Commons Sitting of 10 July 1863

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—India Stock [Remuneration], reported *.
Ordered—Turnpike Trusts Arrangement *; Turnpike Roads *.
First Reading—Church Rates Recovery [Bill 224].
Committee—Sydney Branch Mint * [Bill 217]; Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange * [Bill 218]; India Stock * [Bill 212]; Nuisances Removal Act (1855) Amendment * [Bill 203], on re-committal.
Report—Sydney Branch Mint *; Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange *; India Stock *; Nuisances Removal Act (1855) Amendment *.
Considered as amended—Alkali Works Regulation (Lords) * [Bill 220]; Waywardens' Contracts (Lords) * [Bill 205].
Third Reading—Fisheries (Ireland) [Sir Robert Peel] * [Bill 214]; Greenwich Hospital (Provision for Widows) * [Bill 200]; Metropolitan Main Drainage Extension * [Bill 215]; Growing Crops Seizure (Ireland) * [Bill 211]; English Church Services in Wales (Lords) [Bill 190]; Navy Prize Agents * [Bill 219].

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—NOTICES OF MOTION.—QUESTION.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he had a Motion on the Paper relative to the relations between this country and Brazil. Owing to the regulations now enforced with reference to Notices on going into Committee of Supply, he had several times been on the top of the list and had gone down again to the bottom. The result of taking Supply that morning would be that the Government would get through the greater portion of Supply with the exception of the Packet Service. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, Whether he would take care that Supply should be fixed for an evening sitting next week, in order that he might have an opportunity of bringing on the important question of which he had given notice?
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had a Notice on the Paper relative to accidents on railways. He wished to know whether, if he waived his right to bring on his Motion that morning, the right hon. Gentleman would give a pledge that the House should not be counted out at night?
MR. DODSONsaid, he had given Notice of his intention on going into Committee of Supply to call attention to the Petition from members of the University of Oxford for the abolition of subscription to formularies of faith as a qualification for academical degrees. His Notice had been on the Paper for a considerable time, and the question was one in which he and many others took a warm interest. Unless the right hon. Gentleman undertook on the part of the Government to say that facilities would be afforded to Members to proceed with their Notices of Motion, he should feel it his duty to oppose the Motion for going into Supply.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was not at all an unusual thing when the Session was approaching an end to take Supply at a morning sitting. It was generally understood, that if Members would waive their privilege of bringing on questions on going into Committee of Supply at the morning sitting, they should have an opportunity of doing so at the evening sitting, at which Supply would again be moved. He could not pledge himself that a House should be kept; but the Government would use their endeavours to prevent the House from being counted out, so as to

539
give every hon. Gentleman who had Notices on the Papers the same opportunity of bringing them on that he would have had if the House had not gone into Supply at a morning sitting. With respect to the question put by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. S. FitzGerald), there must he a Supply day next week, and he believed Supply would be taken at an evening sitting. In any case his noble Friend at the head of the Government would give the hon. Gentleman every facility for bringing on, within a reasonable time, his Motion with regard to Brazil.
MR. BENTINCKthought they should have a positive pledge that the Government would keep a House; otherwise they ought not to be called upon to waive their right to proceed with their Motions on going into Supply.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Government had a motive for keeping a House as well as hon. Members. There were Government orders on the paper which they would wish to proceed with after the Motions on going into Supply were disposed of.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYadmitted that there were precedents for taking Supply at morning sittings, but considered that on this occasion the day was badly chosen.

BURNING OF QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he rose to call attention once more to the burning of Queen's College, Cork, and to complain of the conduct of the Government in calling on the citizens of Cork to pay £7,000, when there was every reason to believe that the fire was the malicious act of an official within the College. He asked for the production of certain papers in the hands of the Government calculated to throw light on the subject.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that this was not the first time that the hon. and learned Gentleman had brought this matter forward. When he did so on a previous occasion, the House, on a division, decided that the papers, being in the nature of depositions relative to a criminal charge, ought not to be laid on the table. The city of Cork had no reason to complain, because the demand for the £7,000 had not been persisted in, and the Government had proposed a Vote of £4,500 for repairing the college. The Town Council of
  540
  Cork had therefore reason to congratulate itself on the generosity of the Government and the House. There was no advantage to be gained by re-opening the question already decided by the House.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, the city of Cork, at any rate, had nothing to complain of. It was clear that the Government did not consider this burning as a malicious injury, inasmuch as they had obtained a Vote from Parliament for the repairs of the building.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he did not think that the question had been satisfactorily arranged. The Government had certainly, in the first instance, given credence to the notion that the fire was occasioned by some of the Ultramontane party, with which he had nothing in common, at a time when they had in their possession letters from a Professor of the college and other parties, clearly proving that the fire was purely accidental. He thought that the citizens of Cork, having gone to considerable expense to relieve themselves from the odium of such a charge, had good grounds for feeling dissatisfied with the Government in this matter. He was of opinion that the question should be thoroughly investigated.

CHURCH RATES RECOVERY BILL.
Bill to amend the Law relating to the Recovery of Church Rates, presented, and read 1o. [Bill 224.]

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
(1.) £3,750, Ecclesiastical Commission.
MR. W. WILLIAMShaving stated objections to the Vote,
MR. PEELsaid, the arrangement respecting the Vote had already been sanctioned by Act of Parliament.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following—
(2.) £10,917, to complete the sum for Temporary Commissions.
(3.) £17,015, to complete the sum for Patent Law Amendment Act.
(4.) £9,744, to complete the sum for Board of Fisheries (Scotland).
(5.) £2,000, Board of Manufactures (Scotland).
(6.) £23,928, to complete the sum for Treaties of Reciprocity.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSasked whether this was a temporary Vote.
MR. PEEL: Yes, it will continue for ten years, and then cease, under an Act of Parliament.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following:—
(7.) £1,220, to complete the sum for Inspectors of Corn Returns.
(8.) £800, Boundary Survey (Ireland).
(9.) £1,000, Publication of Ancient Laws and Institutes of Ireland.
MR. PEELstated that the cost of editing and publishing these laws had been £1,500 short of the original Estimate. The translations had been made, and it was now only a question of publication.
Vote agreed to; as were also—
(10.) £3,961, to complete the sum for Census of the Population.
(11.) £680, Malta and Alexandria Telegraph.
(12.) £23,455, Preparations for the Marriage of the Prince of Wales.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHcalled attention to the item of £10,300 for extraordinary charges devolving on the departments of Her Majesty's Household and travelling expenses. He believed that the Civil 'List granted to Her Majesty had, in respect of certain departments, been found to be more than was required, and he desired to know whether on the two heads of "Household and Retiring Allowances" and "Her Majesty's Household" there was any surplus for the current year. If there was a sufficient surplus on those two heads, he thought the sum for extraordinary charges to which he had referred should be defrayed out of it, and it was not fair to charge the country with these expenses.
MR. PEELsaid, he did not think that it was ever contemplated that the Civil List granted to Her Majesty should defray extraordinary charges of this description.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH: Is there any surplus on the two heads I have mentioned?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was quite practicable for the Government upon inquiry to state to the House the exact position of the different departments of the Civil List; but he must confess that he did not carry those figures in his head, and he was not in the least prepared to have a question
542
put to him upon the subject of a Vote which appeared to him so entirely irrelevant to it. This expenditure had no relation to the Civil List. The Civil List was for the support of Her Majesty's person and dignity. It was always understood, that as the members of the Royal Family became of a certain age, they became detached from the Civil List, and came under a different head of expenditure. He might state that the burden on Her Majesty's Civil List on account of superannuations was not only great, but unexampled. The death of the Queen Dowager, and the deaths of the Duchess of Kent and the Prince Consort, occurring within about twelve months of each other, raised at once a very large number of claims which were not positive in their character, and which, if Her Majesty had been disposed to proceed on the principles most convenient for her own interests, might, perhaps, have been very summarily disposed of. But those claims addressing themselves to Her Majesty's generosity and affections, were met by Her Majesty with unexampled liberality; and under circumstances which he was not then quite prepared to say might not have justified a special application to that House. Her Majesty had, however, assumed the very heavy charges connected with those claims without calling upon the public in the slightest degree to share them.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that he agreed that this sum of £10,000 ought not to be charged on Her Majesty's Civil List, but he did not see the justice of charging it on the country. The sum should be defrayed out of the revenues of the Prince of Wales.
SIR GEORGE GREYobserved, that if these expenses were defrayed from the revenues of the Duchy, the House would then be called upon to make up the income of the Prince to the amount which it had been agreed he ought to have, which was considered by everybody to be a moderate one. It would therefore have come to the same thing in the end. He was sure that the hon. Gentleman would not object to this charge upon the occasion of an event such as that of the marriage of the Prince of Wales.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYcalled attention to the item charged in the Vote—£2,955—for the opening of the theatres free to the public on the occasion of the Prince of Wales' marriage. Ha doubted

543
whether such a plan was calculated to give satisfaction.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had not much to say in favour of the custom; but the rule adopted was, to do exactly the same in regard to the marriage of the Prince of Wales as was done in regard to the marriage of Her Majesty.
MR. WALPOLEremarked, that a certain sum was allowed to Her Majesty for her Civil List, and to demand in what manner it was expended would, he thought, be a most unreasonable request. It was likewise most unreasonable to expect that any portion of the Civil List assigned to Her Majesty should go to defray extraordinary expenses such as those under discussion.
MR. LOCKEsaid, that upon former similar occasions the theatres of London had been opened free to the public, and he saw no reason why the practice should have been deviated from in this instance.
Vote agreed to.
(13.) £4,000, Ship for Storing Merchants' Gunpowder at Dublin.
MR. HENLEYinquired whether this was a special Vote for Dublin, or whether similar expenses were incurred in other ports of the kingdom. He thought they might be establishing an expensive precedent by this Vote.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the gunpowder for merchants' vessels used to be stored up in Phoenix Park. The site, however, was wanted for military purposes, and he applied to the Treasury to procure an Admiralty ship. He presumed that the merchants were prepared to pay rent for the accommodation required.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, there was an item of £642 for fitting up the ship, and £600 for removing her from Purfleet to Pigeon House Port. Then there was an item of £2,100 for "dredging a channel to the head of the boat camber." The situation selected for the vessel was extremely ill-chosen.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £3,781, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for certain Expenses formerly charged upon the Vote for Civil Contingencies."
SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEasked for some information respecting vaccination of sheep, and the result of this practice. It was a question of considerable interest, and
544
it was most important that the results of those experiments upon sheep should be fully made known. The hon. Baronet was understood to doubt the existing state of knowledge as to the diseases of cattle and their remedies. He thought it was the duty of the Government to allay any panic regarding those diseases, rather than encourage them by promoting such practices as the vaccination of sheep. He concluded by moving that the sum of £434 10 s., being the item set down for the vaccination of sheep, be postponed for further consideration.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that a virulent disease having broken out in sheep in this country, in order to prevent its introduction into Ireland the Irish Government stationed one Inspector at Dublin, another at Dundalk, and a third in another town to examine sheep arriving in Ireland from this country. They were paid so much a day, amounting altogether to about £200. They rendered a great public service. It was probable that it was owing to their care that the introduction of the disease at Ballinasloe, where more than 100,000 sheep were collected, was prevented. The vaccination of sheep was not tried in Ireland, and was confined to this country.
MR. BENTINCKasked for an explanation of the item of £6,000 for expenses connected with the Thames Embankment Bill of 1862.
MR. PEELsaid, he should not object to the omission of this item. The expenses in question would be repaid as a special charge out of the fund provided by the Thames Embankment Bill.
MR. LOCKEremarked, that the answer of the hon. Gentleman might be extremely satisfactory to the hon. Member for West Norfolk, but it could not be satisfactory to those who might afterwards have to pay. The Government having chosen to interfere in metropolitan affairs, the charge should be borne by the country.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the House of Commons had determined that this charge should be borne by the metropolis, and the Treasury had no choice in the matter.
COLONEL FRENCHsubmitted that it would be a somewhat difficult matter to deduct £6,000 from the Vote of £3,781.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Vote was for £3,781, to complete the original Vote for a much larger sum. The hon. Gentleman now proposed to reduce the sum of £3,781 by £6,000, but that was

545
impossible. The only way in which the item could be withdrawn would be by withdrawing the Vote altogether.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(14.) £65,541, to complete the sum for the British Museum.
MR. WALPOLE, on rising to more the British Museum Estimate, said, that the estimate for the year was £90,541, of which £25,000 had been voted on account, leaving the sum of £65,541, which he now asked the Committee to vote. He was happy to say that there was a considerable diminution of expenditure on the Museum Estimate. In 1862–3 the expenditure on account of the British Museum was £99,012, being a diminution in the Vote for the present year of £8,471. He could not, however, represent this as a permanent diminution. As to part of it, it was temporary only. The temporary diminution arose from the fact, that there was a want of accommodation in some departments, by which they were prevented from providing for the extension of certain portions of the collections. The trustees had therefore agreed not to ask for the Vote for Antiquities, Manuscripts, Minerals, and Zoology. The amounts thus omitted, and which he considered a temporary diminution, were divided among the following departments:—Manuscripts, £1,000; Minerals, £200; Zoology, £500; Oriental, British, and Mediaeval Antiquities, £500; Greek and Roman Antiquities, £500; Prints and Drawings, £500; making a total of temporary diminution of £3,200. Last year, owing to the International Exhibition and the great influx of visitors, some temporary expenses were incurred for accommodating the public. That expenditure might be put down at £1,200. So that he estimated the temporary diminution at £4,400; and deducting that sum from the total diminution of £8,741, the permanent diminution amounted in round numbers to £4,000. He thought it due to the Trustees to mention how this reduction was occasioned. The Committee might remember that the repairs and maintenance of the Museum buildings were not formerly under the direction of the Trustees. Since the change, however, by which the officer charged with this duty acted under the authority of the Trustees, a considerable diminution had taken place in the building grant. In 1860 the charge for building and repairs was £22,000; in 1861, £19,000; in 1862, £17,600; in
546
1863, £17,435; and for the coming year, £14,184. That diminution had gone on concurrently with the improvement of the ventilation and the provision for warming the buildings. He trusted that these figures would satisfy the Committee that the Trustees had kept up the institution intrusted to their control efficiently and economically. A great number of valuable acquisitions had been made during the year in the several departments—among which might be specially named the collection of Solenhofen fossils, purchased of Dr. Häberlein, of Pappenheim. Several valuable manuscripts had also been purchased. This department was improving, and would, he trusted, shortly contain the finest collection of manuscripts to be found in any country. The number of admissions last year was 895,000, against 641,000 visitors in 1861. It had been represented to the Trustees that the reading-room was inconveniently crowded by students under the age of twenty-one, who came to peruse light literature. They therefore issued a regulation limiting the admission, except under special circumstances, to persons who had attained the age of twenty-one. That regulation diminished the number of readers, while the accommodation of those ladies and gentlemen who really visited the reading-room for the purposes of study was much improved. The only other circumstance he had to mention was the loss of one of the elective Trustees by death. The Trustees did not elect each other, but the place of an elective Trustee was always filled up by official and family Trustees. It would be a satisfaction to the House to know that a proposal was made by the official Trustees, and unanimously agreed to, by which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) became an elective Trustee of the British Museum. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Vote of £65,541, being the balance of the Vote for the British Museum.
MR. AYRTONrose, according to notice, to call attention to what he regarded as the remissness of the Trustees in not providing adequate opportunities to the people of the metropolis and those who visited it of seeing the splendid collections at the Museum. At South Kensington it had been found necessary to open the Museum there in the evening, and a Commission of Inquiry had found that picture galleries and museums could be easily and safely lighted by gas. A Committee of the House of Commons had also reported

