek Government which had instigated the Forte to ask for the withdrawal of the permission to M. Zenos to send his newspaper through the English post, because that paper contained articles hostile to the Greek Government. He had, he thought, now stated sufficient to show the House the grounds on which the Government had acted in the case of M. Zenos. M. Zenos was perfectly free to circulate his papers, but he was not free to abuse the privilege of the British post. He would now turn to another topic dwelt upon by the hon. Gentleman, who had ventured to insinuate that he (Mr. Layard) had made a speech in that House in favour of Turkish finance because he was interested in it as the recent chairman of the Ottoman Bank, and one of its shareholders. Now, he would not condescend to answer or deny such a charge coming from such a man. He had certainly made in the course of the Session a statement on the subject of Turkish finance, and to that statement he still adhered.
  MR. SCULLY: Sir, I rise to order. I beg to move that the words just used by the hon. Gentleman be taken down. I submit it is unparliamentary to apply such words to any Member of this House, I do do not care who he is. Indeed, the hon. Member to whom they are applied in the present instance, so far from being a friend of mine, has always shown himself to be my personal enemy. But, be that as it may, the words "such a charge coming from such a man" are clearly unparliamentary, and I therefore beg to move that they be taken down by the clerk at the table.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I would wish to observe, Sir—["Order, order !"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The words which the hon. Gentleman wishes to be taken down must be exactly those which fell from the hon. Member for Southwark.
  MR. SCULLY: I cannot be expected to vouch for the exact words, but I understood the hon. Gentleman to use these words:—" I cannot be expected to answer such a charge coming from such a man."I move that they be taken down, but I was in hopes that the hon. Gentleman would explain.
  MR. LAYARD: If, of course, Sir, I have used words which are unparliamentary, I

  827
  should at once submit to any decision with respect to them which you might think proper to pronounce. I should withdraw them if you think I am called upon to do so. You, Sir, heard what the hon. Gentleman opposite said. He accused me, in language not to be mistaken, of unparliamentary and dishonourable conduct. He stated or insinuated that I had made a speech in this House by means of which I endeavoured to force up the Turkish Loan. That, at all events, was the impression he left on my mind. He used the words "rigging the market," and seemed to wish the House to suppose, that because I had recently been chairman of the Ottoman Bank and one of its shareholders, I made the speech in question with the object which I have indicated. Now, I venture to say that so serious a charge as that has scarcely ever before been made in this House against one of its Members, and I certainly did reply to it, as I submit I was perfectly justified in doing, by saying I should be doing what was inconsistent with my character as a man of honour, as a Member of the Government, and as a Member of Parliament, if I condescend to answer such a charge coming from such a quarter. I have no wish to retract those words.
  MR. DISRAELI: I understand there is a question as to whether the words should be taken down. Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman had simply used the phrase "from such a quarter," his language would have been Parliamentary. In using, as he did, the words "such a man," he must, I think, have spoken inadvertently in the hurry of debate, and I am the more inclined to that opinion because in his previous observations he referred in the most courteous terms to the hon. Member for Dungarvan, for he distinctly called him three times his "hon. Friend." Indeed, so much struck was I by the remarkable courtesy thus exhibited by him, notwithstanding the peculiar expressions used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan with respect to his relations in connection with the Turkish Loan, that it was a matter of observation on the part of my hon. Friends by me and myself that Parliamentary courtesy had never in all probability been strained to such a degree before. I looked upon the hon. Gentleman, in short, as setting all of us a very good example. But now, as this painful misconception has arisen, I think the House will be of opinion that
  828
  the hon. Gentleman used the words "such a man," which were clearly unparliamentary, and could not be tolerated, inadvertently; and I feel assured he will recall them, and express his regret that he did not use the words "such a quarter," which, I believe, would not be out of order. That being done, the question might be considered as settled, and we should be able to proceed with the discussion.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I may he allowed to say that I think both hon. Gentlemen have, perhaps, somewhat overstepped those limits within which, on cooler reflection, they would, I am sure, admit it is desirable to keep. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan used very offensive, I may almost say unparliamentary and unbecoming language, as between gentleman and gentleman, in accusing my hon. Friend near me of being influenced in his Parliamentary conduct by private motives. That was a charge which everybody must feel that one Member ought not to have launched against another. It was an accusation which no gentleman, conscious of its injustice, could hear made against him with the calmest temper in the world, and I am not surprised that my hon. Friend should have replied to it in words somewhat overstepping the usual courtesy of debate. The House will recollect, moreover, that the hon. Member for Dungarvan laid himself open in a peculiar manner to such a retort from my hon. Friend, because he said in the course of his speech that he did not make the statement he was addressing to the House upon his own knowledge or authority, but upon information derived from somebody else. I must say, that if an attack should be made upon my private character by a man who says that he does not speak from his own knowledge, but from the instructions of another person, I should hesitate before condescending to answer "such a charge coming from such a man." My hon. Friend, I am sure, will not insist upon words which may be considered unparliamentary, but will at once submit to the decision of the House and withdraw them.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I shall be glad at any time to settle with the Under Secretary any personal matter which may arise between us. My object, however, in rising now is to make an explanation, for I think there should be no misconception as to the real meaning of what I did say.

  829
  Perhaps I was infelicitous in the words I used, but I never intended to imply that the hon. Gentleman was actuated by any base motive of personal interest in advancing the Turkish loan. I endeavoured, on the contrary, to guard myself against that misconception by saying that I had too high a respect for the character and position of those who occupied seats on the Treasury bench to imagine for a moment that they would lend themselves to what would be disgraceful. That was what I stated and I have only to repeat, in conclusion, that I shall he happy to meet the hon. Member anywhere he pleases to discuss our personal matters.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that after the statement of the hon. Gentleman he would be happy to bow to the decision of the House, and withdraw any expression which might be considered unparliamentary. He was satisfied, at the same time, that the House would not expect him to make any explanation as to the charge which the hon. Gentleman had, if not made, at least insinuated, against him. He would therefore pass over that subject. As to M. Zenos, who seemed to think that he (Mr. Layard) was actuated by a feeling against him in consequence of any articles that he might have written in his newspaper, all he could say was that he did not believe he had ever seen a copy of the journal in question. He had certainly never read one of its articles. Nor was he aware that the House would wish him to follow the hon. Gentleman into a long discussion upon Turkish finance; but, at any rate, he might be permitted to say a few words upon one or two points which somewhat affected his personal character. The hon. Gentleman had charged him with making a statement not founded in fact when he informed the House that the Turkish debt amounted to only £14,000,000. He had already, in reply to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. D. Griffith), reminded the House, that when he said the debt of Turkey did not exceed £14,000,000, he distinctly stated that he referred exclusively to the foreign debt. [A gesture of dissent from Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH.] The hon. Gentleman shook his head, but he would read from Hansard the words he used. The words were—
  "That the foreign debt of Turkey amounted to £14,000,000, and that the whole of the interest on her foreign and domestic debt was only one-eighth of her revenue."
  If any one would consider this for a moment, he would see that he could not have
  830
  spoken of £14,000,000 as the whole amount of the indebtedness of the Porte, because one-eighth of the total revenue was a great deal more than the interest upon £14,000,000. Besides, at the time he was discussing the question of foreign loans. The hon. Gentleman had also charged him with suppressing the Report of Lord Hobart and Mr. Foster, because he knew that its publication would destroy public confidence and render abortive the endeavour to raise a Turkish loan. It would be recollected that some time ago the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Freeland) moved that the Report in question should be laid on the table. At that time the Report had just been received. It was a document of a very peculiar character, and arose out of somewhat singular circumstances. The Turkish Government, wishing to reform its finances and introduce extensive changes into its administration, had asked our Government to allow two gentlemen well acquainted with financial matters to go to Constantinople to assist in carrying out this reform. In compliance with that request two gentlemen of great ability—Lord Hobart and Mr. Foster — had been selected for the purpose, and had gone to Constantinople. The Turkish Government had concealed nothing from them, had thrown everything open to their inspection, and had behaved towards them in the most courteous and generous manner. The Commissioners, if such they might be called, had made a full and detailed Report upon Turkish finance, and upon the resources and financial administration of the country. When the hon. Member for Chichester brought forward his Motion, it was stated that the Government had no objection to lay the Report on the table; but that, inasmuch as it concerned the most vital interests of the Turkish empire, and had been made for the Turkish and not for the English Government, they would not think themselves justified in presenting it to Parliament without first obtaining the consent of the Turkish Government. Immediately afterwards the Turkish Government were consulted on the subject, and, with unheard-of liberality, they at once agreed to the publication of the Report. Let the House recollect what that Report was. It examined into every part of the Turkish Administration; it showed up every weak part of the Turkish empire; it was remarkably minute and penetrating, and spared nothing which deserved con-

  831
  damnation, and yet the Turkish Government did not hesitate to allow it to be laid before the British Parliament. He doubted whether there was another Government in Europe which would have permitted such a Report, made at its own request by the agents of a foreign Power, to be published; and he thought the Turkish Government were entitled to great credit for the liberality they had shown in the matter. The hon. Gentleman had said that if the Report had been published at once, down would have gone the Turkish loan. Why, the Report had been published, and the Turkish loan was higher now than it was before the Report came out. At that moment, he believed, the loan was at £4 premium, so that the publication of the Report, instead of lessening, had increased public confidence. He might state, moreover, that the Report was communicated to the contractors for the loan before it was laid before Parliament. It was so communicated because our Government wished the contractors to have the whole case fairly before them; and it was submitted to them, too, with the express sanction of the Turkish Ambassador. The hon. Gentleman had gone into details upon the authority of M. Zenos' statements; but no one could have known better than M. Zenos that many of those statements were entirely untrue. M. Zenos was a Greek, and must be supposed to know well what he was writing about. He would show how the hon. Gentleman had nevertheless been misinformed by M. Zenos. First he made an attack on Achmet Vefyk Effendi, a personal friend, he (Mr. Layard) was happy to say, of his own, and a man of genius, and of the highest honour and the most unimpeachable honesty—a man who was never, as the hon. Gentleman had affirmed, dismissed from the Turkish Government; but who had resigned more than once, because he was asked to do things which he did not believe to be compatible with his integrity. It was not true that when he stated to the House that the Turkish Government had put Achmet Vefyk Effendi at the head of the Finance Committee he knew that he had been dismissed. He did not know that Achmet Vefyk Effendi ever had been dismissed. On the contrary, he knew that his career had been most distinguished and successful, and that he was now at the head of a most important Department of State in Turkey. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the Turkish customs were farmed.
  832
  Some, no doubt, were, but all the customs were not fanned. It was impossible to carry out any sweeping measure of reform in a single day; but already the Turks had taken a large portion of their revenue from the farmers, and he believed that eventually they would have the collection of the whole in their own hands. The hon. Gentleman had also asserted that Franks were not allowed to work mines in Turkey. All he could say was that there were Franks working mines at the present moment.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I quoted from the Report that the Franks were not allowed to work mines.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he had been often in Turkey, and had never heard of any such restriction, and he knew that foreigners were working mines in Thessaly and in other parts of that empire. Then the hon. Gentleman said that Christians could not hold land in Turkey. That statement was utterly at variance with the fact, because half the subjects of the Sultan were Christians, and they held laud as well as the other subjects of the Sultan. It was true that foreigners could not hold laud in Turkey. The hon. Member was surprised that such a state of things should be possible, and asked whether it would be tolerated in England? Why in England by the law no foreigner could hold land. Then the hon. Gentleman taunted the Turkish Government with such charges as taxed the credulity of the House, for he said that any woman might hold land in Turkey because she might be taken possession of for certain purposes. When such a statement was made, he hardly knew how to answer it, except by saying that the person upon whose authority the hon. Gentleman spoke had wilfully and designedly misinformed and cajoled him. The Turkish Government very liberally allowed foreigners to hold land by permitting them to avail themselves of a fiction of the Mohammedan law, and to have the deeds made out in the name of any woman in Turkey, all women by a legal fiction being considered subjects of the Sultan, and a large amount of Catholic and other church property in the East belonging to foreign institutions was actually held and registered in the name of the Virgin Mary. A large number also of English, French, and other foreign subjects, held laud in Turkey merely by having it registered in the names of ladies who were not even Turkish subjects, and

  833
  the hon. Gentleman could not find a single instance in which this vile despotic government, as he chose to call it, had acted upon its right, and had interposed with property so held. The hon. Gentleman said that Christians were not allowed to give evidence in courts of justice. That was not the case, as in the commercial courts their evidence was received like that of Mussulmans, although in criminal cases it was not received as of the same weight as that of Mohammedans. But a similar state of things existed in countries boasting of high civilization. Did the hon. Gentleman know the position of Protestants in the Romish States, and the disabilities under which they laboured? Did he know that Protestants in Spain were not allowed to give evidence? Did he know that the other day a case came before the English Foreign Office, in which an English Protestant lady at Rome, married to a Roman Catholic, was refused a passport to enable her to join her husband, who was dangerously ill in England, and that it was only when she allowed the passport to be made out in her maiden name, thereby acknowledging that she was not legally married, that the prohibition was removed? ["Question!"] Those were subjects upon which he should certainly not have touched if the hon. Gentleman had not himself gone into them. he came down to the House unprepared to discuss anything but M. Zenos and his newspaper; but when the hon. Gentleman got up and attacked Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Turkey, and by implication the Italian policy of the Government, and he endeavoured to reply to those attacks, he was told that he was not speaking to the question. The hon. Gentleman had quoted the case of M. Zenos as an instance of a Christian not being able to hold land in Turkey. What were the facts? M. Zenos—this man who had been denouncing and attacking the Turkish Government—wanted to buy land in Smyrna. He was informed that he could not buy land for himself; but if his sister was still a Turkish subject, he might buy land in her name, and nothing would be said about it. Was that a liberal proceeding on the part of the Turkish Government, or was it not? No Government could have shown more liberality in that or in any other matter than was shown by the Government of Turkey. He thought he had answered the principal points of the hon. Gentleman's speech;
  834
  and as regarded M. Zenos, he would recommend him not to trust him again. M. Zenos protended that his paper, as prepared for circulation in Turkey, was purely scientific and literary; but after what he had heard that night he thought the Government were entirely justified in refusing to allow their post-office to be made the vehicle for the circulation of such matter as that newspaper was admitted to contain. He could only say further that the Government did not pretend to be the judges of what effect the articles might produce, that was a question for the consideration of the Turkish Government alone; but no Government, acting honestly and fairly, could refuse the request of a Power, which had granted to it such privileges as the Porte had granted to this country, not to allow those privileges to be taken advantage of for the purpose of circulating matters dangerous to the peace of the country, and detrimental to the authority of the Sultan. He was quite willing to lay before the House all papers upon the subject, except the articles, of which he had no knowledge whatever.
  MR. BRIGHT: I am very sorry that this question has become a matter of contest between the partisans of the Turks and the partisans of the Pope. Whatever I may think of the wisdom of an attack on Turkey, I cannot consider that these incessant attacks on the Pope from the Treasury Bench are either very judicious or very statesmanlike. There are six millions of Roman Catholics in the United Kingdom, and I find constantly that there is nothing which comes from the Treasury Bench so likely to obtain a cheer in certain quarters in this House as an attack upon anything connected with Rome, with the Pope, or the Catholic Church. I shall not be suspected of being a partisan of the Pope, or of the Catholic Church; but I say so much on behalf of the harmony and good feeling which I wish to preserve among all classes of the people of this kingdom. Now, notwithstanding that so much has been said with regard to Turkey, which has rather covered and concealed the case which was originally brought before the House, I still think there is a case which it is worth while to attend to for a few minutes longer. This M. Zenos, of whom the hon. Gentleman speaks with so much contempt, is a gentleman who has lived many—I think fourteen years or more in this country as a merchant of great respectability, He is