547
that the British Museum could be safely opened at night provided proper precautions were taken against fire. They also expressed an opinion that the Museum should be opened. Instead of adopting this recommendation the Trustees had taken the course which was most likely to lead them to the conclusion that they ought not to open the Museum in the evening. They sent for Mr. Braidwood, the then superintendent of the Fire Brigade. Naturally enough he saw danger of fire in everything. He reported, that if the Museum was lighted by gas in a particular way, there would be danger of fire. Other opinions were asked, but no plan for a safe mode of lighting the place was suggested. Upon the reports made to them the Trustees passed a resolution against opening the Museum in the evening. All the time, however, the South Kensington Museum was flourishing, and, being lighted with gas, was open in the evenings to the public, who thronged to it in large numbers. All this showed that the managers of the South Kensington Museum had marched with the times, and he thought it proved that the Trustees of the British Museum should be stirred up to renewed efforts. If the gas were allowed to blaze up in the British Museum, it would probably attract some of those who now were drawn to other places where gas flared brilliantly and dissipation ruled. It was surely of the greatest importance that the working men should have an opportunity of seeing the admirable collections in the Museum. If facilities were afforded for that purpose, it could hardly fail to attract them from places where now they were injured both morally and physically. But there were other charges which he had to bring against the Trustees. He did not think that they did their best to make those who were able to visit the Museum comfortable. It was disgraceful to the Trustees that they had neglected to provide accommodation for the crowds of male visitors who were now seen wandering up and down the neighbouring streets in search of the requisite conveniences. Some little consideration had been shown for the female visitors, but he was informed that their retiring room was wholly insufficient. It was monstrous that the Trustees had so long neglected a matter for which such excellent provision was made at South Kensington, and the neglect of which had so long and so seriously interfered with the comfort of the thousands who visited the
548
British Museum. Perhaps the Trustees might not think these things within their duties, and therefore he would not press the subject. But he would say, that if the Trustees had taken proper steps, they might have amply provided for the necessary enlargements of the British Museum. If they had gone to the Duke of Bedford, they might have purchased his right in the land in the neighbourhood, and then, as the leases fell in, there would have been plenty of room for extension purchased, not as had been said at £50,000 an acre, but at less than half the sum. He could not that day submit a Resolution to the House, but he hoped the Trustees would take his remarks into consideration, and do something to give the people more opportunities of seeing the collections under their control. What was wanted was to open it from seven to ten, say on Monday evenings, when so many of the working classes visited South Kensington, The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he did not think there could be any valid objection to admitting the working classes into the Museum on the Sunday during the hours that the public-houses were open. He would ask his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets whether he had consulted the working classes upon this subject. It was quite evident that he had not, or he would not have proposed that the Museum should be kept open during hours when the working classes could not visit it. What the working classes wanted was that the British Museum, the National Gallery, and other national collections, should be open after the hours of Divine Service on Sunday. What right had the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird), or any other persons, to demand restrictions upon the freedom and convenience of the industrious people on the Sunday merely because they might entertain some peculiar notions how that day ought to be observed? The Sabbath was made for the people, not the people for the Sabbath. What injury could happen to the morals of the working classes if they were to visit the collections in the British Museum on the Sunday rather than the tap room or the gin palace? He regretted his hon. Friend had not come forward in a holder and a purer spirit than he had done, and that he did not advocate the opening of the Museum on Sunday.
MR. MITFORDsaid, he desired to draw the attention of the Trustees to the inconvenient

549
method of allowing their coins and medals. A sum of £1,500 was asked this year for coins and medals, while only 1,544 visits were last year paid to that department. The visitor had first to obtain an order. He then went to the room and asked to see, for instance, a certain series of coins. An attendant was somewhat unwillingly taken from his work to open the drawers, and he stood by the visitor until he had inspected the coin or medal, when it was returned to its place. A visitor could not help feeling that he was giving a great deal of trouble, and the tendency of this mode of examination was to make people wish to get out of the building as soon as they could. None of the coins were labelled except underneath. The best thing would be to have a certain number of cases, and in one of them to exhibit a series of English, Roman, and Oriental coins; in another, the effigies of distinguished persons; and, in a third, the coins remarkable for their extrinsic beauty. In this manner the collection might be made much more interesting and useful to the public. If it were said that the coins would not he safe under such an arrangement, he would remind the Committee that at the South Kensington Museum last year treasures of great value had been exhibited on loan, and that none had been stolen.
MR. CONINGHAMmust assert, in opposition to his hon. Friend (Mr. Ayrton), that the British Museum was essentially a scientific institution for the use of students and men of science, and that it might be diverted from this character by throwing it open at night and lighting it up for the public. It was very doubtful whether the pictures at South Kensington had not been injured by the gas. An improvement of much greater scientific value would be effected if a suggestion of Professor Owen's were adopted, and if the professor and his assistants were allowed by the Trustees to deliver lectures to the public on the objects in their department.
MR. KINNAIRDregretted that his hon. Friend (Mr. Locke) had imported into the debate the subject of opening the Museum on Sundays. When that question was formerly discussed in connection with the opening of the British Museum, it was decided by an overwhelming majority that that institution should not be opened to the public on Sunday. At the same time, he agreed with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets that it would be a great boon to the working classes to open the building on
550
Monday and two or three other evenings in the week.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he was as anxious as the hon. Members for the Tower Hamlets and Perth to open the British Museum in the evening, if it could be done with safety. Those hon. Members represented two classes of the people whose opinions were deserving of the utmost consideration. Considering, however, the immense value of the collections, that step ought not to be taken unless perfect and complete security could be taken against fire. The Trustees consulted the late Mr. Braidwood on this subject, and his report placed the matter in the clearest light. He said that the use of gas dessicated everything in the ceilings and roofs above the lights, thereby rendering the woodwork more inflammable, and the extinction of fire more difficult. He also stated that the heat and products of combustion given out by gas were unfavourable to the preservation of vegetable and animal substances, and that the gas would discolour objects in marble and stone. The Museum must be lit up by oil, by candles, or by gas. The first two were objectionable on the ground of expense, and gas was objectionable on the score of danger from fire, and of injury to books and other objects. [Mr. E. P. BOUVERIE: The books at the A thenæum were destroyed by the effects of gas.] Then had the hon. Member considered the expense of the alteration necessary in lighting up the building, and of the additional attendance it would entail; and would he say that the measure he advocated would be of such advantage as to justify the expense and the risk? The Trustees opened the building last year during the summer months in the evening, and what was the result? From ten o'clock till six the average number in attendance was 5,200, being 600 per hour, while from six o'clock to eight there were only 27 per hour, at a cost of £8 10 s. per night. He admitted that the expense was, after all, but a secondary consideration, if they could accommodate the working classes without danger to the building or its contents; but it must he remembered that no money would ever replace the present collection if it were destroyed by fire, and he, for one, was unwilling to incur such an expense without a corresponding result. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) advocated the opening of the Museum on Sundays. As long, however, as the House, by overwhelming majorities, determined

551
that the Government institutions should be closed on Sundays, it would ill become any body of Trustees to act in contravention of that decision. The exhibition of coins adverted to by his hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Mitford) was a very delicate subject. Some of the coins were of immense value, and it would not be safe to allow them to be handled except under supervision. They were now kept in a miserable room; but as soon as the House gave more accommodation, the Trustees would be glad to exhibit specimens of coins and medals. The House ought to look at the British Museum as a great scientific and literary institution, and ought not to spare the sums necessary to make each department complete and accessible to the public.
COLONEL SYKESdesired to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the House of Commons was lit by gas, and that all depended upon where the gas was placed.
MR. AYRTONagreed with the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken, and believed that the British Museum afforded singular facilities for being lighted at night without injury to the collections. He believed that his proposal would be a great advantage to the working classes. He could not concur in the impracticable follies of the hon. Member for Southwark.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, that although the House had by large majorities decided against opening the National Gallery, &c. on Sundays, the numbers would, he believed, be very different if the votes were taken by ballot. It would be much better the working classes should visit the British Museum than he invited to attend rat hunts and dog fights in the neighbourhood of London.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again To-morrow, before the other Orders of the Day.

MR. BELSHAM AND THE CONFEDERATE AUTHORITIES.—QUESTION.
MR. BLAKEsaid, that according to the information which had been furnished to him, a Mr. Belsham, a British subject, went some time since to reside in Alabama, and in consequence of his refusal to serve in the Confederate Army he was in the month of April last three times dipped in a tank of water, with a view to compel him to serve; and that on being
552
asked each time whether he would serve or not, he repeated his refusal; but, that on being dipped a fourth time, he, in order to save his life, consented to serve under protest. The case had been stated to Her Majesty's Representative at Washington, who directed Her Majesty's Consul at Richmond to inquire into the circumstances. He had further been informed that, in consequence, Mr. Belsham had been sent to Montgomery in order to have his case investigated. Since that time, however, Mr. Belsham's friends had heard nothing of him, and the object which he (Mr. Blake) had in view was to find out what had become of him. He would therefore beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the remonstrance addressed by the British Consul at Richmond by direction of Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, to the Confederate Authorities, against the compulsion exercised upon Mr. Robert Redmond Belsham, a British subject, at Montgomery, State of Alabama, to force him to serve in the Confederate Army, has been attended with effect; and whether there is any objection to state the sub-stance of whatever communications have been received from Lord Lyons on the subject?
MR. LAYARD: In reply, Sir, to the Question of the hon. Member, I beg to state that the case of Mr. Belsham has been brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government; but the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension when he says that the case was brought before the Confederate authorities under the direction of Lord Lyons. Lord Lyons has no official communication whatever with the authorities of the Confederate States, and nothing therefore was done under his direction. But Mr. Moore, the British Consul at Richmond, did make a representation to the Confederate Government with regard to the case. Mr. Belsham was, as he states, cruelly treated—indeed, he was exposed to torture to compel him to take service in the Confederate army. Unfortunately, Mr. Belsham's case is not the only one, but numerous similar cases have been brought to our notice; but these cases have generally occurred at a distance from Richmond. The Confederate authorities have expressed regret that they should have taken place. A Bill was brought before the Session of the Confederate Assembly to empower the State to enlist foreigners in the Confederate army; but that Bill was rejected, and a Committee

553
was appointed to inquire into the treatment of British subjects, who were imprisoned mostly for refusing to serve in the Confederate army. Mr. Moore made numerous representations to the Confederate Government with respect to these acts of cruelty and illegality; and it was well known that in consequence of those representations the Confederate Government suspended Mr. Moore's exequatur, and he was obliged to leave the Confederate States. Her Majesty's Minister instantly sent instructions to Mr. Moore to make strong representations to the Confederate Government, but they did not reach Mr. Moore until he bad left. I trust, however, that taking into account the action of the Confederate Government in this matter, such cases will not happen again to British subjects. With regard to Mr. Belsham, I cannot tell where he is. We have heard no more of him since the statement of Mr. Moore was received.
MR. GREGORY: I wish, Sir, to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs two questions, which I think he can answer at once. The first is, when he spoke of torture being applied to a British subject, did he mean that the torture was applied on the part of the authorities of the Confederate Government? The second question is, whether, inasmuch as this is a very grave affair, he will lay all the papers connected with it upon the table of the House?
MR. LAYARD: Sir, I am afraid that torture in the strict sense of the word has been inflicted; but I am bound to say that these acts were committed by persons apparently acting under the general instruction of the Confederate authorities, but at a distance from the seat of the Government. On Monday next, I will state whether the papers can be produced.

THE PATRIOTIC FUND.—QUESTION.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Chichester, Whether he intends to name a day to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the management and present condition of the Patriotic Fund?
MR. J. A. SMITHsaid, in reply, that he had resolved to change the terms of his Motion and to move an Address to the Queen for a Commission of Inquiry, instead of moving for a Select Committee. He understood there was to be a meeting of the Royal Commissioners on Tuesday next,
554
and he should, in some degree, be guided in the course he should pursue by the steps which might be taken by the Commissioners on that occasion.

THE DOVER AND CALAIS AND DOVER AND OSTEND MAIL CONTRACTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HEYGATE, said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Under what contract or engagement Her Majesty's Mails are now carried between Dover and Calais and Dover and Ostend respectively; and when any contract which may have been entered into by Her Majesty's Government will be laid upon the table of the House?
  MR. PEEL, in reply, said, these services were at present being carried on under conditions which had been agreed upon between the Post Office, the Railway Companies, and the Belgian Government, respectively, and the contract for the Dover service embodying those conditions had been prepared and sent to the Railway Companies for their approval. It was proposed to have a Convention with the Belgian Government in addition to the contract with the Companies.

UNITED STATES—RECOGNITION OF THE SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY.