  835
  part owner, and I believe agent, for a most extensive line of steamboats between this country and the Levant, He is a gentleman of education, and very far above the average of men that we are accustomed to meet with. He has not established this paper for the purpose of pecuniary advantage. It has been at work, I believe, about two years, and I think I am not mistaken in saying that during those two years it has been a loss to those who have conducted it of at least some thousands of pounds. The paper is one of the very first character as to the manner in which it is got up. The subscription for abroad is three guineas a year for one paper per week. That, I think, is something about 1s. 3d. per copy. This paper, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan has already shown, is printed in the Greek character and language, and nothing that I have seen in the press here can be said to be much, if at all, superior to it. There are advertisements. I suppose the Greeks are very fond of cosmetics, for I find in it many advertisements of those articles. This side—[the hon. Gentleman held a copy in his hand]—is devoted to commercial news, and another is taken up with correspondence. Here there are pictures, such as the Illustrated London News and other papers publish; here is an Indian story; after that comes general literature. Here there is another page of pictures, and here is a page which is called statistics, containing facts and statistics of all countries in the world. Here is a page containing extracts and varieties, and then we have a portrait of General Scott of the United States. There are two or three pages giving a graphic description of the Exhibition; and in the political part, some of the debates in this House, or extracts from them, have been given, particulars of courts of justice, and notices of eminent men in this country. The fact is, that M. Zenos is, perhaps, more English than any one here—much more English than the hon. Member for Dungarvan is, according to his own admission. He is an enthusiast in favour of everything English. His object in starting this paper has been to endeavour to enlighten his fellow-countrymen wherever they are in all matters connected with English thought, and opinion, and practice, and literature, and government. I do not well know how a man, a Greek by birth, living in this country, and having acquired sufficient means, could more display his patriotism or his worth as
  836
  regards his own country than by the course which he has taken. His object has been to enlighten and elevate the Christian and the Greek population of the Levant. The hon. Gentleman has made no kind of answer to the statement of the Member for Dungarvan, with regard to the particular correspondence which was brought before the House. The original letter declares that the Turkish Government alleged that there were articles in this paper adverse to that Government, and tending to destroy order in the Turkish empire, and that they were bound to suppress it. I do not want at all to make any claim for M. Zenos which is not in my mind entirely reasonable. I will admit, that if he had been in the habit of writing articles such as have been impugned, intended and likely to be mischievous in Turkey, in a political sense, the Government might, with a degree of fairness, have taken a hint from the Turkish Government, and have informed M. Zenos that if that course were continued, they would no longer introduce his paper into that country; and then M. Zenos might have changed his course or not, as he thought proper. But when they make their statement to M. Zenos, what does he say? He says, "Here are two or three pages of this paper which are entirely political, but all the rest contains no politics whatever. I will take out every word that is political. They shall not know anything in the least in the Levant as to whether they are living under a despotism or under a republic, and I will say nothing as to what is going on in the Turkish empire." Surely that promise would have met the case—because the remonstrance of the Turkish Government was based entirely upon these political articles, and upon the effects that might be produced in the empire of Turkey. And when M. Zenos writes to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, he says, "I will take all politics out; I will insert nothing but literature and art; nothing but that which you say elevates and ennobles in the West will I send to the East; will you allow my paper then to go?"—he receives a very short letter indeed. It is not argumentative, it is not explanatory, but it is curt and all but offensive. The thing, he is told, cannot be done—the paper cannot be carried, and there is an end of M. Zenos and the British Star. Well, I think he had a fair right when he took away the ground of complaint to expect

  837
  that his case should be at least reconsidered; and that it should have been found that he had transgressed the line laid down for him before his paper was subjected to what is tantamount to suppression, The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary has not told us whether, when M. Zenos made this answer to Lord Russell, any communication was had with Sir Henry Bulwer at Constantinople, or whether Sir Henry Bulwer communicated with the Ottoman Government. It is just possible that the Ottoman Government, which the hon. Gentleman has described as being liberal beyond every other Government, if it had known that this paper henceforth was not to have a single paragraph of politics in it, would have consented to its coming into that country for the purpose of instructing its people. The noble Lord at the head of the Government has said there is no country which has made such advances in civilization as Turkey within the the last twenty or thirty years. If that be true—and I know it is not true—but if any portion of it be true, or any approximation to it be true, then surely the Turkish Government would not have objected to the introduction of this periodical, when nil politics had been taken out of it. One other point only deserves notice. European Turkey contains, as the hon. Member for Dungarvan has said, at least 11,000,000 Christians of one name or other, and about 2,250,000 or 2,500,000 Mahometans. Well, everybody must see that Turkey in Europe in point of fact, except in its feeble Government, is Christian. This paper is directed specially to improve that large population. I have always understood the noble Lord at the head of the Government to have what I should call an almost fanatical wish that there should be an intimate connection between Turkey—and particularly between Turkey in Europe— and the people of England. But how could that object be brought about more completely, more certainly, than by the circulation in that country, and amongst that population of such a paper as M. Zenos prints, apart from polities, which he is willing to take out of it? It seems to me, that we are following a bad example. I am told that in Odessa the Russians did not want this paper to circulate—that the Austrians, in order that they might suppress it amongst such portion of their population as are Greek, placed upon it a very onerous postage tax, and sometimes kept it in their offices for weeks and did
  838
  not deliver it, until at length it was suppressed there. And there remained only Constantinople, and that part of Turkey where any considerable circulation of this paper was to be obtained. Now, I complain that the Foreign Office, in my opinion, acted needlessly and with great hardship in this matter. They appear to me to have acted with love rather than with reluctance at the urgent request of the Turkish Government. Although M. Zenos proposed to take out of his paper every word of politics, the English Foreign Office, without consulting the Turkish Government as to the proposed change—and, so far as I hear, instead of giving any explanation whatever—merely adhered to their former declaration, and withheld their means of conveying the publication to Constantinople; and this gentleman, who, I venture to say, does not deserve in the least the sneers and contempt of the Under Secretary of the Foreign Office, is prevented from doing that which I believe would be a patriotic and useful act, I object to this, not only on the ground of what is due to M. Zenos, but on the ground of what we value most—with regard to freedom of the press. I object to it because I believe that it would be greatly to the advantage of the population of Turkey in Europe if that population could have access through this paper to those vast stores of information which are open to the people of this country and Western Europe. And I believe that the time will come when the Christians and Greeks of Turkey in Europe will form Turkey in Europe; and that whenever that day comes —as it must come before long—it will be beneficial to them and also a great political and commercial advantage to us that they should be thoroughly intimate with the thoughts, and habits, and character, and practice to be found in this country. On these grounds, therefore, I think that the hon. Gentleman and the noble Earl, who is his chief at the Foreign Office, have behaved with a suddenness, I may say a harshness and unreasonableness, which I did not expect. I would not have complained if they had only followed the Turkish Government so far as politics went. But I say, in my opinion they had no right to go further than that. I regret very much the matters which have been needlessly introduced into this discussion, and given rise to some unpleasantness; but, nevertheless, I hope the noble Earl at the Foreign Office will reconsider this question,