  THE ADJOURNED DEBATE. QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he wished to put a Question to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) with respect to the resumption of the debate on America on Monday next; and considering the importance of the subject, he should move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of having an opportunity of making a few remarks. He would, however, abstain from saying one word on the merits of the question proposed by the hon. and learned Member. All he wished to express was his feeling—shared in, he believed, by many Members on both sides of the House who concurred in the object which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view—that the present moment was one when the question could not be discussed and decided on by Parliament with advantage to Great Britain, or to the Southern States or Northern States of America. Since the hon. and learned Member brought his Resolution before the House, a great change had token place in the position of the contest between the two republics in North America. The war, which up to the present time had been a defensive one

  555
  on the part of the Southern States, now appeared to hare received the character of an expedition of the South against the North; and it must be evident to every one who had perused the intelligence which had reached us from America within the last few days that events of great importance were preparing, and it was not impossible that the solution of the whole question at issue was at hand. Under these circumstances, he ventured to submit that a vote now come to by the House could not express the real feeling of the House, and could exert no real beneficial influence on the operations in America. At any rate, several Members of the House, who agreed in principle with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, and concurred in his object, would yet not support him, on account of the inexpediency of bringing the question forward and deciding on it at the present moment. If the question came on upon Monday, it would either be negatived unanimously by the House, or defeated by a large majority. Thus a false impression would be produced generally with regard to the feeling of the House, the action of the Government might be hindered should they feel at an early period that the time had arrived for the purpose of recognising the Southern States, and a feeling of disappointment would be created in the minds of the population of those States. A month ago the recognition of the Southern States, if it had then been generously proposed by Parliament, and carried into effect by the Government, might have been attended with beneficial results. It might have Stayed the effusion of blood, and excited a feeling of gratitude on the part of the Southern States. But what would now be the consequence, supposing the Motion of the hon. and learned Member should be successful? If the events now taking place, and the result of which could not he distant, should have the affect of enabling the Southern States to force peace on the Northern, the former would not then thank the House for the decision come to on this Motion. If, on the other hand, the expedition of the Southern army into the North should prove a failure, in what a position would that House then stand, after acceding to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member? The Motion, whether successful or unsuccessful, he submitted to the hon. and learned Member, could produce no beneficial effect, and it had much better be withdrawn. He therefore submitted for consideration whether it would not be better
  556
  for the cause, for which, he frankly avowed, he felt great sympathy, if the hon. and learned Member relieved the Government from the pledge they had given to postpone the Orders of the Day on Monday next until after the resumption of the adjourned debate on America, and selected a more convenient opportunity for the discussion. The present was the time, not for action on the part of the House, but rather for silent contemplation. As personal matters had been imported into the debate, and discrepancies between the statement of the hon. and learned Member and the statement made on the part of the Government had to be explained, he was sure that the House would readily hear whatever the hon. and learned Member might wish to state on that point; for in all matters personally affecting hon. Members, and especially their veracity, the House never refused them the opportunity of making an explanation.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to second the request just made by the hon. and gallant Officer, to consent to drop the continuance of the debate which stands for Monday. I think that the circumstances adverted to by the hon. and gallant Officer are of themselves sufficient to show that the present is not a moment when it is desirable to continue the discussion referred to. Events of the utmost importance are about to take place in America, and we may hear in the course of a few hours of results commensurate with the importance of those events—evidently, then, the present is not a proper moment to ask the Government to prejudice itself with respect to its free action. It is not likely, I think, that the House would agree either to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, or to the Amendment which has been moved to it; and, indeed, I think it very disadvantageous to the public service that any such Resolution should be adopted. Therefore, the discussion, as far as any practical results may have been expected by those who are in favour of the Motion, would have no important effect. I can assure the House, that whereas now it is plainly acknowledged by everybody that the wishes of the Emperor of the French to find a fitting opportunity for advising the re-establishment of peace in America are not changed, on the other hand

  557
  Her Majesty's Government do not see that that opportunity has arisen, though they would at all times be willing to exchange opinions with the Emperor of the French not only on that subject, but on any other relating to the interests of nations. On public and general grounds I would urge the hon. and learned Member to comply with the request made to him. But there is another and peculiar circumstance which makes the hon. and learned Member's compliance still more desirable. It is hardly possible that the debate could be resumed without the resumption of the discussion as to what passed in the interview between the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Roebuck) and the hon. Member for Sunder-land (Mr. Lindsay) on the one side, and the Emperor of the French on the other. It was quite natural that they should seek that interview, for the hon. Member for Sunderland had previously had frequent interviews with the Emperor of the French on those questions relating to navigation in respect to which he takes an active part in this House. Therefore, it was perfectly natural that the hon. Member should see the Emperor of the French, and equally natural, that seeing the Emperor, the hon. Member, together with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, should express opinions on the American question. I, however, venture to submit that the question as to what passed between two private Members of Parliament and a foreign Sovereign is not a question to be discussed in this House. Not to say that such a discussion, is sure to lead to explanations on both sides—which, like all public explanations of private transactions, leave an unpleasant feeling generally on both sides, it must tend to deter the Emperor of the French from continuing that courteous and useful reception which he is so graciously pleased to give to all Englishmen of note who may be furnished with information advantageous to the friendly relations of both countries. It is obvious, however, that this reception now accorded by the Emperor of the French must be checked, if the Emperor should feel that what passes in the abandon of private intercourse is to be made the subject of public discussion in the British House of Commons. As it is impossible that the debate on America can be resumed without leading in some way or other to a revival of that personal discussion, I trust that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield will allow the debate to drop, and that the hon. Member for Sunderland,
  558
  who has as yet taken no part in the debate, will continue that discreet abstinence which he has hitherto manifested, and will be content with allowing the matter to rest. Nobody has a right to blame the hon. Member for the part he took in communicating with the Emperor of the French; but the House will feel, not only with a view to the relations of the Government, but to the continuance of that access to the Emperor of the French on the part of British subjects which it is most desirable to maintain, that it is advisable that nothing should be said in this House which might have an unfavourable effect.
  MR. LINDSAY: I have hitherto borne in silence a large amount of obloquy from the present organs of the Government, but as yet I have not spoken one syllable. I have been condemned without being heard; and though there is often greater wisdom in silence than in speech, I trust I may now be allowed to state one or two circumstances which must have escaped the memory of those who considered it their duty to criticise my conduct. Some four years ago I brought under the notice of this House a Motion for an Address praying Her Majesty to enter into negotiations with the Emperor of the French, for the abolition of various duties which materially affected the free intercourse between France and this country and our possessions. A long discussion ensued, and my Motion was unanimously adopted by this House. Some eight or nine months elapsed, and as no action appeared to have been taken by the Government to carry into effect that Motion, I saw Lord Russell, then a Member of this House, on the subject. At his request, or at least on his introduction, I had a meeting with Lord Cowley, and afterward, on the introduction of, and accompanied by Lord Cowley, I had an interview with the Emperor of the French on this important subject. Various long interviews followed, at all of which, with the knowledge and with the consent and approval of Lord Cowley, I was alone with the Emperor. I have reason to believe that the Emperor was pleased with the views I placed before him at these various interviews, and that he saw the changes I ventured to recommend would be quite as beneficial to the people of France as they would be to the people of this country. Much of my time, for several years, has been devoted to this great question. After two years of negotiation, His Majesty was pleased to appoint a council

  559
  to inquire into the subject, which has just concluded its inquiry; and I have every reason to hope that the result will be the abolition of these duties, and material changes, if not the entire abrogation, of the navigation laws of France. All these questions were of a practical and an intricate nature, which neither Lord Cowley nor the Foreign Office pretended to understand, and it was therefore necessary for me to see the Emperor and his ministers very often concerning them. All, however, that took place was invariably made known by me at the time to Lord Cowley. During some of these interviews it was His Majesty's pleasure, knowing that I had been to America, to speak to me regarding the lamentable war then, and I regret to say still raging in that country. I ventured to offer my opinions respecting it but never has one word, except to Lord Cowley, crossed my lips of anything His Majesty was pleased to say to me on this or on any other question, till on the 23rd of last month I had permission to make known his views in regard to certain matters bearing upon the American war. But even with that permission I might not have stated all my hon. and learned Friend did, and perhaps I might not have made some portions of his statement in the same tone. I am prepared, however, to say now, that all my hon. and learned Friend said was true. I regret to say too true; and as my veracity has been called in question, I desired to have the opportunity of proving to the House, but not by producing "a note-book," which has been kept sealed for years, that the assertions of my hon. and learned Friend were too true. I do not, however, desire now to go into this question, which is of a very delicate nature, and, after what the noble Viscount has said, it may not be necessary for me to go into this question at any time. But the truth of the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend has, to a great extent, been proved by the remarks made a few evenings ago by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In referring to a despatch received from the Government of France in November last, he said, that the French Government in sending that despatch had adopted a very "unusual course." My hon. Friend the Under Secretary further said, that it was very strange the French Government should have published that despatch in the Moniteur before sending it to this country, and that when sent they did not order
  560
  their Minister here to leave as usual a copy of it at the Foreign Office. Now, all this tends to show that the French Government must have had reasons for adopting this unusual course in November; and as the despatch to which my hon. and learned Friend referred was not the November despatch, but a despatch or despatches, or communications, regarding the war in America, sent to this country in February or March 1862, the House may see that the statements made by my hon. and learned Friend were not without foundation, and that, in fact, as I have already said, they were too true, though I regret that he considered it desirable to make them. I do not, however, intend to enter more fully into this very delicate question, unless necessity should arise for it. It is far better to avoid all such questions in this House, and I would rather endure the reproach to which I have been subjected than enter upon them. The question now before the House is one of far greater importance: it affects the peace and happiness of ten millions of people; and as I hold the opinion, that if the word "recognition" was pronounced by England in concert with the Emperor of the French and other European Powers, that word would go forth as a harbinger of peace, and would restore peace with all the blessings which attend it, I say the consideration of that question is of a thousandfold greater moment than any reproach which may be cast on so humble an individual as myself. I therefore wish the House to forget the personal question, and to consider the statement which the noble Lord has just made in regard to the course he will pursue on American affairs. I do feel for the Southern people. I feel that they are a nation, a brave and down-trodden nation, and therefore I ask my hon. and learned Friend not at once to give an answer to the question put to him by my hon. and gallant Friend, and repeated by the noble Lord, unless he can ascertain the course which Her Majesty's Government may be prepared to take towards concurring in the well-known view of the Emperor of the French on this subject. It will be time enough on Monday for my hon. and learned Friend to say whether he will go on with the debate. The Scotia is now due, and we may receive by it important intelligence which may induce Her Majesty's Government to say the time has arrived when we ought to acknowledge the South, and put an end to this lamentable, and, as I believe

  561
  useless war. Therefore, I beg my hon. and learned Friend to exercise caution and prudence, and not to give a hasty answer to the question, but take time to consider it.
  MR. CONINGHAM: Sir, no middle course can be taken on this question. The people of Lancashire, who are more than any others deeply interested in the question of cotton, have throughout the whole course of the war given their support to the Federal cause. ["No!"] Nearly 150 meetings have been held in the manufacturing districts, which, with the exception of some ten or twelve, have passed resolutions, by overwhelming majorities, in favour of the North. I am confident, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had proceeded to a division, he would have found himself in a disastrous minority. I can assure the Southern States that they need not look for sympathy to the working classes of this country; for although a large portion of them are actually depending for their livelihood on cotton, they have, with the greatest magnanimity, sided with the North.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) seems to be under the impression that I gave some pledge that on Monday I should be prepared to state the course which Her Majesty's Government intend to pursue. I think it right to explain that I meant to say no such thing.
  MR. LINDSAY: All I meant was that the Scotia is now due, and that perhaps the news she might bring would lead the Government to change the views they now hold.
  MR. KINGLAKE: I rise to express an earnest hope that the House will not too readily express the principle which has been submitted by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The noble Lord, in his cheerful way, has suggested, that unless the abandon of the French Emperor in conversation with hon. Members is to be checked, we must abstain from all these discussions in this House. When we remember that what is called "conversation" is stated officially to have been an endeavour made by two Members of the House to engage the French Government in an important diplomatic agreement, we must see that that is a matter extremely novel, as far as my knowledge of the British Constitution extends, and well deserving of our attention. The argument of the noble Lord, that discussions of this
  562
  kind are not convenient or politic, should have been raised before the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck); but now, after we have heard what has been stated, and have been told on official grounds what was the proposal of the French Emperor, then the matter becomes one which deserves the attention of the House.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I never for an instant doubted the veracity of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. I have known him too long not to be aware that he is incapable of stating what he does not believe to be a fact; but, at the same time, I must be allowed to say I have not the same confidence in his discretion. I do not think he is acting quite fairly towards the House in keeping this question hanging over us without our knowing whether it is to come on or not on Monday. As far as I am concerned, I repose full confidence in Her Majesty's Government in regard to the American question. I think they have conducted this American business all through with singular ability. It is, however, only fair to the House that the hon. and learned Gentleman should announce at once whether he intends to proceed with the debate on Monday. Surely he is in as good a position now as he will be then for coming to a decision.
  MR. GREGORY: Sir, there are two questions to be considered by the House. There is, first, that touching the truth of the statements made by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield and the hon. Member for Sunderland—the second question relates to the political bearing of the matter. The main point is whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied with what has taken place this evening. In my opinion, it is absolutely necessary that the doubts which have been cast on the accuracy of the hon. and learned Gentleman should be cleared up. Statements have been made by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, no doubt with the greatest truthfulness as far as his belief was concerned at the moment, but which will be proved not to be in accordance with the real facts of this most important case. I hold it to be of the utmost importance that the country should know what is the truth of the matter. So much has already come out with regard to this personal affair that the whole ought to be disclosed. I am bound to say, from what has fallen casually from the hon. Member for Sunderland in reference to the

  563
  statement made the other night by the Under Secretary, that a very grave circumstance has occurred, and that it is evident this House and the country do not know the real state of the case. Something, I think, has occurred which the French Government, or rather the Emperor of the French, considers to be a serious affront put upon him by our Foreign Office. The Under Secretary told us, that when Baron Gros read the despatch of November, he refused to leave a copy. It is absolutely necessary we should know why he refused to leave a copy. Was it because a previous despatch of February had been treated in a manner of which the Emperor disapproved? That is a point which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield and the hon. Member for Sunderland have a right to insist should be cleared up in this House, because almost the whole of their tale rests upon it. The course I would recommend may be shortly stated. If the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield is not satisfied—and I think he probably is not—with the explanations which have been given to-night—if he considers that what has just taken place does not set him right with the public—then I say that this part of the question ought to be thoroughly sifted; but, as regards the great political aspect of the question, I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson), that it is most important for the interests of the South, for the interests of peace, and for the interests of humanity, that the debate should not be proceeded with at this moment. There would, no doubt, be a large majority against the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield; but that would not be owing to any sympathy in this House in favour of the North, because I believe that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) and those who agree with him could be carried off in one omnibus. Nevertheless, it would go forth to the world at large that the opinion of the House of Commons was against the independence of the Southern Confederacy, which I believe not to be the case. That mistaken impression would arise simply because those of us who are Southern, heart and soul, do not wish, while great events are pending in America, to bring the House or Her Majesty's Government to any premature decision upon this subject. What would be the effect in other countries? The Northeners would be impressed with the idea, either that England
  564
  was entirely in their power, or that her perfidy and well-known cowardice prevented her from acknowledging the South. We might expect, moreover, that there would arise in the minds of the Southerners, who will soon achieve their own independence, a feeling of resentment which it would take years to obliterate. An adverse decision would have the further effect of making it appear as if the last act Parliament had done was to pronounce an opinion against the independence of the South, which would no doubt have a powerful influence upon the movements of Her Majesty's Government during the recess. For these reasons, I hope the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, while establishing the truth of his assertions, which I implicitly believed the moment I heard them, will take care to dissociate the personal from what I may call the great political question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The argument used by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir J. Fergusson) and also by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, would have been an effective argument against the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield being brought forward at all; but I hardly think it should prevent this House, now that the question has been debated one evening, from coming to a conclusion and pronouncing its opinion upon it. It is desirable that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield should have an opportunity of making any explanation he thinks fit on the personal question; but the question is not one merely personal to the hon. and learned Member—it is not even a question of sympathy with the North or the South—what we have to consider is the question whether this House is inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield that our Government should recognise a seceding or rebelling State before the result of the secession or rebellion is ascertained. It is a great principle of international law which is now before us; and it having been once brought before us, I think we ought to be allowed to come to a conclusion upon it. The question, moreover, is one in which the feelings of a great many Englishmen, the relations of peace between this country and America, and the interests of that trade which has been most injured by the war, are concerned. It is important that the minds of our people in the manufacturing districts should at once be set at rest as to whether it is probable that Her Majesty's Government, acting on the instigation