  839
  and that tins property of M. Zenos may not be wholly destroyed, nor his patriotic attempts entirely frustrated.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that the charge which had been insinuated by the hon. Member for Dungarvan against his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark was even more offensive than if it had been more directly made; and having himself, as a director of the Ottoman Bank, a personal knowledge of the matter, he was able to give—and should feel ashamed of himself if he had not risen to give—his direct denial, on his honour as a gentleman and a Member of that House, to the charge so insinuated against his hon. Friend. He could appeal to facts which would carry conviction to the mind—he would not say of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, but of every person who would consider the subject in a fair and candid manner. The views of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark with respect to the resources of Turkey had been known ever since he first sat in that House; and there was nothing new in his affirming that with good management the finances of that country might be put in a sound position. His hon. Friend became chairman of the Ottoman Bank; and when he ceased to be so, he was appointed Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It might, therefore, have been thought, when the Turkish Government wanted a loan, that the Ottoman Bank was the right quarter to apply first to in the matter. But was that done? The loan was issued to a respectable firm at Constantinople; and when its representatives came to London to get it negotiated, they went straight to an eminent house in the City, and it was only when driven by refusals on all sides and from all other bodies that they came near the Ottoman Bank. When they applied to that bank, the answer of its directors was, "We believe we can issue this loan upon certain conditions; but, having some years before been interested in the issue of a loan for the purpose of placing the finances of Turkey in a healthy state, we decline altogether to have anything to do with this one without having some sort of security that it will be applied to the purposes for which it is raised." The question then arose what means should be taken to secure that object. The Ottoman Bank, after considering the matter, informed both the Turkish Minister and the negotiators of the loan that unless the English Government would appoint some person to see to its proper
  840
  application they would have nothing to do with it. The Turkish Ambassador communicated with Her Majesty's Ministers on the subject, and they thought it of sufficient importance to appoint a person to superintend the proper application of the loan. These were the simple facts of the case, as far as his hon. Friend was concerned; and he begged to give his most solemn assurance that the conduct of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary throughout the whole matter was most guarded and most delicate, and that any insinuation to the contrary was most cruel and most unjust.
  SIR ROBERT CLIFTONsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Dungarvan would have done well if he had translated the article which had been the cause of the difficulty, and the House would then have been able to judge whether it was of such an inflammatory character as to justify the Government in slopping the circulation of the paper in the Turkish dominions. He must confess that after the promise of M. Zenos that the paper thenceforth should contain no political matter, he did not see why his first offence should not have been pardoned. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State also might have laid the objectionable article before the House to enable them to form a correct opinion upon the matter. He thought also that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had been very much misinformed as to what had taken place in Turkey since the accession of the present Sultan. It was well known that the Sultan was doing everything in his power to extend trade and commerce, by granting concessions for new lines of railway, and by improving the harbours in his dominions. It was not, however, to be expected that a Government which at one time had nearly fallen to the ground could move as fast as the hon. Member for Dungarvan, or as fast as he might wish. From his own experience he could bear testimony to the great abilities and extended knowledge of Achmet Effendi, who had earnestly devoted himself to the interests of his country.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there was one important point upon which there appeared to exist some misapprehension—the position of Her Majesty's Government, and the responsibility of its officers in relation to the subject before the House. The question had been treated as, in effect, the same as if the

  841
  Post-office in London had refused to circulate newspapers in this country. But the case was really very different. It was competent for any foreign Government to maintain a post-office or not, as it chose. It was competent for any foreign Government to decline to circulate letters or journals from foreign countries. Such a course, however, though not open to complaint on international grounds, would yet be considered churlish and unneighbourly, and was not adopted by any of the nations of Europe. Any independent Government, deeming it convenient to afford postal facilities to its subjects, could retain the control of the post-office in its own hands. When a post-office was established, the Government having the power to refuse to allow it to be made the medium of circulating journals from abroad, it was only by convention that any Government could obtain from any other, as a matter of right, the use of its post-office for the distribution of correspondence and journals. Many such conventions existed, but it was an invariable condition that the Government consenting to give the facilities should have the right to refuse to deliver printed papers, the importation of which was prohibited by the laws of the country into which they were sent. Under no convention could a foreign Government be expected to assist in the dissemination of journals hostile to itself. This country had made no convention with Turkey, and therefore they had no right to demand permission to circulate any letters or newspapers through the post-office in that country; but the Turkish Government had permitted the establishment of a post-office in Constantinople under the management of British subjects. Nothing could be more liberal than such a concession. Finding, however, that the particular journal of M. Zenos was passing through the British post-office, and being of opinion that its contents were calculated to subvert order and to promote revolution in Turkey, they communicated that opinion to the British authorities. They desired that the British authorities should no longer allow the post-office at Constantinople, which was itself a matter of indulgence, to be the medium of circulating such an objectionable journal. What, according to the law of nations, ought to have been the course pursued by the British Government, under such circumstances? He admitted that they were not bound to continue to avail themselves
  842
  of any indulgence upon terms dishonouring to themselves, but he contended that there was nothing dishonourable in listening to the representations of the Turkish Government upon the subject of this journal. They accordingly said to M. Zenos, "We don't sit in judgment upon your journal; it is not a matter for our consideration; but we are informed by the Turkish Government that they regard the British Star as dangerous to the peace and good order of Turkey, and therefore we cannot continue to transmit your journal to that country." The British Government might, as the only other alternative, have declared, that unless they were allowed to circulate the journal, they would give up the post-office at Constantinople, and put British subjects there to the great inconvenience of taking away from them these postal facilities. But he did not believe that even the hon. Member for Dungarvan would consider the circulation of the journal a point of so much importance as to warrant any such proceeding. In the absence of any convention, the Turkish Government, according to every rule of international law, were the judges as to the circulation of any printed matter in their dominions, and the British Government could have properly adopted no other course than that which had been complained of.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he thought that M. Zenos had a strong case upon high constitutional grounds, but the Attorney General had argued it on the lowest legal grounds. He (Mr. Scully) had moved that certain words used by the hon. Member (Mr. Layard) be taken down. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), however, had reminded him that the Under Secretary (Mr. Layard) had used the words "hon. Friend" in speaking of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and that was followed by the Under Secretary's explanation that by the word "man" he really meant "quarter." He confessed that he was surprised at such an expression coming from the Under Secretary. However, after the explanation made by the Under Secretary, who had cried "quarter," he (Mr. Scully) had no objection to grant quarter, by withdrawing his Motion. The real question before the House had been widely departed from in the course of debate, and it had nothing to do with the Ottoman Bank or with the state of Turkey. For the first quarter of an hour the hon. Member (Mr. Maguire) had got on very