  565
  of this House, intend to establish a new precedent in international law by recognising a State under circumstances in which England never recognised a country before. At any rate let us not be kept in the dark beyond this evening as to whether we are to come to a decision on Monday or not.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the great question which had presented itself to the House seemed to him to be in some danger of being overlooked. They had the representatives of Her Majesty's Government on the Treasury bench, and it seemed they had the representatives of another Government in the House. This was a very grave question. It was the first time, he believed, in the records of Parliament, that the House of Commons had received a message directly from a foreign Power not through Her Majesty's servants. Now, let the House consider, without touching the constitutional view of the question, in a plain, common-sense manner, what this would lead to. Was that House, and was every section of that House, to have its Foreign Office, and to conduct its own separate diplomacy? He could conceive no confusion more complele than that would produce. If the House of Commons represented anything, it represented the people of England, and by the constitution of England there was delegated to the Crown all negotiations between this country and any foreign Power. It had delegated to the Crown all questions of peace and war. The question that was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield involved the relations of this country with a foreign Power, and it involved the question of peace or war with this country; and he (Mr. Newdegate) thought that House ought to mark its sense of that departure from constitutional principle, which would import a foreign element into the discussions and decisions of that House. He was not at that moment prepared to say in what manner the House should express its opinion on such conduct; but he was confident, that unless the House determined to limit it to the authorized exponents of the will of Her Majesty in the communications with foreign Powers, our relations with those Powers would very soon lapse into a state of confusion.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: I think the debate which has just taken place, and the speakers who have joined in it, ought to satisfy the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield that be has only one course to
  566
  pursue. Those who have urged him not to press his Motion to a division are the well-known friends of the South—men like the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and our Confederate Premier. On the other hand, those who have urged him to go on are equally well-known Federals—men like the hon. Member for Brighton and the hon. Member for Bradford. [Mr. CONINGHAM said he did quite the reverse.] I allow that I did not understand what the hon. Member for Brighton said; but, at all events, the hon. Member for Bradford, whose devotion to the North is only equalled by his fanatic hatred of the South, pressed my hon. and learned Friend to go on. His motive is clear. He wishes to steal from this House a decision which will not express its real opinion. But I am sure my hon. and learned Friend is too wise to take the advice of the Federal Sinon. It is from no desire to bring the matter to a conclusion, or to establish a position in international law, but in this hour of its supreme agony to give some slight countenance to the cause to which he is devoted that the hon. Member for Bradford tries to lead my hon. and learned Friend into a snare. At the same time, I would advise the hon. and learned Gentleman to reserve his decision till Monday, considering the importance of the intelligence which is at this moment, I believe, travelling over the telegraph wires—considering that the most important military operations, as I understand, have already been reported in the City and in this House, and considering also the effect which that news must have on the minds of hon. Members.
  MR. ROEBUCK: They say that amid a multitude of counsellors there is safety. I will accept the advice of the noble Lord who has just sat down, and reserve my answer till Monday. I think that a very much better answer will be given before that day. As the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) has drawn a distinction between the personal and the political question, I am bound to say for myself that I will give my answer on Monday.
  MR. LAYARD: After what has fallen from the hon. Members for Galway and Sunderland, I cannot, Sir, remain quite silent; but, before answering the hon. Member for Sunderland, I beg to put my hon. Friend the Member for Galway right on one point. He said I had stated to the House that Baron Gros refused to leave a copy of a despatch. I stated nothing of

  567
  the kind. What I said was, that a copy of the despatch was not left with Her Majesty's Government, because, as I showed, it was not a confidential despatch, but a public one, having been published in the Moniteur, and that therefore it was not necessary to leave a copy of it. I come now to the statement of the hon. Member for Sunderland. It will be recollected that two allegations were made by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. The first was that a communication had been made recently by the Emperor's Government to his Ambassador in this country, requesting him to ascertain whether the British Government were prepared to join with the French Government in the recognition of the Confederate States. The second was that a despatch had been communicated to the Government of Washington by Her Majesty's Government, which despatch had been sent confidentially by the Emperor of the French to Her Majesty's Government, and that, on that account, the Emperor declined to make another proposal to Her Majesty's Government. As regards the first statement, I can only refer to the answer given in the Moniteur, That answer appears to me complete and conclusive. It shows that the Emperor had not said what the hon. Member stated. What His Majesty said was, that he should request Baron Gros to sound Her Majesty's Government on the subject. With respect to the second statement, the hon. Member for Sunderland has to-night put it entirely on a different issue. The statement made the other night was, that in consequence of this alleged breach of confidence, the Emperor would make no fresh proposal to Her Majesty's Government. Well, if the despatch which we were accused of communicating to the American Government was sent to this country in February or April of last year, as stated by my hon. Friend, then the whole of the accusation falls to the ground, because the proposal was made several months afterwards. The proposal of the French Government with regard to the recognition of the Confederate States, was made in November to Her Majesty's Government. The statement of to-night is, that owing to a despatch of February or April, or at all events of the spring of last year, having been communicated to the American Government, therefore the Emperor would make no fresh proposal to the British Government for the recognition of the Confederate States. Well, if that despatch
  568
  was thus communicated in the month of February or April, how came it that the proposal should have been made to Her Majesty's Government in the month of November of that year? I leave it for my hon. Friend to explain that discrepancy. But I have the Moniteur in my hand, and there the despatch is distinctly alluded to as the despatch of October. The Moniteur clearly points to the despatch of October as the despatch which was communicated. [Mr. ROEBUCK: "No, no!"] I state most distinctly and unreservedly, that no despatch sent to Her Majesty's Government by the French Government was ever communicated to the American Government, whether that despatch was sent at a late or an early part of the year. I myself have gone through all the papers, despatch by despatch, so that there can be no mistake whatever on the point. The chief clerk of the Department has done the same, and only this day I requested another clerk to make a still further search; so that we have had three careful searches made, beginning with the commencement of 1862 downwards; and I assert in the most distinct manner, on my honour, that there is no trace of such a despatch. To the best of my belief and knowledge, nothing of that kind has occurred; and I must say, that on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman there must have been some great misapprehension. [Mr. ROEBUCK: There has been no misapprehension.] A similar tiling happened to the hon. Member for Sunderland on a previous occasion, and I am surprised that he did not take warning from what then occurred through his amateur diplomacy. Last year, the hon. Member came over to this country with what were called confidential communications from the Emperor. He had, however, scarcely returned home, when we received a telegram saying that the hon. Member had not been authorized to make any such communication. That is precisely what we see now. The hon. Gentleman had, I suppose, asked His Majesty whether he might be allowed to mention what had passed at the interview; and the Emperor, in his usual kind and cordial manner, would reply that it need be made no secret, that all the world might know of it. But presuming from these words that the Emperor had made him his special envoy, the hon. Member came over in the belief that he bore that character, and all the mistake has arisen in that way. I am convinced that in this case there has been great misapprehension

  569
  as to all that took place, and I trust the two hon. Members will not fall into the same trap again.
  MR. AYRTON: I wish to ask what is to be the course of business on Monday? It cannot surely be contemplated that we should have this adjourned debate placed first on the Orders of the Day, and that when we are all assembled the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield is then to announce to us whether he intends the debate to go on or not. That would be placing the House in a very droll and very unusual position. I apprehend, that unless we receive from the hon. and learned Member distinct information to-night that he desires the debate to go on upon Monday, the only course must be that the adjourned debate shall stand last on the Orders for Monday. I hope we shall have an intimation to that effect from Her Majesty's Government.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: In answer to my hon. Friend, I may be allowed to say that what we proposed to do was in fulfilment of my pledge to my hon. and learned Friend—namely, to fix the adjourned debate as the first Order for Monday. Therefore, if my hon. and learned Friend proceeds with the debate, it will be the first business; and if he does not, we will then take the Fortifications Bill, and after that the Relief Bill.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORobserved, that he must enter his individual protest against waiting till Monday to determine whether the debate should be continued or not. It was most inconvenient, and he might say disrespectful, to the House. But there was another and far more important ground of objection, and that was that the reason avowed by hon. Gentlemen opposite for the delayed decision rendered such delay an indecent and insulting act towards our ally, the United States. It had been openly stated that it was hoped that the next mail, now due within a few hours, might bring intelligence of so crushing a defeat of the Federal army by the Southern rebels, that the Government might be disposed to alter their present determination, and to think that the time for recognition had arrived. Now, he repeated, that was a most indecent procedure. The British House of Commons was waiting to decide upon an important question of international law, in the avowed hope that news might hourly arrive of a successful issue to the rebellion against our old ally. He thought the House had not had its attention sufficiently called to one view of the present debate, which had
  570
  become prominent during that evening's conversation—and it was this:—A Motion had been introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, for the recognition by this country of the Southern Confederacy; and, as had been that evening confessed, not in the interests of England—not for the honour and security of England, but avowedly in the interests of the Confederates, and by their friends in that House. Yes, in the interests of the Southern Slave Power, the House had been called upon to violate by a premature recognition one of the best understood principles of international law—namely, that one State had no right to recognise a rebellion, a secession, as a fait accompli, while the contest was still going on. To recognise the South now would be to give the Government of the United States a just casus belli against England. This was the position in which, by their own avowals that night, the friends of the South in that House were trying to place the Government and the country by forcing a premature recognition. But another admission that was important had been made that night, and that was the reason why at this moment this pressure was to be put upon the House, upon Her Majesty's Government, to sanction this premature recognition. It was not—as had been let slip out—that these friends of the South were confident of Confederate success—it was not that their cause was triumphing, and that it was therefore hoped to save needless bloodshed by a little antedating of an inevitable result. On the contrary, this haste had been manifested for precisely the opposite reason—because it was known that the South was greatly exhausted—that the rebellion was really playing its last cards—that it was well understood that any mail might now bring intelligence of the fall of Vicks-burg, and the opening to the Federal arms of the whole course of the mighty Mississippi. It was not concealed that this Motion had been introduced with the hope to commit the House to recognition before probable reverses should make such a suggestion still more outrageous. And now, when hon. Gentlemen fancied that a change had taken place in the prospects of the war, and that it was by some imagined that much was to result from this raid of Lee's army into the North—now it was proposed to delay the discussion, as he had said, in the hope that they might receive news of Southern victories. He would repeat, that this was an indecent and un-English procedure—an

  571
  insult to America, and a discredit to the House of Commons. For his part, he did not believe that the result of this invasion of the North—be that result, temporarily, what it might—would at all affect the issue of the great struggle. He believed that even should this raid be, in the first instance, successful, such success would tend only to weld together all parties in the North, and give a stronger resolution to maintain the war to a successful issue. He did not for a moment believe that the House of Commons would sanction the proposed gross violation of international law, creating, as it would do, a precedent of the most dangerous character. Still less did he believe that the people out of doors Would quietly endure such violation of law, made as it would be in favour of a State which avowed that its aim was to build up a Power based upon human slavery as its head corner-stone.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

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

AFFAIRS OF POLAND.—QUESTION.
MR. BEAUMONTasked the hon. Member for the King's County, Whether he intends to fix an early day for proceeding with his Motion on the affairs of Poland?
MR. HENNESSYsaid, the delay had now been so protracted that he thought it highly desirable that a discussion on this subject should take place speedily. He must therefore appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whether, if his Notice were placed on the paper for Thursday next, the Government would be prepared to do that which they had promised—namely, to give him the first Government night.
VISCOUNT PALMERSON: I am afraid I cannot agree to that. We are anxious to get on with Supply. But on Monday week there will be an opportunity for the hon. Member to bring on his Motion.
MR. HENNESSY: I beg to say that I shall put my Notice on the paper for Thursday.
MR. HORSMANhoped, that as they were getting so near to the end of the Session, and as the subject of Poland had been so frequently put off before, the noble Lord would not object to the hon. and
572
learned Member for the King's County's Motion being taken on Thursday. The hon. Member for the King's County would, no doubt, bring on his Motion on the Question of Supply; and if he did not, some one else certainly would. He hoped the noble Lord would therefore adhere to the original understanding.
SIR GEORGE GREYbegged to state that at the morning sitting, after a good deal of conversation, a strong wish had been expressed that another evening sitting should be given to Supply, in order to enable hon. Members who had Motions on going into Committee to bring them forward. In accordance with what appeared to be the general feeling, he then undertook that Supply should be taken on Thursday next.
MR. COLLINSventured to suggest that a series of morning sittings might be given to the discussion of Polish affairs.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he must call the attention of the House to the conduct of the Government. Pour weeks ago he had a Motion on the paper on the subject of Poland. His Notice stood first on a Supply night. The noble Lord appealed to him to put it off, telling him he would give a Government night for the discussion. The following Monday was fixed; but the supporters of the noble Lord appealed to him not to go on. The noble Lord said he was prepared to assist him in obtaining a night for the discussion—he would give him a Government night. The leader of the House having given such a pledge, it was surely but fair that it should be fulfilled. He had heard with extreme surprise from the noble Lord that he was not prepared to give Thursday. He would, however, place his Motion for that day, and bring it on upon Supply. There were now two Notices with reference to Poland, one in his own name, and the other in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman). He told the noble Lord, if he gave him a Government night for the discussion of this question, his intention was to ask the right hon. Member for Stroud to inaugurate the debate; and he wished now to ask him to bring forward the Motion that stood in his name. If he would put it off till Thursday, he should give way to him, because he could give that Motion his hearty support; and he need not say how willingly he deferred to the great Parliamentary experience of his right hon. Friend. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman

573
would proceed with his Notice upon Supply on Thursday next.
MR. WHALLEYdid not think the House wished to have any debate on the subject of Poland. They had already given sufficient attention to the Pope's subjects, and Poland was the same question in another aspect. The hon. and learned Member for the King's County had been good enough to intimate his intention to oppose a Motion which stood on the Paper this evening, and which the Government had agreed to, for a return of the number of Jesuits in this country. ["Order, order!"]
MR. SPEAKERinformed the hon. Member that he could not discuss a Motion which stood on the Paper before it came on in its regular course.
MR. HORSMANwished, after the appeal which had been made to him, to state that he did not put his Notice on the paper with the slightest intention to infere with that of his hon. Friend the Member for the King's County. Attempts had been made to evade or put off the discussion on Poland, although he felt assured that the Government did not countenance it; he therefore put a Notice on the Paper to insure a discussion if his hon. Friend were defeated. He was very sorry for the position in which they now stood. He gave the Government credit for all sincerity in this matter; but when a breach of faith had occurred on the part of the House, the noble Lord's supporters not allowing him to redeem the pledge he had given to his hon. Friend, he felt that the question of Poland ought not to be delayed or evaded; that it was a growing question; that if the House were not disposed to facilitate discussion, those who now took their stand upon it would next year have the opinion very much in their favour; and he had therefore resolved, very heartily approving the policy of the Government on this subject, if facilities were not given to the hon. Member for the King's County, to raise the question on Supply on Thursday next, and to do so again and again on every question of Supply, for he was determined, even bit by bit, that there should be a full discussion of the correspondence which had been laid on the table. The House had incurred grave responsibilities by the postponement of this question, and he would be no party to any further postponement.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwould say only one word in reply to what had been
574
urged by the hon. Member for the King's County. The hon. Gentleman reproached him with a breach of good faith in not having kept the promise he had made. Now, that he entirely denied. He had promised to give the hon. Gentleman a Government night, and he was prepared to do so. He did not say he would give him Thursday next. He offered him Monday week, which was a Government night. Seekers, it was said, should not be choosers. He had offered that Government night which could be spared with the least inconvenience. But if the hon. Gentleman would bring the question on upon Supply next Thursday—[Mr. HORSMAN: We certainly will]—the Government were no parties to the arrangement.