  843
  well, and had made out a good case, but for the last three-quarters of an hour he had done harm to his client's cause by travelling into Turkish politics, which were altogether irrelevant. The Under Secretary, again, had, very unnecessarily and mischievously, said everything he could to incense and annoy the Roman Catholic Members of this House. The hon. Gentleman seemed to have a sort of monomania on that subject. Perhaps he was actuated by personal feeling. It could hardly be that he used that language as mere claptrap for Southwark, or to excite a passing cheer in this House. He had told a cock and bull story about some Protestant lady of his acquaintance. [Mr. LAYARD: No.] Well, then, of a lady whose acquaintance he disclaimed, or with whom he was only officially acquainted, and who seemed to be very much annoyed with His Holiness the Pope. All that sort of language was very mischievous, and in the mouths of Gentlemen in office was utterly inexcusable. Such Gentlemen ought to have a little more discretion than to indulge in that offensive language towards one-third or one-fourth of Her Majesty's subjects. It seemed, however, to be a practice on the part of some Members of the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland was especially fond of indulging in similar rho-domontade. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: I beg the hon. Member's pardon.] Then the right hon. Gentleman denies that he ever indulged in that way. At all events he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would never do so in future, and in that case he should be happy to give him plenary indulgence for the past. He would now pass to the real point at issue. M. Zenos had proposed that one-half of his journal, devoted to literary and scientific matters, should be allowed to pass through the post; while the question respecting the political half should be reserved for consideration, and he urged that he had been at great expense in getting up illustrations of the International Exhibition, which illustrations would be quite thrown away if the circulation of his journal were thus interfered with. The reply was that Earl Russell could not grant the request. M. Zenos asked for reasons, and he was told that the political character of the newspaper was sufficient to justify the prohibition. If The Times or the Illustrated London News were excluded from Rome, there would be elaborate explanations from
  844
  Earl Russell and the Under Secretary that it was entirely against their wish, but that they were forced to bow to the tyrannical, oppressive, and narrow-minded views of the Roman Government. In the case under consideration, however, it was plain that a very cool snub had been given to M. Zenos, when he requested to know why circulation was to be refused to a newspaper containing only literary matter, and some illustrations of the International Exhibition.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to make a practical suggestion. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General said, there were only two courses open to the Government. One was to accede to the request of the Turkish Government; the other, was not to accede to it, and to forego the privilege granted by the Porte. But there was another course. The Government might have said to the Turkish Government, "M. Zenos does not intend hereafter to introduce any political matter into the paper. Has the Turkish Government any objection to the circulation of such a publication?" Courtesy in office was a very great thing, and he would ask the hon. Under Secretary to turn his attention to it. A little regard for men's feelings and a little less curtness would smooth many difficulties and overcome many obstructions. He believed, that if the hon. Member would apply himself to the art, and apply some of the powers of his mind to teaching it to the Turkish Government, there would be real advantage from the circulation of a paper which simply contained instruction for the inhabitants. It would be doing good to the people of Turkey; it would do no harm to England, and it would certainly do no harm to the hon. Gentleman himself.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that if the Government were to adopt the suggestion that had just been made, they would expose themselves to severe criticism, and would be trifling with the Turkish Government. The address of the hon. Member for Dungarvan did certainly appeal to his sympathies, but further consideration had altered his first impression of the case. He did not think that M. Zenos had been treated with too much curtness, but the reverse. All the arguments raised had been derived from the departure from that official curtness, which was really, after all, most merciful and most useful in such correspondence. If the hon. Gentleman had not given reasons, if he had not stated that the reason for the circulation of the paper

  845
  being prohibited was its political character, there would have been no ground for the appeal to the House, and no reasons for the debate. How was it possible to eliminate political matter from the paper? Who was to examine it? In literary and scientific articles an able editor might give a most complete exposition of his political views. It would be trifling with the Ottoman Government to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. In reply to the reproofs that had been administered by the hon. Members for Birmingham and Cork, respecting the allusions that had been made to Roman Catholics, he contended that it was rather hard if their discussions were to be limited to the strict subjects of debate, and they were not to be allowed to refer to instances in past or contemporaneous history in illustration of their arguments. It was well known that there were instances in the history of Jesuitism of men who had avowed Protestant principles in public and in private, and that they did that the more effectually to promote the interests of the religion to which they really belonged. He did not say that any Member of that House was so unworthy as to suppress his own sentiments. He warned the House against supposing that whoever alluded to the conduct of Roman Catholics was therefore necessarily uncharitable, unchristian, and inhuman, because Members who professed to be Protestants thought fit to use such language. As to the language used by professed Roman Catholics, he did not think it necessary to allude to it.
  MR. O'BRIENbore testimony to the great liberality of the Turkish Government during the Irish famine, and said, that they had set an example in this respect which many Christian Governments might have imitated.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, that the Government might have maintained their position in a technical and diplomatic point of view, but they had not, in dealing with the matter, upheld as they should have done the traditions of England, in reference to the freedom of the press in a country where they were supposed to exercise a very prominent influence. The very existence of an English post-office in a country which knew nothing of freedom, was in itself an anomaly, and likely to place them in a position of great difficulty. The Government, however, as the hon. Member for Birmingham had remarked, seemed to rush and jump at the opportunity of
  846
  putting down this paper. The first thing they should have done was to ascertain if there was any foundation for the charge that was made by the Turkish Government. A similar application had been made by the Turkish Government to the Austrian Government respecting a paper published at Trieste; but the Austrian Government, before taking any step in the matter, sent an agent to Trieste to ascertain if there was any truth in the statement that sedition and revolution were preached in the paper. That was a different course from that pursued by Her Majesty's Government, which was one that did not reflect credit on them or upon the country. He trusted that the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Sheffield would be taken advantage of, and that even then tardy justice would be done to M. Zenos.
  MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, he must protest against the somewhat extravagant charge, that the Government had taken a rush or a jump to put down the paper. There was nothing in the political character either of the hon. and learned Attorney General or of the hon. Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to warrant such an accusation. The hon. and learned Attorney General had placed the question upon international grounds which were quite irresistible; but at the same time he hoped that the Government would not refuse to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, that he would accept the papers which had been offered to him by the hon. Under Secretary of State.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE JURY LISTS IN TYRONE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONrose to call attention to the return, No. 232, entitled, "Tyrone Assizes (Jury Panel)," and also to the constitution of the Grand Jury panel at the late assizes at Omagh, and to inquire whether any steps had been taken by the Government to prevent the repetition of such conduct as occurred on that occasion. The noble Lord said that the subject was not merely of local importance as might appear from the notice he had given, but was of general interest, and involved no less important a question than this—whether Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland were entitled to trial by jury as by

  847
  law established, or were to be left to the caprice of partisan sub - sheriffs. He regretted that the Irish Government had taken no public notice of the gross scandal he was about to narrate, for it was impossible for him to avoid the names of individuals, and thus the case must assume somewhat the character of a personal attack on absent individuals, which was most repugnant to his feelings; but this duty was forced upon him by the neglect of the executive Government, and both he and his colleague had received remonstrances, almost amounting to censures, for not having sooner called attention to the subject. He was, however, happy to be able to add that he did not wish to invoke the rigours of the law or call for pains and penalties; all he required was a decided intimation from the Government that such an attack upon the pure administration of justice should not be repeated with impunity. The circumstances of which he had to complain were these:— A very clever and enterprising solicitor, by his influence with the sheriff, got the disposal of the office of sub-sheriff, which he gave to his brother, who was entirely under his control, and thus obtained complete power as to the making out of the jury panel. That power he exercised in a manner directly opposed to law, and in complete violation of the various regulations which had been made in order to ensure that neither malice nor caprice should have anything to do with the selection of jurors, and placed upon the panel the names of persons who were not qualified to act. He was, at the same time, engaged by the relatives of a deceased person to prosecute a prisoner who was to be tried at the assizes; and, in addition to all this, he appeared in the Grand Jury Room, and assisted to find the Bill against that person. The present High Sheriff was a comparative stranger in the county, and the responsibility therefore devolved entirely upon his representative, Mr. John M'Crossan, a rising solicitor, well known for his successful exertions in party cases, and for his love of controverting judicial decisions. The law regulating the formation of juries was most clear and explicit. The time for publishing the lists of persons qualified, the opportunities for persons omitted to claim to be included, and for those anxious to claim exemption, are all clearly defined. There is subsequently a revising sessions; after this the jury book so made out is kept by the clerk of the
  848
  peace for him to hand to the sub-sheriff, a heavy penalty being attached to any tampering with it. This jury book when required is handed to the sheriff, and from it alone can he legally make out the jury panels. The Legislature, however, wisely enacted, that in case of any neglect or illegality in the jury book of the current year, the sheriff is to revert to that of the preceding year. The jury book for the year was duly made out, and contained about 1,500 names. Previously to each assize it is usual to publish about 140 names, selected from the jury book for the jury panel. This was done at the usual time this year; but previous to the assizes it was discovered that the sheriff, of his own caprice, had inserted twenty-nine names which were not in the jury book. An unfortunate case of homicide was to he tried at the assizes, arising out of a disputed case of possession, in which the young man killed turned out to be the nephew of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Armagh, while the person accused of causing his death was a Presbyterian. Religious feeling was at once strongly enlisted in obtaining a conviction, and with that object the services of Mr. M'Crossan were secured. The charge contained in the Return printed by the order of the House was, that twenty-nine names more likely to acquit than to convict the accused were excluded, and twenty-nine persons more likely to convict than to acquit were illegally substituted. To explain the full bearings of this change, he must give some details. He believed that in the whole population of Tyrone the Protestants were slightly in a majority, but in all cases requiring property qualification, such as the elective franchise or jury lists, they were in a great majority, about three-and-a-half to one. In the twenty-nine names illegally inserted, there were nineteen Roman Catholics to ten Protestants; whereas, if the proportion of the jury book had been maintained, there would have been about eight of the former to twenty-one of the latter. But he did not object to these persons, who were highly respectable, on account of their religion; had they all been Protestants, the illegality would have been equal; they were not in the jury book, and this was his only objection to them. When this serious charge was made in court, it was not traversed; the facts were not denied, but a demurrer was put in admitting the facts, but denying that they vitiated the panel. This was discussed in court, and Judge