VANCOUVER'S ISLAND.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. FITZWILLIAMsaid, he rose to move an Address for Copies of any Correspondence between Mr. Langford and the Colonial Department relative to the alleged abuses in the Government of Vancouver's Island; of any Correspondence between the Colonial Department and Governor Douglas, relating to Mr. Langford's charges; of any Correspondence with the Government of Vancouver's Island relative to the appointment of Chief Justice Cameron, and the remonstrances against such appointment; and of any Petition recently received from Vancouver's Island praying for the redress of grievances. He must express an opinion that the papers for which he moved went far to prove that the charge of mis-management against the government of Vancouver's Island was not entirely without foundation.
  MR. WYLDseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of any Correspondence between Mr. Langford and the Colonial Department, relative to alleged abuses in the Government of Vancouver's Island:
  Of any Correspondence between the Colonial Department and Governor Douglas, referring to Mr. Langford's Charges:
  Of any Correspondence with the Government of Vancouver's Island relative to the appointment of Chief Justice Cameron, and the remonstrances against such appointment:
  And, of any Petition recently received from Vancouver's Island praying for the redress of grievances,"—(Mr. Fitzwilliam,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he would not detain the House for more than a few moments while giving an explanation with respect to this matter. It would be quite impossible to raise a discussion upon the papers—even if there were room for the charges which Mr. Langford brought, which there was not—until those papers were in the hands of hon. Members. The facts connected with the papers were simply those. The hon. Gentleman came to him and said he wished to move for certain papers containing charges brought by Mr. Langford against the principal officials of the Colony, including Governor Douglas, Chief Justice Cameron, Mr. Attorney General Carey, and others. He told the hon. Gentleman that he had no objection whatever to produce the papers; but that if he were a friend of Mr. Langford, he would advise him not to press for them. He asked the hon. Gentleman, if he was resolved to persevere, to add after the word "Copies," "or Extracts"—that being the usual course in moving for papers of that kind. The hon. Gentleman, however, had not sufficient confidence in him or the Colonial Office to adopt that suggestion, for he thought they might omit something of importance. Nothing would have been omitted which the House had a right to see; and therefore he told the hon. Gentleman that he could not consent to give the Returns unless the words "or Extracts" were inserted in the Motion. He trusted the House would support him in requiring the insertion of those words. He would merely add the expression of his conviction that the charges were groundless and unworthy of the attention of the House. He should be inclined, on that account, to advise the House to refuse their assent to the Motion, were it not that it was better to have no concealment of any charges brought against public men. He should make an exception, however, with regard to the production of what was called "the Petition," which they did not consider an official document. It did not come through the Governor, but was put into the hands of his noble Friend the Secretary of State (the Duke of Newcastle) a short time ago by Mr. Maclure, who represented himself as charged by the inhabitants of Vancouver's Island to lay their grievances before the Colonial Office; a
  576
  character in which his noble Friend was not prepared to accept him. The Petition was divided into a number of heads, under which charges were brought against the Governor, the Chief Justice, the Colonial Secretary, the Attorney General, the Surveyor General, the Legislative Assembly, and against the officials generally. He must take that opportunity of saying that Mr. Maclure made a most unwarrantable use of his interview with the noble Duke, for he wrote out to say that the noble Duke was about to dismiss Governor Douglas—implying that the dismissal was in consequence of representations that bad been made to the Colonial Office; and Governor Douglas had the mortification of reading in a colonial newspaper what appeared to infer that the Home Government had a bad opinion of him. It was true the Governor was about to leave his office, having filled it for a period much beyond the usual term; but he would retire not in the way Mr. Maclure said, but with the utmost credit to himself, and with a feeling of particular respect or the part of the noble Duke. He should move that the words "or Extracts" be inserted after "Copies."
  MR. AYTOUNwanted to know why the Colonial Office would not agree to present the whole of the Correspondence.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that substantially the entire Correspondence would be produced; but he insisted on the insertion of the words he had proposed as a matter of principle, and he-cause the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion would not agree to propose it in the terms which every hon. Member moving for papers generally adopted.
  MR. MALINSsaid, it seemed that Mr. Langford was dissatisfied with everything and everybody in the Colony, and he was sure the House would receive with caution charges made under such circumstances against his relative, the Attorney General, who was a young man distinguished for his ability and integrity, or against the Chief Justice of British Columbia. The only thing to be regretted was, that in a Colony of such rising importance as Vancouver's Island the Chief Justice should be wholly unconnected with the law. Chief Justice Cameron, however honourable he might be as a commercial man, did not possess the legal qualifications for the office.
  MR. WYLDremarked that the appointment of Chief Justice Cameron went to some extent to support the complaint of

  577
  Mr. Langford. He, however, deprecated a discussion pending the production of the papers.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONhoped the hon. Member would agree to the insertion of the words "or Extracts." That was the invariable form in which documents were moved for, and it stood upon the best possible grounds. In all Correspondence there were personal allusions and matters of detail that had no bearing upon the matter before the House. If the hon. Member did not agree to the Amendment, the Government must object altogether to produce the papers.
  MR. FITZWILLIAMsaid, he would adopt the Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the best course to adopt would be to withdraw the Motion, and to take it as an unopposed return.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PUBLIC WORKS.—OBSERVATIONS.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the want of efficient control of the Public Works of the Country, and to the necessity of the re-organization of the Board of Works, with a view to remedy the evil. In doing so it was not his object to make any charge against the persons connected with the office of Public Works. The First Commissioner was respected by all who knew him; and with regard to the staff, he might say that it was impossible for the country to be served by more faithful and able servants. What he maintained was, that the First Commissioner of Works was no Commissioner of Works at all, and that his office was not practically an office connected with the public works of the country. Under that office 120 buildings in England were kept in repair, and twenty-four in Scotland. As many as seventeen parks and garden grounds, eighty post office buildings, and forty-one probate registries were under its administration, and £28,000 a year were expended for the rent of certain offices. The First Commissioner of Works might, therefore, be termed the First Commissioner of Parks, Palaces, and Public Offices. The public works of the country were really conducted by all the Departments of the Government, each Department conducting those with which it was connected. Thus it was considered that the Admiralty must have the charge of the works for the dockyards, harbours, and works connected with
578
them. In a neighbouring country the administration of the public works was conducted in a different way, and he wished something like the plan there adopted to be followed in this country. In France, if the state of the dockyards or harbours required attention, the matter was submitted to the Minister of Public Works, who was aided by a permanent Council, and after full consideration the wishes of the Admiralty were carried out by the Department of Public Works, which dealt with the matter in an able, practical, and businesslike manner. Let the House consider whether the Admiralty in this country conducted the works under its care in a way to deserve the confidence of the country. With regard to Keyham, the estimates presented to that House had been exceeded by four times the original amount. The first estimate for Alderney harbour was £665,000, and the House was assured that it would not be exceeded; but £1,500,000 was now required to finish only one moiety of the harbour, which in its incomplete state would be perfectly useless as a protection against the greater number of storms occurring in that quarter. Having been acquainted with Mr. Walker, the engineer of Alderney harbour, and having always found his estimates accurately prepared and his plans carefully considered, he was anxious to discover how it was that the estimate had been so far exceeded. The fact was that scarcely were the works commenced when an official visit was made to the harbour by the Lords of the Admiralty, who took the clerk of the works into their confidence, and altogether changed the plan of the harbour. Scarcely anything of the original design was left—amongst other alterations they directed the piers to be carried out where the water was 125 to 128 feet deep instead of 60 feet. Of what use was it their voting sums of money if estimates were to be exceeded and plans abandoned without their sanction? Such a thing could not have happened in France, for there all the plans were in the first place fully considered by the proper authorities, and no contractor ever hesitated to accept the official estimate; and in the works carried out by his firm in that country, involving the expenditure of millions, he had never known the estimate to be fallacious. He wished to know why such a mode of proceeding could not be adopted in England. It might be said that the system of centralization which prevailed in France was a system which the people of this country would not allow to

579
be established here; but, still, without entirely approving that system, they might learn from it how to correct some of the errors existing in their own system. Holy-head harbour had been four times changed in its plan—so that it was evident that in the first instance no well-considered plan had been adopted. At Jersey, a large amount of money, £500,000 or £600,000, had been expended on the harbour, but the works had since been abandoned. The Board of Admiralty did not do their work efficiently. Neither did the Board of Trade with regard to the harbours remitted to its superintendence. Why, the other night Portpatrick was spoken of, and positively his right hon. Friend had never seen the harbour, and no one was responsible for the expenditure to which the House stood pledged. Therefore, it was well worth the consideration of the House whether some alteration should not be made in the present mode of conducting these matters. He thought that with regard to the Board of Trade some change should be effected. He did not object to the Board of Trade having the charge of the ordinary commercial business of the harbour, but the public works connected with harbours, as well as all the public works in the country, he would transfer to the Board of Public Works, and give to the Minister of Public Works enlarged and increased responsibility. A great many public works were carried out under the administration of the Horse Guards, and other Departments. He would remodel the Office of Works altogether, and place at the head of it a responsible Minister, under whose control all the public works of the country, for which Votes were passed in that House, should be placed. That Minister should be responsible to the House for the preparation of careful estimates, and the engineers and architects should also he made responsible to the Minister. The excesses which marked the estimates for public works in this country were unknown on the Continent. In Prance, in Prussia, in Austria, and in Italy, the contrast to England in the matter of public works was most disgraceful to us. His right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works might fancy that he would be subject to very great responsibility under such a plan; but the fact was, that in accordance with the suggested change he would be assisted by three or four practical men, who would act as a council to him, and who, not being changed with each successive Ministry,
580
would keep up a continuous control—while the Minister of Public Works, with a seat in the House, would always be amenable to Parliament.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he did not know how far his hon. Friend might be sanguine in effecting a change in the Board of Works; but for himself he was in perfect despair at the manner in which our public works were carried on. Night after night hon. Members came down to the House and said nothing could be more ridiculous and wasteful than the mode in which money was voted; yet whenever a Motion on the subject was brought forward, one had no more support from one's friends than from the Government—they literally seemed to be playing into each other's hands, and he supposed they would go on squandering money year after year. They were perpetually voting money for the purchase of houses in the vicinity of that building at five times their value, because the Government had not foresight to buy them up at the proper time. The "abomination of desolation" must go on; and if it got much worse, then there would be some hope that Parliament would interfere. He wished, however, to ask a question of his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Cowper) with regard to the public statues in this metropolis. He desired to know who had the control of the public monuments. He saw from a Return made to Parliament that a certain number of our monuments were under the kind protection of the right hon. Gentleman; but with regard to the rest there seemed to be no control whatever to prevent absurdities or monstrosities being put up. In passing through Leicester Square that day he saw a saw a statue of, he believed, one of the Jameses or Georges, on horseback; but the statue was actually without legs. The figure, which was represented to be in armour, had, moreover, only one arm, and by what ingenuity it managed to sit on the horse he could not comprehend. Yet this statue had been put up in the classical land of foreigners, who looked upon Leicester Square as the metropolis of London-He should like to know who was responsible for this absurdity, and whether, at any rate, there was no possibility of the right hon. Gentleman having a greater control over the public monuments than he seemed to possess. Again, he went recently to see the public monuments in St. Paul's Cathedral, and found them in a state disgraceful to the country. He believed those monu-