  849
  Christian retired to consult Judge Ball, and on his return he announced that they were perfectly agreed in opinion; and he gave the following decision:—
  "The sheriff did make up a jury list, and it was stated that the question of motive was a matter entirely in his own breast, and that it was impossible to produce evidence as to that. He could not see the impossibility, as it was nothing new for jurors to be called to determine motives which they can only know by evidence of the acts. It was only by the acts that they could arrive at the motives which prompted those acts. If, in the present case, evidence should be produced, it was not for him to say, but it appeared to him that he would, in the language of an eminent judge, 'be making the jury panel a mockery and a snare,' if he allowed a prisoner to be put on his trial by a jury packed in such a way as the present one."
  As far as he had been able to learn, there had been no expression of reprehension on the part of the Government, though such might have been expected to follow the judgment of Mr. Justice Christian. He understood the sub-sheriff alleged that he had not got the book from which the juries were to be made out till a period very near the trial; but that was not the fact, for he confessed to one of the judges that he had the book in his possession at the time he issued the summonses. There were other excuses put forward which were equally destitute of foundation. It was asserted that the jury book had never been made out legally in Tyrone, and various charges were made against the late sub-sheriff. If previous sub-sheriffs had acted illegally, it would be no justification of the present sub-sheriff for his violation of the law; but he was able to deny, in the most distinct terms, the various allegations. Whilst excuses were made by some, Mr. M'Crossan was loudly praised by others for his bold conduct. His partisans state that he had equalized the panel. If sub-sheriffs in the south and west were to equalize juries by illegally inserting Protestants, it is clear that the law is wholly superseded. The law was intended to prevent partisan influence in the formation of juries and to exclude the exercise of corruption, malice, or caprice from the construction of jury panels. But supposing all these allegations were true, the sheriff was bound to obtain the jury book of the pre-ceiling year. It has been stated that the late sub-sheriff refused to deliver up this book. He was authorized by that gentleman to give the most positive denial to that statement. He was never asked for that
  850
  book; and when the present sub-sheriff was sworn in, he offered him every assistance and any documents he might require. The jury book for 1861 was never demanded, and therefore could not have been refused. With regard to the second portion of his notice, he wished to state that he had no objection to Mr. M'Crossan as a grand juror as far as that gentleman's character or position were concerned. Some persons had doubted whether he was qualified by property, and certainly several persons, who had before served as grand jurors, and were present on that occasion, were not called, and he was selected; but his objections to Mr. M'Crossan as a grand juror were entirely of a different kind. Mr. M'Crossan is a gentleman of great talents and experience in the law, and would be a valuable assistant in the fiscal business. His objection was that Mr. M'Crossan was largely engaged in the defence and prosecution of prisoners on trial. He considered that incompatible with the due performance of the duty of a grand juror; and if drawn into precedent, it would produce the most mischievous results. Notwithstanding the grand juror's oath, it was impossible for any one professionally engaged not to be swayed by the interests of his client. It was wrong that the persons intrusted with all the secrets of the prisoners should be charged with finding the bills for the petty jury, and should subsequently conduct the case in the court below. In justice to Mr. M'Crossan, he must mention that that gentleman did not wish to attend to cases in which he was engaged. He was also engaged in the Civil Court, so that he could not attend to the duties he had sworn to perform. He was, however, obliged to attend in some cases against his will; and in this very case of homicide, as the jury in his absence had failed to come to a decision, he was obliged to take part in the proceedings the next day, when the bill was found, he believed, by 13 to 10. The very fact of his asking to be constantly away, showed the impropriety of a solicitor of large practice in assize business being on the grand jury. The flimsy pretext of using another man's name, only showed Mr. M'Crossan's own sense of the impropriety of the position he occupied. It now only remained for him to ask the Government what steps had been taken to prevent a recurrence of this outrage on trial by jury. The Irish Government had apparently taken no part. This was the more ex-

  851
  traordinary, as its legal advisers had ample time on their hands to watch public events in Ireland. They had no Parliamentary duties to distract their thoughts or divert their attention. The very foundation of justice was endangered, great public distrust was created, yet they had given no sign of life. He called upon the Government to vindicate the due administration of the law, and to prevent such experiments by party sub-sheriffs in future. It must be borne in mind that these acts did not proceed from ignorance; they were done deliberately, and have since been openly justified by a most experienced solicitor of great talents and practice. He is considered by his admirers and partisans to have gained a great triumph over the law, and he has been much praised for his bold proceedings. He must remind the House that justice should not only be pure, but it should be above suspicion. This unfortunate transaction had created wide-spread distrust in Ireland. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary would make a statement that would restore confidence and secure the future from a repetition of such attacks on trial by jury.
  MAJOR KNOXsaid, that looking to the existing state of things in Ireland, it was a matter of the deepest importance that trial by jury should be properly conducted. What they had to look to in the case before them was whether the matter complained of was the result of ignorance or design. From information which had come to his knowledge, he believed it could be proved that it was the result of design. Soon after the rumour that the jury panel was about to be tampered with by the new sub-sheriff got abroad, he (Major Knox) met the High Sheriff in London, and that gentleman told him that the report was false, that he had appointed sub-sheriff one to whom be owed some kindness, but the sub-sheriff was to have nothing whatever to do with the selection of the jurors. He had read a letter to the right hon. Baronet which would show that the sub-sheriff did take part in the selection of the jury. The letter stated that Mr. M'Crossan in a certain town of the county asked the head constable what persons in the town were respectable enough to sit on the jury; that the head constable not having been long in the place was not able to inform him; that he then applied to a constable, who at first refused to give the information, but did so at last by the
  852
  orders of the head constable; and that the matter having come to the knowledge of the inspector, the head constable was afterwards removed. [Mr. VINCENT SCULLY: Name.] He had given the name to the right hon. Gentleman. He did not wish to see fines imposed; but he thought the sheriff should be removed, not for any offence he had himself committed, but because he was responsible for the conduct of the sub-sheriff.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he thought the noble Lord and the hon. Member who had brought the subject before the House, had failed in their duty in not concluding with a Motion for the prosecution of the sheriff, sub-sheriff, and Mr. M'Crossan, for a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It was quite clear that the charges which had been made, if there was a particle of truth in them, ought to be investigated either in that House, or in a court of justice; and as the previous speakers had omitted to wind up their speeches with a Motion for Inquiry, he would supply that omission; for the sheriff, the sub-sheriff, and Mr. M'Crossan all desired that a most searching investigation should be made. Mr. M'Crossan had written to him, said that it was simply untrue, that he acted professionally in the Crown Court; he was a grand juror, no doubt, but he was engaged in the Civil Court. Therefore that charge fell to the ground. For the first time since 1688 a Liberal sheriff had been appointed for the county of Tyrone, where it had been the custom to pack the juries most outrageously. He was informed that a large majority of the people in the county of Tyrone were Catholics, and that the jury list, if fairly completed, would exhibit the proportion of three Catholics to one Protestant. Yet the jury list had been so packed, that out of 160 names, but one was the name of a Catholic. With respect to the twenty-eight names now complained of, seventeen were the names of Catholics, and eleven the names of Protestants. The several persons put in the list were people of great respectability, and qualified to act as grand jurors. Mr. M'Crossan said that the Orange faction were irritated at that alteration, because they had hitherto relied on the jury list for immunity for their "rowdyism," for it was the dregs of the community who were Orangemen. The Orange Society was a sort of Riband, illegal, and indictable society. He regretted that an hon. Member should so far lose his temper as to turn round and tell