581
ments were not in the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but he should be glad to learn who had any control over them. But all this proved what the hon. Baronet (Sir Morton Peto) had said—namely, that there ought to be a Minister of Public Works who would undertake the charge of all works of a public character, and especially of the public monuments. Until that was done there would be no improvement, and until there was an improvement our monuments would be a subject of ridicule to all "intelligent foreigners" who happened to visit them.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that having been connected with the Board of Admiralty at a time when some of the alterations of plans which had been impugned took place, he felt bound to defend that Department from the accusations that had been levelled against it. With respect to Alderney, there had, no doubt, been an alteration in the plans. The original estimate was for a smaller work, designed by Mr. Walker, who was deserving of all the eulogiums which had been passed upon him. When these works at Alderney were originally designed, the harbour was intended to receive three or four steamers, Alderney being considered a kind of watch-tower against Cherbourg. But in those days steamers were very small vessels as compared with the vessels now built; and when the great increase in the size of steamers took place, it became necessary to alter the plans for Alderney, and to enlarge them so as to enable the harbour to accommodate the larger vessels. Whether the matter had been under the control of the Admiralty or the Board of Works, or of some fanciful Minister of Works, the alteration must have been made, or the public interests would have been injuriously affected. The hon. Gentleman then spoke of Keyham. It had been said that Gentlemen on the front Opposition bench always joined with the Government in passing enlarged estimates; but the reason of that was that Gentlemen on the opposite bench had been in office, and knew at least something about the matter. The original proposal for the purchase of Keyham was made by a Government connected with the party now sitting opposite, and with respect to that dockyard the same thing happened as at Alderney. It was found that the plans as originally framed were inadequate for the demands of a navy composed of larger vessels than existed at the time of the commencement of the
582
undertaking. Sir James Graham, who at first had objected to Keyham, afterwards found it necessary to propose a consider able increase in the estimates and to construct larger works. When he (Sir C. Wood) was First Lord of the Admiralty, he found that the largest dock of Sir James Graham's construction would not receive the Himalaya, and he was obliged to order the removal of the head of a dock to allow that most useful vessel to be received into the yard. Would any one say that it would have been good economy to permit the works at Keyham to be constructed upon the original scale, so as to be utterly useless for our present wants? Then, as to Holyhead, after the original plan and estimate were agreed to, there came a cold fit upon the House of Commons, and upon the recommendation of a Committee the plans were reduced. Soon afterwards the Lords of the Admiralty visited Holyhead, and found that the increased size of war steamers, and the demands of Irish Members for speedy communication between this country and Ireland, rendered it necessary to increase the works. An alteration, therefore, was again made; but would the House say that that alteration was improper? In that, as in the other cases, if those alterations had not been made, the alternative would have been the expenditure of public money upon works which, when completed, would have been of no public advantage. Some remarks had been made as to the advantage which some Departments, such as the Home Office and the Colonial Office, enjoyed of having permanent officers well acquainted with the business of the Departments, and who were able to assist by their experience and knowledge successive Secretaries of State; but the same state of things existed at the Admiralty. There was a director of public works, who was a permanent officer. When he first became connected with the Admiralty he found Colonel Bradford filling that office, and subsequently it had been filled by Colonel Lee. Every first Lord and Board of Admiralty had been able to obtain the assistance of one of those able and distinguished officers, who filled permanent appointments, and were intimately acquainted with everything that was in course of progress.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, that any suggestions on this subject coming from the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury were deserving the careful consideration of the House; but he feared that to adopt a

583
system of centralization such as bad been proposed would not be conducive to the interests of the country. The charge of the whole of the public works would surpass the physical capacity of any single official, even if one could be found sufficiently skilled in all the different branches of construction to be able to direct them. If the Government, for instance, wanted to build fortifications they must intrust the undertaking, not to a civil, but to a military engineer. In the same way an ordinary architect would not be competent to superintend the formation of docks—a man of Special training would be required for that duty. It was true, no doubt, that harbours had been built which were not large enough for vessels of the new and improved character, but that was owing to a change of circumstances for which the Admiralty, who had acted on the best advice, were not to blame. In his opinion, each Department ought to be left to deal with its own works.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYheld that the Government ought to bear the full responsibility of the public works. He recollected that when, some time ago, money was obtained for Alderney, it was then represented as a harbour of refuge; but it was afterwards admitted that that was a mere pretence, and that the real object of the harbour was to watch Cherbourg. He did not think such deceptions ought to be practised on the House.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that the Estimate for Holyhead harbour had already increased to about £1,500,000, and that he believed something like £500,000 more would be required to complete the works.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the proposal of the hon. Member for Finsbury, to add engineering works to the business already intrusted to the Office of Works was a strange one. The French system was not what the hon. Gentleman had represented it to be, but much more resembled the system in this country. In France public works were under six different Departments. Engineering works could not be properly combined with architectural works under one office. In the case of harbours, the naval authorities must have authority to decide, as they only could know the requirements of ships. But, assuming that the erection of buildings, their repair and maintenance, was to be kept in one Department, and engineering works in another, then he thought the hon. Baronet had raised an important question. That question was how we could best combine the perma-
584
nent administrative element of the office of Works with the political and Parliamentary element—that ordinary routine administration which followed precedent with that enterprising policy which fluctuated according to changes of opinion, and which was likely to be influenced by the division list of that House. An undue predominance of the former would render the office bureaucratic, while the excess of the latter would lead to capricious changes. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) was anxious altogether to supersede the political element, and to leave the conduct of the Office exclusively to the permanent and administrative element. But that was impossible; for the permanent officers of the establishment, however able they might be, could not propose Votes to Parliament or introduce measures requiring Parliamentary sanction. If the post of First Commissioner were to be abolished to-morrow, the permanent officers would be obliged to apply to the Treasury to get their views carried into effect; and the Treasury would naturally insist upon having its own opinions carried out, and would not make itself subservient to the permanent officers of another Department. Hence the result of obliterating altogether the political element of the Office of Works would be to place the affairs of the Office under another Department, which could not give sufficient attention to them. The hon. Member was right in principle when he proposed that there should be a permanent Council. At present, indeed, that principle was recognised in the arrangements of the Office, not for the ordinary routine work of the Department, but for those new and important works which were occasionally required to be executed. The permanent staff was sufficient to conduct the ordinary business. Mr. Pennethorne was an able architect; the surveyors did their work well; the administration of the parks had given general satisfaction; and it was a fact that the ordinary Estimates had very rarely been exceeded—a statement which could not be made with respect to France. A permanent Council would not be of much use for the ordinary business of the Office; but, in regard to such matters as the selection of designs for great works, he thought it was very desirable. But practically, as he had said, there was a Council already. The designs for the National Gallery, the Houses of Parliament, and

585
the Foreign Office were judged, not by the First Commissioner, or by the permanent officers of the Department, but by competent persons nominated for the purpose. There was such a strong party spirit in the architectural profession that it would be very difficult to name any Council of Architects which would give general satisfaction. The profession was divided into two hostile camps, the one being in favour of Gothic and the other of the classical or Palladian style; and it would constantly happen that the persons forming the Council were not those whom they would desire to select for the particular work in hand. A safer course would be to select the best architect that could be found, and when his design was approved, to leave him to carry out that design according to his individual taste and judgment. With regard to the statue in Leicester Square, and the dirty state of the statues in St, Paul's, the Office of Works had no authority over either—if they had, they would at once recommend that arms and legs should be provided for the first statue, and that the others should be cleansed. The works which had been executed during the time that he had been at the Office of Works were such as the hon. Member had not been able to attack. Among them was the new gallery in the National Gallery—a room which was admitted to be perfectly successful as to the lighting and the proper exhibition of the pictures. So also with the restorations at Windsor Castle. The new Westminster Bridge had been universally approved. With respect to the fountains in Trafalgar Square, the basin had been made alive with a great number of jets, the whole making, he thought, a very pretty composition. At all events, something had been done there towards remedying what was previously a great defect. His hon. Friend, then, had not, in his opinion, made out any case for altering this department of the Government; and it would not be expedient to establish a permanent Council, as such a body would not have that responsibility and unity of action which it was desirable to secure in a well-administered office.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had made a very good speech, but what was wanted was some Minister who could be responsible for all public works. For instance, the original estimate for constructing the harbour of Al-
586
derney, was £650,000, whereas it had been found that the completion of only one pier would cost £1,300,000; and to make an efficient harbour and place of defence would require about £2,000,000. Instead of leaving it to Departments, which proceeded by driblets, a detailed statement of the works required, with the reasons for any change that might be considered necessary in the original plans, should be submitted to Parliament, in order that they might exercise some proper control over the expenditure. The question of public works was one of much greater importance than the Government seemed to think, and it must be dealt with sooner or later.

THE ATTACK OH TRINGANU.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  SIR JOHN HAYrose to call the attention of the House to an attack on Tringanu on the 12th November last, and to move for papers. The question had been asked where Tringanu was, and some explanation was necessary for those who were not acquainted with the Eastern seas. Tringanu was the capital of Johore, the southern province of the Kingdom of Siam; it was situated on a river of the same name, and contained a population of about 30,000 persons. The town had been under the government of Siam ever since the Treaty of 1784, and there was a large amount of English capital embarked in the tin mines there. In 1860 the exports of the place amounted to £85,680, whilst in 1862 they had increased to £102,814. In 1810 the Emperor of Johore died, and the Dutch supported the claims of his younger son; but some years afterwards the English took up the cause of the eldest son and seated him upon the throne. The Dutch then made the younger son Sultan of a small island called Linga; but his lineal descendant, having been expelled in 1857, took refuge at Singapore. He was, however, in no sense a British subject. In 1862 he went in a steamer sent by the King of Siam to visit his relative, the Governor of Tringanu, and was therefore travelling under the safe-conduct of the King of Siam. The adjoining province was in a disturbed state, and umbrage was taken at the residence of the ex-Sultan of Linga at Tringanu; and therefore Colonel Durand the Secretary of the Government of India wrote to Colonel Cavenagh authorizing him to use force, if necessary, to remove the

  587
  ex-Sultan from Tringanu. Colonel Cavenagh first wrote to Sir Robert Schomburgk, our Consul at Bangkok, requesting him to endeavour to persuade the Siamese Court to give up the ex-Sultan, and this request was favourably considered by the Siamese Government. Before an answer had been received, however, he despatched the Scout and another vessel of war, under the command of Captain Corbett, who was accompanied by Major Macpherson, an Indian political officer—the course usually adopted in the East when a wrong was to be done—to Tringanu, to demand, and if necessary compel, the surrender of the ex-Sultan. On their arrival Major Macpherson visited the Rajah, by whom he was hospitably received, and demanded the person of the ex-Sultan. The Rajah said, that if the ex-Sultan was willing to accompany the British officer, he would offer no objection. The ex-Sultan of Linga, however, refused to go, and called upon the Rajah to protect him. The Rajah thereupon declined to give him up, but undertook to guarantee that he should not embroil himself with the civil war which was raging in the neighbourhood. Major Macpherson thereupon returned on board the Scout and called upon Captain Corbett to use force. Captain Corbett was obliged to obey orders, but, not liking to fire on an unarmed town, he sent a boat on shore giving them twelve hours to consider whether they would comply or not. At the expiration of that time he commenced to bombard the town from a distance of 4,000 yards with Armstrong shells. Captain Corbett did his best to fire only upon the palace and the fort, but, owing to the rolling of the ship, some of the shells fell into this populous town and set it on fire. The bombardment continued during the night, and next morning, when a boat was sent on shore, it was found that the ex-Sultan had wisely left the town and retreated into the forest. The squadron returned to Singapore, where they found that a letter had during their absence been received from the Siamese Court, stating that as soon as possible a steamer should be sent to Tringanu to remove the ex-Sultan and take him to Bangkok. Thus, if they had waited, they would have gained their object, whereas by this outrage we were disgraced in the Indian seas, and the end for which this violence was committed was not attained. He hoped the noble Lord would consent to lay the whole of the Correspondence on the table; but the only letter with which he need
  588
  trouble the House was that of the second King of Siam to Earl Russell, calling upon the noble Earl to do justice. It was as follows:—
  The Siamese Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Right Honourable the Earl Russell, K.G., Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, &c. &c. &c.
  Dated Bangkok, 27 November 1862.
  My Lord,
  "I have the honour to inform your Lordship, that when the Siamese Ambassadors visited England on a friendly mission to the British Court, they requested that in any matters of difficulty or doubt they might be permitted to advise with the British Government in London. They were informed, that in any such matters the Siamese were to write through the British Consul at Bangkok, who would forward their Despatches, and an explanation would be sent out to them through the same channel.
  "In the present instance, Sultan Mahomet, ex-Sultan of Lingah, whom the Dutch deposed some time ago, went to Tringanu, and from thence took a passage in one of the Singora cruising vessels to Bangkok, in July 1861, and at an audience of his Majesty, the first King of Siam, informed his Majesty that he and his ancestors had been sultans of Lingah; but the Dutch being displeased with him, sent him out of his country. He then took up his abode at Rhio, and afterwards at Singapore and Pahang: in the latter place he lived three years. From Pahang he went to Tringanu, and as the rajah of that place is his maternal uncle, he came to Siam to pay his respects to his Majesty. His Majesty, from courtesy, ordered a suitable place of residence, and provided for him in accordance with his position, as a Malayan rajah, on a visit to Bangkok.
  "He remained in Bangkok 11 months; and in June last took his departure to return to his mother at Tringanu. As a Siamese steamer was then about to start on a cruise to Ligore and Singora, a passage was given to him in her as far as Tringanu.
  "In August last Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at Bangkok sent me copy of a letter from the Governor of Singapore, stating that the ex-Sultan of Lingah, in going to Tringanu, had instigated Wan Ahmet to fresh disturbances in Pahang, and requested the Siamese Government to use measures to quell those disturbances.
  "The Siamese Government sent instructions to the Rajah of Tringanu, and replies to Sir Robert Schomburgk, Her Britannic Majesty's Consul, on four different occasions, the nature of which will be seen by referring to the correspondence, copies of which Sir Robert Schomburgk informs me will be sent by this opportunity to your Lordship,
  "On the 6th instant, Her Britannic Majesty's Consul wrote me, handing copies of letters from the Governor of Singapore, and stating that the Siamese must send a vessel to bring back the ex-Sultan of Lingah without fail.
  "The Siamese Government submit, that as the ex-Sultan of Lingah is a Dutch subject, the demand that the Siamese should Bend a steamer to bring him here, and take charge of him, because of the unsettled condition of the small State of Pahang, which is not a British territory, is, to say the least, most unjust. But the Siamese Government, not wishing in any manner that there should