  853
  him that this was grossly false; and he questioned whether such language was Parliamentary. What, however, were they to expect from juries composed of such gentlemen? What was the charge against Mr. M'Crossan? That he had put twenty-nine names on the jury list which were not found on the jury book. What jury book? The jury book of 1862 was to be given to him before the 1st of January, but he did not get it. What then was he to do? At great expense and personal inconvenience he went through the county and made out a list, to which no objection could be made, except that a number of Roman Catholics were placed on the list. Instead of adopting the former system, he did what was right and proper; but so addicted to jury-packing was every one connected with the administration of justice in the county, that when the case referred to came on for trial, the array was challenged by the prisoner on the ground that the sheriff had returned on it persons not qualified to serve, and omitted certain persons who were duly qualified to serve. The crown counsel took this extraordinary proceeding; they demurred to the challenge, thereby admitting the facts stated, and the judge quashed the array, as he was hound in duty to do. The sheriff was directed to return a new array, and he returned the same jury in order that the traverse might again be tried. A like objection was taken, and the trial of Don-nellan was adjourned. Another prisoner was convicted by the same jury, and nothing further was heard of the matter since until the present debate. If the parties who brought forward this matter were anxious for inquiry, they would support his suggestion that there should be the full investigation which Mr. M'Crossan, in justice to himself, demanded. He (Mr. M'Mahon) did not know much about the county Tyrone personally, but he thought that it ought to be purified, and the Orange "rowdies," who were the dregs of society, put in their proper position.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the Jurors' Lists, Books, and Panel in Tyrone since 1845, and particularly at the last Assizes, and generally into the mode of appointing Public Prosecutors, and the conduct of Criminal Prosecutions in Ireland,"
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted the fact that he knew nothing whatever about the county of Tyrone, and his statement with respect to it might be taken for what it was worth. With regard to his attack upon the Orangemen, it was both unnecessary and uncalled for, and he (Captain Archdall) repeated what he had stated, while the hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking—namely, that the statement was entirely false and without foundation.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see on a moment's reflection that he has used words which ought to be withdrawn.
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALL: I bow, Sir, to your decision; but I belong to the Orange Society, and I cannot allow it to be put on a par with the Riband Society without giving it the most distinct contradiction.
  MR. SPEAKER: The words used were "entirely false and without foundation;" they ought to be withdrawn.
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALL: But what the hon. and learned Member has said with respect to the Orange Society is false.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must repeat that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not expressed himself in proper language.
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALL: Then, Sir, I withdraw the words I used, but what I meant to say was that the statement of the hon. and learned Member is entirely contrary to the fact.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he rose to order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had applied the epithet "false" to the hon. Member (Mr. M'Mahon). He (Mr.O'Brien) believed it was not Parliamentary on the part of any hon. Member to use a phrase of that kind.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has withdrawn it.
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, with regard to the question which had been brought under the notice of the House by the noble Lord, it was deserving of the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he trusted he would give the matter a serious consideration.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, he had a high respect for the High Sheriff of Tyrone, and believed him to be incapable of doing or conniving at any improper act; but as

  855
  the accuracy of the statements of the hon. and learned Member for Wexford had been called in question, he thought the House could not do better than grant the inquiry asked for.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Member for Wexford was right in asking for an inquiry, but the House ought to be careful not to interfere with judicial proceedings. The proposed inquiry would be too wide, and defeat its own object, as it would go over a space of seventeen years. The House should not interfere with the administration of justice, but he hoped the Government would prevent a recurrence of the circumstances which had been so properly reprobated by the judges.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken thought the inquiry would be too wide. In that he was right. But he was entirely wrong in supposing that an inquiry into the administration of justice was not within the functions of that House. If any question arose with respect to any of the judges, he was removable upon an Address by that House and the other House of Parliament. In that case the conduct of the high sheriff was called in question. Now, the high sheriff really represented the Executive, and the only body that was supposed by its functions to have the power of keeping the Executive in check was that House. He would therefore suggest to his hon. and learned Friend not to withdraw, but narrow his Motion.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he could not but regret that the noble Lord had thought it necessary again to agitate the matter, because he himself had admitted that it had already given rise to a great deal of party feeling. The noble Lord had made use of extremely strong language, for he had stated that the high sheriff and sub-sheriff of the county Tyrone had been tampering with trial by jury. [Cries of Order !] The noble Lord stated that these gentlemen had been tampering with and falsifying the jury panel. He (Sir Robert Peel) must say that he agreed with the remark which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Wexford, that if the accusation which had been levelled against these gentlemen by the noble Lord were true, he ought frankly and at once to have met the question by a Motion that their conduct should he inquired into. The noble Lord had said that the Government had shown
  856
  an apathy in the matter. Now, so far from the Government having displayed any apathy, he thought they had acted a truly constitutional part. The Government had nothing whatever to do with either the constitution of the grand or petty jury panels, and it would be most unconstitutional on the part of the Government if they were to attempt in any way to interfere with the duties which were imposed by statute on the high sheriff. The statute distinctly laid down what were the duties of the high sheriff; and the judge of assize was empowered, if he should think fit, to set a fine upon the sheriff if he returned on the panel the name of any man not inserted in the jurors' book last delivered. In that case Judge Christian had stated, that upon consideration he thought it was a wiser act of discretion on his part to abstain from imposing a fine; and in that expression of opinion he (Sir Robert Peel) concurred. The noble Lord had said that he apprehended a repetition of the conduct that was the subject of complaint, and he wanted to know what action the Government were prepared to take. The action taken by the Government was that they had directed attention to the fact, that a repetition of the alleged offence would be held to be a wilful disobedience of the statute, and that a fine would be imposed by the judge. He was not aware what other action the Government could take in the matter. He was not acquainted with the high sheriff; but he was sorry that such harsh language had been used in regard to him, because he believed him to be a gentleman of position and character. He had given him a statement with reference to his conduct and that of the sub-sheriff, from which it appeared that his noble Friend had been led into error. After stating that he had not received the jury book for 1862 from the clerk of the peace, and that the late sub-sheriff had not handed him the book for 1861 till after the late assizes, and then only on being threatened with an action if he did not do so, the high sheriff went on to say that the panel consisted of 150 names, composed equally of Protestants and Roman Catholics, and that all the persons placed upon the panel were fully qualified by station, and were of the most respectable and intelligent class. That he (the sheriff) could vouch for from personal observation, and their verdicts gave general satisfaction. Both the sub-sheriff and himself were anxious that the fullest in-

  857
  quiry should take place, and they would give every assistance to elucidate the facts. It had been stated, the letter continued, that Mr. John M'Crossan was placed on the grand jury panel, to the exclusion of other gentlemen in the country better qualified, and who were in the habit of attending the assizes. The fact was, that Mr. John M'Crossan was the twenty-third on the grand jury list, and the last on the panel save one. Every gentleman was summoned who was in the habit of attending, or who had the right by property to do so, except those who had written to say they could not attend. The high sheriff knew of no law that excluded practising attorneys from serving on grand juries when their property entitled them to do so; and Mr. M'Crossan's property would have entitled him to have been placed higher on the list than he was. As high sheriff, he could not know that Mr. M'Crossan was employed to prosecute in several cases; and if he had known it, he doubted whether the fact would have disqualified Mr. M'Crossan for serving on the grand jury. Magistrates acting on grand juries were often interested in the success of the prosecutions, and had often expressed judicial opinions in cases which came before them as grand jurors; and until the law laid down that professional gentlemen were to be excluded, he saw no reason why he should deviate from the course he pursued at the last assizes. Those assizes were attended by the two Members for the county of Tyrone, neither of whom remonstrated at the time. A member of the grand jury had volunteered the statement that in Mr. M'Crossan they had a valuable acquisition, and, though there was a prejudice against him at the first, he had by his good sense and strict impartiality won the good opinions of the whole body. That letter he (Sir R. Peel) thought was very satisfactory. He did not believe that the circumstances complained of would occur again, and he would request his hon. and learned Friend to let the whole matter drop where it was, and to withdraw his Motion. He had given no notice of it, and it was a novel proceeding to urge a Parliamentary inquiry into a subject like that before them without notice. Their time could be better occupied, particularly at the present period of the Session. It would be far better to allow a question to drop which admittedly had given rise to party and religious feeling. After what he had heard that night,
  858
  he would add that he never entertained the intention of irritating the feelings of his fellow countrymen on religious questions.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. M'Mahon) had most ingeniously attempted to mix up with the case before the House various other matters entirely disconnected with it, which had occurred from 1845 up to the present time, and had dragged in references to Orangemen and Ribandmen which were beside the question. The point to be considered was whether in that particular instance certain judicial officers had or had not violated the laws of their country. Something further ought to be done on the part of the Government than merely to express a hope that such a maladministration of justice as had been proved should not take place in the future. The majesty of justice ought to be reasserted. It was the duty of the executive Government to see that high sheriffs performed the functions of their high office as they were legally bound to do. He did not think that the reply given that night by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland would prove satisfactory to the people of Ireland.
  MR. SCULLYobserved that the only question for consideration was whether Mr. John M'Crossan, while acting as a grand juror, was also acting as attorney to the prisoner, and to that a most distinct denial had been given. Those who made the accusation were bound therefore in vindication of their own characters, to prove its truth.
  MR. CORRYsaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down appeared to think that the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford—namely, that Mr. M'Crossan had not practiced during the Spring Assizes in the Crown Court —was a complete answer to part of the case laid before the House from his noble Friend and Colleague; but he was in a position to deny the accuracy of that statement, and on the best possible authority, which was no less than that of Mr. M'Crossan himself. Mr. M'Crossan had rendered valuable service in the grand jury room during the transaction of fiscal business; but after the Judges had arrived, and bills of indictment were sent up, he requested his (Mr. Corry's) permission to absent himself, on the express ground that he was retained in several of the cases, and could not, therefore, be considered an impartial grand juror. But that was not all—on the fol-

  859
  lowing day Judge Christian sent up to him (Mr. Corry), as foreman of the grand jury, to say he desired to speak to him in the court; and on going down, the Judge showed him a bill which had been found a true bill, and asked him whether Mr. M'Crossan had been a party to the finding, which he was desirous of knowing, as Mr. M'Crossan had been retained in the case. He was enabled to inform the Judge that Mr. M'Crossan had not taken part in the finding of the bill, and so the matter dropped. With respect to the assertion of the hon. Member for Wexford, that Mr. M'Crossan could not obtain a copy of the jurors' book for 1862 from the outgoing sheriff, he would read extracts from a letter from Mr. Rogers, the late sub-sheriff, which showed that he had never applied to that gentleman for the book, and also that Mr. M'Crossan had admitted to Judge Ball in the Civil Court that the book for 1862 was actually in his possession before he struck the panel. The whole case lay in a nutshell—was the course adopted by the sub-sheriff legal, or was it not? and no one, he thought, could deny that it was in direct violation of the statute, and so satisfied was the judge of this, that he could not allow a prisoner to be put on his trial before a jury so constituted. There were four courses open to the sub-sheriff. He could have demanded the jurors' book from the clerk of the peace — he could have demanded it from his predecessor, under a penalty, in case of refusal, of £100—or, failing these, he could have framed his panel from the book of the previous year; but, instead of adopting any of these courses, he did that which was in direct violation of the statute. He invented a panel of his own, thereby subjecting himself to a penalty under 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 9, s. 33, if the Court had seen fit to impose it. His right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland had read a letter from the high sheriff, in which it was stated that he (Mr. Corry) had testified to Mr. M'Crossan's ability and impartiality as a grand juror; and he did not hesitate to say that Mr. M'Crossan, who was a gentleman of ability and conversant with country affairs, had rendered valuable service so long as fiscal business was under consideration; but he did not think that any gentleman ought to be a member of a grand jury who was open to the suspicion of having a personal interest in any bill of indictment which might come before
  860
  it, He must also say that the challenge of the panel did not take place until after the grand jury had been actually discharged, and therefore no remark he might have made to the high sheriff could have had any reference to that transaction. With respect to the Motion with which the hon. and learned Member for Wexford had concluded, he courted the fullest inquiry; but he thought, more especially at so late a period of the Session, it would be absurd to enter upon so extensive an investigation, and one having no especial reference to the case which had been brought to the notice of the House by his noble Colleague.
  MR. HENNESSYsuggested that the object would be attained by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford striking out the first part of his Resolution.
  LORD NAASsaid, he thought that the only points in the late occurrence as to which inquiry was asked were admitted by both parties; namely, that Mr. M'Crossan acted on the grand jury in the court in which he was also practising, and that the sub-sheriff, not content with the Crown list, added twenty-nine names to the list on his own responsibility. These gentlemen, having admitted that they had done wrong, defended themselves by making a cross charge as to the grand jury of the county of Tyrone for some years past. He thought that the House ought to be satisfied with the assurance of the Government, that such an occurrence as that complained of was not likely to occur again.
  MR. CONINGHAMremarked that he thought a case for inquiry was established.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he had not the slightest objection to an inquiry into the particular case, but he thought it absurd to go back for fifteen years.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he should contend that no sufficient case had been made for a Committee of Inquiry. It appeared that Mr. M'Crossan did not act as a grand juryman in any of the bills in which he was interested; and though he was far from saying that it was right for a gentleman to be on the grand jury and to practise in one and the same court, he thought that the judge was the proper person to decide, and to punish in such a case.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, there had been a dear miscarriage of justice.

  861
  A prisoner had been left in gaol after the delivery, and yet Her Majesty's Government declared that there was no ground for inquiry. It placed the House in a discreditable and dishonourable position, and he thought it was the bounden duty of the Government to take steps effectually to prevent the recurrence of such an omission.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Motion if he might be allowed to substitute one restricting the inquiry to the case in point.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member could not withdraw the Motion without the consent of the House.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 14: Majority 70.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Supply considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

NAVAL AND VICTUALLING STORES BILL— [BILL No. 143.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration read.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to draw attention to a very extraordinary provision in the Bill. The 15th clause gave power to every police inspector to search anybody's house in the neighbourhood of any of the dockyards. That was a provision that ought to be modified, as he thought the ordinary power of a search-warrant was sufficient. He should therefore move the omission of the clause.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the proposal was not to give power to search the house of any one—it was only to search the houses of persons actually employed in the dockyards and of marine store dealers. He would, however, omit the clause.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he was surprised that so useful a measure should be impeded by the right hon. Gentleman on a mere technical objection.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the Government first sold their stores with their marks upon them and then claimed the right to follow them all over the world. He hoped that would be provided against in the other House of Parliament.
  Bill to be read 3o on Monday next.
  House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next.