  589
  be the slightest misunderstanding, requested me to write in reply, that the steamer "Alligator" would be despatched for the ex-Sultan of Linga, but that vessel not being in readiness to start at once, it would require some days to put her in a state to proceed. All this was fully explained in that letter.
  "On the 17th instant the steamer "Alligator" left this for Tringanu; and on the 24th instant Her Britannic Majesty's Consul wrote me, handing copies of documents from the Governor of Singapore, in which the Siamese Government are informed that the Governor of Singapore had in the mean time sent vessels of war to Tringanu for the ex-Sultan of Lingah; and on not securing his person, had bombarded the town on the 11th instant, before the letter of Her Britannic Majesty's Consul, with the reply of the Siamese Government, could reach Singapore.
  "The recent assault upon Tringanu has been entirely occasioned through the disturbances in Pa-hang, which have been going on for, more or less, some two years, caused by Inchi Wan Ahmet and his brother, the Bandahara of Pahang, fighting for the possession of that territory.
  "The statements of the Bandahara, that the inhabitants of Pahang suspect the ex-Sultan of Lingah as instigating Inchi Wan Ahmet, and that the Rajah of Tringanu is favourable to the cause of Inchi Wan Ahmet, have been made solely on the part of the Bandahara of Pahang, and his relative the Tumongong of Johore, through his agents, Messrs. Paterson, Simons & Company, of Singapore; but on the parts of the Sultan Mahomet and the Rajah of Tringanu, their statements have not been heard, so the above assertions are not reliable.
  "The bombardment of Tringanu, by authority of his Highness the Governor of Singapore, has been the cause of much alarm to the Siamese Government, as they were of opinion, that having concluded a treaty with a powerful nation like Great Britain, who had appointed a Consul at Bangkok, they could in any difficulties advise freely and confidentially with him, and thereby avoid any misunderstanding; and consequently have always felt grateful to the British Government, who they are aware entertain friendly sentiments towards Siam; they therefore were under the impression that they were beyond such calamities as the recent one. I trust your Lordship will give this matter due investigation, as the Siamese Government look up to the British for assistance and advice in matters of a like nature, brought about by other powers."
  CHOW PHYA PHRAKLANG,(L.S.) Minister for Foreign Affairs.
  The defence of the Governor of Singapore that he did not know that Tringanu belonged to Siam was a pure piece of ignorance; for, by the 12th article of Captain Burner's treaty, it was provided that—
  "Siam shall not go and obstruct or interrupt commerce in the States of Tringanu and Calantate. English merchants and subjects shall have trade and intercourse in future with the same facility and freedom as they have hitherto had, and the English shall not go and molest, attack, or disturb those States upon any pretence whatever."
  He held in his hand the letter of Captain Corbett, but would not trouble the House
  590
  by reading it, but perhaps he might be permitted to read the Petition of a British merchant, who set forth his injuries in the following manner:—
  "Unto the Hon. Colonel Orfeur Cavenagh, Governor of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca.
  "The Petition of Neo Swee Kam, of Singapore, trader.
  "Humbly Showeth,—That your Petitioner is a British subject, carrying on business as a general trader in the town of Singapore; that in the course of his said business he trades extensively in piece goods, hides, and other merchandise with the native towns on the eastern coast of the Malayan Peninsula, and more particularly with the town and port of Tringanu.
  "That your Petitioner heretofore had entered into large contracts with various traders at the port of Tringanu, for the purpose of importing buffalo hides and other native produce from Tringanu to Singapore, and also for exporting from Singapore to Tringanu various European and other productions; and in the month of November last your Petitioner was possessed of property at the said town and port of Tringanu to the extent of upwards of nine thousand Spanish dollars (9,000 dollars), which said property consisted of goods and merchandise, and of debts owing from various traders in Tringanu to your Petitioner, for merchandise exported by your Petitioner from the port of Singapore to the said port of Tringanu.
  "That, on or about the 11th day of the said month of November, the said town and fort of Tringanu were attacked and bombarded for two consecutive days by Her Majesty's war-steamers the Scout and Coquette, and your Petitioner is informed and believes that the said town and port were very much damaged and destroyed, and many of the inhabitants killed and wounded in the said attack and bombardment.
  "That your Petitioner, on or before the said attack, did not know of any cause of war between Her Majesty's Government and the Government or people of Tringanu, nor had he any notice or knowledge of any intended attack upon the Said town and port of Tringanu, nor any means of obtaining such knowledge; and he had no means or opportunity of removing his goods and merchandise, or of collecting and receiving the monies due to him at the said town and port before the aforesaid attack and bombardment.
  "That your Petitioner has been informed that his goods and merchandise at Tringanu have all been destroyed or lost to him in consequence of the said attack, and your Petitioner has also been informed by one Lim Keng Jin, who has come to Singapore from Tringanu since its bombardment, that all your Petitioner's debtors and correspondents have been killed or left the said port of Tringanu in consequence of the said bombardment; and that all their property and trade have been utterly ruined by the said bombardment, whereby they will be unable to pay the debts which they owe to your Petitioner, or to carry out the contracts which they had made with your Petitioner prior to the said attack and bombardment.
  "That your Petitioner has sustained very great loss and damage in consequence of the said attack and bombardment.

  591
  "And your Petitioner therefore humbly pray that your Honour will be pleased to cause an investigation to be made as to the amount of loss and damage sustained by your Petitioner in consequence of the said attack and bombardment, and to order the same, when ascertained, to be paid over to your Petitioner; or that your Honour will be pleased to give to your Petitioner such further or other compensation and relief as to your Honour may seem meet.
  "And your Petitioner will ever pray, &c. (Signed) "NEO SWEE KAM.
  "Singapore, Dec. 1862.
  "(A true copy. W. H. Read, J.P.)"
  The reply of the Governor of Singapore was that it was out of his power to grant any compensation for losses alleged to have been suffered at Tringanu. The occurrence was disgraceful to England, and it had been characterized by Sir James Brooke as the most cruel and illegal act that had ever taken place in the Eastern seas. Instead of causing the Malays to be submissive to British rule, it would have the contrary effect, and very probably induce them to have recourse to retaliatory measures. He trusted that the whole of the papers would be laid on the table, so that the House might be able to judge who was to blame for this most disgraceful outrage.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the 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 any Papers relating to the attack on Tringanu on the 12th day of November 1862,"—(Sir John Hay,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that while he could not complain that the Motion had been brought forward, he was not in a position to state at what decision the Government had arrived with respect to the transaction to which it related, inasmuch as they had not yet received the official Report from the Government of India. No one was more anxious than himself to prevent transactions of this questionable character—for that he admitted it to be—but it was only fair to the officers concerned, and who were intrusted with great responsibility, that the Government should not form any decided opinion on their conduct until they had been made acquainted with the whole facts. He must, however, say, that upon a perusal of the papers he
  592
  had on the subject, he thought the course taken was at least precipitate. The ex-Sultan of Linga had been expelled by the Dutch because he had been remarkably troublesome, and he then took refuge in Siam; but the origin of our interference was that the Rajah of the district called Pahang was exceedingly friendly to the English Government, trade to a considerable extent being carried on with that district. The ex-Sultan of Linga, having arrived at Tringanu, carried on hostilities against the Rajah of Pahang, the consequence being that the territory of the Rajah of Tringanu was made the basis of operations by which our trade was greatly interrupted. The Sultan of Tringanu, having been appealed to, refused to send away the ex-Sultan, and the town was bombarded by Captain Corbett, a most excellent officer, acting under the instructions of the Political Agent. He could not make out from the accounts which had reached this country whether anybody had been killed during the bombardment, but the operation was, so far as he could see, conducted with great discretion and humanity. He was perfectly willing, he might add, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would give him a list of the papers which he required, to produce them; and, under those circumstances, he would not, in all probability, deem it necessary to press his Motion that evening.
  MR. LIDDELLwished to direct attention to the fact that nine months had elapsed since this very doubtful transaction took place—the bombarding of the town of a friendly power by an English ship—and he thought the House of Commons had a right to complain that the Indian Government should have allowed so long a period to elapse without sending some information on the subject to the Home Government. That was one objection he had to urge upon this case; but there was another still stronger. This was part of an Oriental policy which he asked that House to watch most carefully, and he be-sought the House to put a stop to it as soon as possible. These transactions in the East were of the greatest importance to the honour and dignity of England. Here they were bombarding the town of a friendly Power without the slightest apparent reason, they had bombarded Ning-po without any ground of legality, and for aught they knew they might be bombarding Jeddo at this time. Such a policy as this it was time for the House of Commons to put an end to; and he hoped international lawyers

  593
  would raise their voices against it. The course which had been followed in this case was not one which a civilized country was justified in pursuing, and as long as he bad a seat in that House he would not cease to protest against a policy which resorted to the indiscriminate use of brute force against the weak nations of the East. Such a policy involved injustice, inhumanity, and every principle opposed to the ordinances of Christianity.
  LORD NAASsaid, it was very extraordinary that such an occurrence should have taken place as long ago as nine months, and that no official information should have been received. [Sir CHARLES WOOD said, that information had been received, but not in detail.] It was quite clear that the Governor of Singapore had taken upon himself to bombard a friendly town, and had not thought proper to send home to the Government an explanation of the reasons which induced him to take so serious a step. It only showed the reckless manner in which our officials in those seas were in the habit of proceeding, and he thought the time was come when the Government ought to issue distinct instructions not only to the Governors of minor settlements, but to the naval commanders, that they were not to fire a shot without the express orders of the Admiralty, except in self-defence. Our naval officers would then be able to reply to any requisition, that if a British settlement was not assailed, they had no power to interfere, and this country might be saved from a serious and expensive war. Our merchants went to these distant places to trade upon their own responsibility; and if there were political disturbances interfering with their operations, they must not expect us to mix ourselves up in miserable dynastic quarrels. It was clear to him that in this case our officials had been carrying on an unauthorized war, and in his opinion that was one of the most serious crimes which a man could commit. He was sorry to say this was not the first time such an occurrence had taken place, and he sincerely hoped the Government would assure them that steps would be taken to put a stop to such things for the future. He should like to know whether any answer had been given to the statement of the Emperor of Siam, and what was to be done respecting the refugee Sultan, whom we had driven with our shells out of Tringanu.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ACCIDENTS ON RAILWAYS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the subject of accidents on railways, and to move that, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government to legislate for the better prevention of such accidents. The progress of science, and various other causes, had led to a complete monopoly by railways of the whole locomotion of the country, and their safety was a matter affecting almost every member of the community. This, he thought, rendered it sufficient for that House and the Government to interfere, if proper cause for interference could be shown. He thought he might ask, whether, during the last few years, there had not arisen a great feeling of insecurity on the part of the public with reference to railway travelling. Many inquiries had taken place on this subject; but this was a subject which should be grappled with in a satisfactory manner, for it involved the safety of every member of the community, of every class, and of both sexes. If he could show that any great number of the accidents resulting from the frightful casualties that had occurred could have been prevented by legislative interference, he thought he should have made out a case for Government to deal with the question, and upon them he should fix the responsibility for the future if they failed to take measures to provide against their recurrence. On previous occasions his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had argued against Government interference on the ground of the difficulties inherent in dealing with the question. He admitted that there were difficulties, but that was no reason for inaction. That there were difficulties which none but Governments could deal with was the very reason why Governments were required. The point to which he wished specially to call attention was the amount of speed obtained in railway travelling, because he believed the great majority of accidents was to be attributed to that rate of speed. Such was the general opinion of those who had given evidence upon the question. Five years ago he had the honour of presiding over a Committee which sat upon railway accidents, and in their Report they stated that a rate of speed beyond what was safe was attained on many of the lines, and that the evidence showed that such an excessive

  595
  rate of speed had arisen principally from the want of strict regularity in the times of departure. He wished to show that regularity was incompatible with the rate of speed now adopted. The Report went on to say—
  "Your Committee is therefore of opinion that it is incumbent on the Board of Trade to apply to Parliament for such further powers as may enable them to carry out such recommendations as, in the opinion of your Committee, would greatly diminish railway accidents."
  Bat what was the result? The result was that nothing was done—the result which usually followed the labours of Committees of that House. The interests involved, however, in the question were so great that it called for special energy on the part of the Government. What were the reasons which had been assigned for the inaction which had been displayed in dealing with that matter? These reasons were twofold. The first reason was, that any interference on the part of the Government with travelling on railways would diminish the responsibility of Directors, and would therefore tend to increase the number of accidents. Now, he readily admitted that any interference by the Government in the details of railway management would be most injudicious and mischievous. But he would confine his interference to the question of speed, and he contended that he would not by that means in any way interfere with the responsibility of railway Directors. The second reason assigned against any action in that matter, was one which he had heard urged some years ago by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. His right hon. Friend, upon that occasion, produced figures to show that out of many millions of persons who travelled by railways, there were only a few maimed or killed; and his right hon. Friend therefore contended that there was no necessity for any interference with the manner in which railway travelling was conducted. But that argument amounted to this—that the Government had no right to interfere for the preservation of only a limited number of the lives of Her Majesty's subjects. That was, however, the most inhuman doctrine that could possibly be advanced, and he was sure could not have been in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. If it could be shown that legislative interference would tend to decrease the number of railway accidents, he was prepared to assert that the response-
  596
  bility for every accident which could by that means be prevented must rest upon the Government that declined to act in the matter. He repeated that he only proposed to deal with the question of speed, and he was convinced that to over-speed the great majority of railway accidents were attributable. He would cite upon that subject a remarkable statement which had been made to him by a most competent authority, namely, Mr. Stephenson, who had succeeded to the business of the late Member for Whitby, and who was himself a great manufacturer of railway engines. That gentleman told him, that anxious as he naturally was, as a man of business, for expeditious travelling, he never, if he could avoid it, put his foot into an express train; and he went on to say, that any man who knew as much as he did of the risk which must be encountered by every train travelling at express speed, and who afterwards lost his life from travelling in such a train, would deserve to be buried at the cross roads as one who had been guilty of suicide. He might add that it was in all ordinary cases the manifest interest of the railway companies themselves to adopt a moderate rate of speed. He could understand, that if a particular company, travelling to the same point over a longer line, had to compete with the managers of a shorter line, and had, for that purpose, to travel with unusual rapidity, it would be their interest to travel at an exceptional speed. But the lives and limbs of Her Majesty's subjects ought not to be placed in continual danger to put money into the pockets of a particular line. The high rate of speed was the cause of great want of regularity. It was said that the public put a pressure on the railway companies, and insisted that they should be carried at a high rate of speed. But the people who entertained that feeling were not, he believed, the regular men of business, who wished, indeed, for speed, but, above all things, for regularity combined with safety; and those who called for high speed had really no interest in quick travelling, and were quite unaware of the risk. Besides, he should observe, that it was the duty of a Government, in this instance as in others, to endeavour to protect the public against the consequences of their own folly; and the virtual responsibility for all accidents that might occur would rest on the right hon. Gentleman and the Government if they evaded the duty of legislating in the matter. Con-

  597
  siderable attention had of late been directed to that question in consequence of the occurrence of some most serious railway accidents. One of the most remarkable of these accidents was that which had taken place on the Brighton line, and in that case the jury, by their verdict, had attributed the calamity entirely to the rapidity with which the train had been travelling. If his right hon. Friend had dealt with that question a few years ago, that accident, in all probability, would never have occurred, and he believed that a very serious responsibility must attach to his right hon. Friend if he refused any longer to deal with that subject.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government to legislate for the better prevention of Accidents on Railways,"—(Mr. Bentinck,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. DUTTONsaid, that the House was indebted to the hon. Member for the attention he had devoted to this subject, and it was to be regretted that the inquiry over which he presided with so much ability had not been more successful in its results. As a railway director be could say little on the subject of Government interference; he was not deputed by any of his colleagues to express their views; and he approached the subject with reserve. If the Government could introduce and pass a Bill that would do something to prevent railway accidents, that Act would, perhaps, be the most useful Bill of the Session. The course of proceedings at inquests on persons killed by accidents had generally been most unsatisfactory, and verdicts had been arrived at without the causes of the accidents being ascertained, notwithstanding the best engineering evidence the coroner could obtain. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the high rate of speed was the great cause of accidents. He thought that forty miles an hour was the highest railway speed consistent with the safety of the passengers. He agreed with the gentleman who never travelled in an express train when he could avoid it. Although the locomotives were better built now than formerly, the new permanent ways were net better constructed than the old ones, the gradients were steeper and the curves were
  598
  sharper; and therefore there was greater danger on the new than on the old lines. But the railway directors were not to blame in the matter of punctuality in the starting of the trains—it was chiefly attributable to the public themselves—they never would come in time. Only a few days ago he had travelled by a train on the South Western, and ten minutes after the time at which the train should have started luggage was being put into the van. It was true that by their by-laws companies had the power of closing the doors five minutes before the train started; and it might be said why did they not do it? Simply because the people would pull the doors down if they did. In France they started their trains with great regularity. The express from Paris to Marseilles was probably the most punctual train in Europe. It left Paris at eleven in the morning and arrived at Marseilles at 6·15 the following morning, the distance being 524 miles. That express never travelled more than thirty miles an hour, but its remarkable punctuality made up for its want of greater speed. And it was much more advantageous to a man of business to travel at a lower rate of speed, with a certainty of being at his journey's end within the appointed time, than to be carried at a higher rate of speed, with the chance of being an hour or two behind his time.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he did not wish to discuss the general question of Government interference. He admitted, that if Parliament should be of opinion that it was advisable to have more legislative interference with the management of our railways, it would be the duty of the Board of Trade to endeavour to overcome any difficulties that might exist in respect to such interference. He also admitted that though the inquiry which bad been conducted by the Committee presided over by his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had not led to any legislative action, it had, in all probability, effected considerable benefit in indicating to railway directors the points in respect to which their management might be improved. His hon. Friend now wanted the Board of Trade to ask for power to interfere in railway management with a view of preventing accidents; but he did not think his hon. Friend had distinctly defined the direction in which it was desirable to supply such power.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had distinctly stated that the Board of Trade ought to

  599
  have power to interfere when they thought that the speed was in excess of what it ought to he.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the proposition of his hon. Friend was that the Board of Trade should regulate the speed of railway trains. But how was that question to be decided? Speed was a relative term. What might be a very safe speed on one line might be a very unsafe speed on another line. There were several circumstances which had a bearing on the point—such as the general management of the line, the condition of the permanent way, the condition of the rolling stock, the nature of the curves, and the inclines of the gradients; and it would be monstrous to limit a well-constructed and well-managed railway to the minimum of speed of a railway in which these conditions were reversed; and when it was remembered that the weather affected the condition of the permanent way, it would be manifest that even on the same line what might be a safe rate of speed one day would not be so on the day following. The Board of Trade should have a sliding scale of speed; and he did not think that Department would be able to encounter the management of such a system. Their doing so would involve the necessity of a vexatious and constant interference, and it would relieve railway directors of much of the responsibility which at present properly attached to them. If it were shown to juries that accidents occurred from culpable neglect, or from trains travelling at a speed the condition of the rolling stock or of the permanent way did not admit of, they would take the circumstances into consideration in estimating the amount of damages they might be called upon to give, and the liability of the directors to pay such damages was the best security for the public safety. He therefore preferred to leave the matter where it was, and he must therefore decline to hold out any hope that the Government would propose legislation with the view of regulating the speed of railway trains. He did not know of one Inspector of Railways who recommended such an interference. The circumstance of a few persons being killed or injured would not entitle them to pass over the matter; for the sake even of a few it might be their duty to legislate, if legislation would prevent accidents; but it was satisfactory to know that there was the less occasion for such interference now than formerly because he believed that the increased speed on our
  600
  railways had been accompanied by improved regulation and improved management; and that the public were getting each year the increased convenience of rapid communication with the comfort of increased safety. In 1861 there were 56 accidents, resulting in the death of 46 persons, and injuries to 780. In 1862 there were only 52 accidents, with 24 deaths and 536 injuries of passengers. In 1861 the number of passengers carried by railways was 173,000,000. For 1862 he had not the exact Returns, but he thought the number carried might be taken at 180,000,000. For the first half of the present year there had been 16 accidents, with 4 deaths of passengers and 165 injuries. Thus there had been a gradual improvement, and a strong reason was afforded why the House should let the matter alone and not take into its hands a work which it would never successfully accomplish—the regulation of railway traffic. Speed had not been the cause of very many accidents. The Inspectors' Reports showed that a very large proportion resulted from collisions, the negligence of servants, the want of a sufficient amount of break power, and so on. Interference with the rate of speed would not prevent these; while, with greater speed, longer intervals between the trains could be afforded, and the risk of collisions was therefore reduced. As to the next cause, where you had to rely on a great deal of human machinery you must take into account a certain occasional neglect of duty. In a large body of servants no legislation could prevent some negligence; and the best security for the vigilance of servants was the present state of the law, which made the master responsible for the culpable negligence of his servants, and for the injuries done visited him with heavy damages. Then another cause of accident was that trains sometimes got off the rails; this arose from the bad condition of the permanent way and from too high a speed in running on sharp curves. But these were casualties against which the Legislature could not provide; and his conclusion was that it would be better to leave the law as it stood. The Department over which he presided had always found railway boards ready to give full consideration to any representations made to them; and though the Board of Trade were not empowered by law to hold a court of inquiry into the causes of accidents, railway companies were only too happy to co-operate with the Inspectors in, finding out the real cause of these deplorable

  601
  accidents, with the view of providing a fitting remedy. Under these circumstances, he should not be justified in asking Parliament for powers to interfere in the management of railways, and to impose restrictions upon railway directors, and he hoped, therefore, that the House would not encourage the Motion.
  MR. RICHARD HODGSONsaid, that if railway Directors were subject to the supervision by legislative enactment of the Board of Trade, they would feel themselves relieved from a great portion of the responsibility which had rested upon them, and would cast the responsibility upon the Government Department. At the same time, he did not think that railway directors were remiss in endeavouring to provide against the recurrence of accidents, for it was their interest so to do, in order to avoid heavy damage, and thus protect the property of shareholders. If they permitted unpunctuality in their trains, and had to pay heavy damages, their losses would be quite deserved. Want of punctuality was the main cause of railway accidents; and to show that a high rate of speed was not, he would refer to the quick trains along the east coast between London and Edinburgh, and to the corresponding trains on the west coast, which had met with fewer accidents than any running an equal number of miles throughout the kingdom. The reason was very plain—the directors took care that the line was kept clear for the fast trains, and that proper arrangements were made for them. In fact, express trains were on the whole less subject to accidents than slow ones. Perhaps the House would hear with incredulity the opinion, that where accidents had occurred from railway trains running at undue speed, those accidents in the majority of cases had not occurred upon curves or severe gradients but upon straight and level portions of the line, and that a curve was rather a protection than otherwise where the train was going at a high rate of speed. He believed that this conclusion would be borne out by investigation. No doubt, if trains were run continuously at great speed, they would cause a greater wear and tear of the permanent way and rolling stock; but that was compensated by the increased fares taken for them from the passengers, and by the favour which they met from the public. In fact, if the proposal of the hon. Member were carried into effect, and the Government were to fix a maximum of thirty miles an hour, or were to attempt to
  602
  regulate the speed upon railways, the public would be highly dissatisfied, and the regulation would soon have to be repealed. If goods trains ran at undue speed, that was a fault on the part of the management; but the speed of express trains was not the principal cause of accidents.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISthought the hon. Member for West Norfolk deserved well of the country for bringing this subject forward. He believed the fast trains were the safest, on account of the extra attention that was paid to them. No doubt the principal cause of accidents on railways was want of punctuality—not want of punctuality at the starting, but at the intermediate stations; there was a loss of time at those stations, and this led to spasmodic efforts to make up the time, and consequent danger. It was essential that punctuality ought to be observed, not only at the terminus but at the intermediate stations. The directors of various railways must be gratified with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had whitewashed them. But the object of the Motion was not to cast blame upon directors, but to call attention to the causes of the too frequent accidents upon railways. The inquiry that was now made after an accident was little better than a farce, because it was made after all traces of the accident had been removed; but he thought the chief cause of accident was that to which he had referred, an attempt to keep time at the terminus after delays at intermediate stages. Until there was some law to make directors, or the railway investing public, feel in their pockets for the loss of life which continually occurred, there would be no hope of preventing these disasters.
  MR. CONINGHAMwas not quite certain that it would not be for the interest of the railway companies at least that the Government should fix a maximum of speed for travelling. But he believed that express trains were the safest, because the greatest care was taken with them. With stopping trains time was sometimes inevitably lost at intermediate stations, and then, to make up, a high rate of velocity was obtained, which was always attended with some degree of risk. Excursion trains were also a great source of accidents.
  MR. KINNAIRDthought that nothing had been said to alter his opinion of the judicious course adopted by the Government. Reference had been made to railways in France, but he hoped we should

  603
  never approximate to the French system of railway travelling; for if there was a greater nuisance than another, it was that of being compelled to come to the station half an hour before the time, and to be penned up in a room under lock and key till the train started—and then again, when you come to your journey's end, to be obliged to wait another half hour before you could get your luggage and be off.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Member below him (Mr. Richard Hodgson) were so much in his favour that he should not weaken their effect by any attempt at reply. He would, under the circumstances, withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

THE UNION MERCANTILE COMPANY OF PORTUGAL.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. AYRTON, in rising to call the attention of the House to the losses sustained by British subjects in consequence of the acts of the Government of Portugal respecting the Union Mercantile Company, said, the subject, although directly referring only to individuals, yet had an interest for all who invested capital in foreign undertakings. About five years since the Minister of Public Works in Portugal addressed shipowners in this country, expressing the desire of the Portuguese Government to establish steam communication between Portugal and the Western Coast of Africa. It was represented that the Crown of Portugal had sanctioned the establishment of a company, that the Legislature had approved the project, and had guaranteed a dividend of 7 per cent. The English capitalists desired a further guarantee, and requested the Government to appoint Commissioners to watch over the proceedings of the directors. That further guarantee was obtained, and the English capitalists agreed to subscribe an amount exceeding one-half of the entire capital. No sooner had the directors obtained money than they began to indulge in the most lavish expenditure. Meetings were held of an illusory character, without proper notice being given to the shareholders. At length a crash came, and the Portuguese Government advanced money, accepting in return an assignment of all the property of the company, and thus
604
becoming, in short, the mortgagee of the concern. The directors next proceeded to vote money to a large extent for their own remuneration. At that time the English shareholders, who held the great proportion of the subscribed capital, called a meeting to consider the affairs of the company; but the directors actually used the unissued capital as a qualification for votes, and thus defeated them. All this was done with the knowledge and countenance of the Government Commissioners; and when the English shareholders threatened to proceed against the Government for redress, their dividends were withheld, unless they would waive all protest against the illegalities from which their property had suffered. The English shareholders were advised by Portuguese counsel that they were entitled to sue the Government for redress; but it soon became apparent that such a suit would be a mere mockery. The English Government had already expressed sympathy for these ill-used capitalists. It was of course a delicate task for them to interfere in regard to a small State like Portugal. They could not follow the example of the Emperor of the French, and send a man-of-war into the Tagus; but they might, by their remonstrances, teach the Government of Portugal that such a gross fraud—for it was nothing less—as had been perpetrated in this case was not to be glossed over. He understood that his Motion for papers could not now be put, but he hoped the Government would not refuse them.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he had already informed his hon. Friend that the Government were ready to lay on the table any papers connected with this question which he desired. This was a very complicated subject, and it was impossible for him to go into it. It appeared to him, however, from the perusal of the papers, that the English capitalists who had been induced to invest in the Company had been deceived. Although they might not be able to make out a technical claim against the Portuguese Government, their moral right was very great. Her Majesty's Government had very strongly pressed the claims of these persons on the Portuguese Government; but he regretted that their representations had not hitherto produced the desired effect. They would still continue to direct attention to the question, and he hoped the Portuguese Government would, for their own credit and interest, take care that justice was done. The English shareholders undoubtedly advanced this money on the

605
faith that the Portuguese Government had given their guarantee to the concern. An adverse decision had been given in the Portuguese courts; and although there was an appeal to the Crown, it was understood that was quite a hopeless proceeding. He hoped, however, that the Government of Portugal would for its own sake recognise these claims.

THE STATE OF THE LAW COURTS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, he rose to call attention to the insufficient accommodation in the Courts of Law at Westminster and in the City of London. He hoped the Government would give serious attention to this subject, which was of considerable importance. When a Judge was obliged to suspend his sittings because the state of the court was dangerous to the health of those who had to attend in it, and when the business of the Queen's Bench was thus impeded, it was surely high time that a remedy should be provided for so great a scandal. The Government were bound to provide proper accommodation for the administration of justice. The present courts were, however, utterly unworthy of the country and totally unfit for the purposes they had to serve. They combined all the defects which a court could possibly exhibit, and were as objectionable on account of their want of space as on account of the absence of convenient arrangement. The Bar might, perhaps, become acclimatized to the bad atmosphere of these places; but some consideration should be given to the suitors, witnesses, jurors, and the general public, who were occasional visitors. Of the six or seven courts of Westminster, only two, the Queen's Bench and Exchequer, were in the least suitable for the transaction of business. The Common Pleas, in which a full third of the important law business of the country was conducted, was much too small, and extremely ill-ventilated. When there was a trial which attracted public attention, the court was most inconveniently crowded, and there was an utter want of that proper accommodation and that regard for the health of those who were engaged in the court, which ought to be exhibited in a tribunal of so much importance. The Court of Common Pleas might probably he borne with, but the Bail Court and the Court of Exchequer Chamber, which were now used for
  606
  purposes for which they were not originally intended, were utterly disgraceful. With the exception of some of the courts in the City of London, they were the worst he had ever seen. There was but one entrance, and the greatest difficulty was experienced in transacting the business with common decorum and decency. But the courts in the City of London were infinitely worse. In the City six courts were now required because each of the superior courts had two courts for the trial of causes. At Guildhall there were only two or at most three courts which were fit for the transaction of business. The Queen's Bench and the Common Pleas, although nothing to boast of, were large and well ventilated; but the others were the very reverse. There were two new courts, which seemed to have been constructed for the purpose of preventing business being satisfactorily done in them. They were modelled after the fashion of cucumber frames, being large square boxes with glass tops, and in hot weather it was impossible to remain in them without extreme danger to health. It was in one of these courts that Mr. Justice Mellor recently found himself unable to go on with the business. The occurrence was reported in The Times, and the report, appearing as it did in a paper read throughout Europe, was a disgrace to the country which permitted such a state of things to continue. It was as follows:—
  "The Lord Chief Justice, upon taking his seat to-day, said that he had received a note from Mr. Justice Mellor, to the effect that it was utterly impossible, with due regard to the health of the Judge, the bar, and the jurors, to continue the sitting of a Second Queen's Bench Court in what was called the south court of Guildhall. The atmosphere at this time of the year was most oppressive; and as there was no proper means of ventilation, long continuance in it was attended with most pernicious and injurious results. His Lordship added that Mr. Justice Mellor was about to leave for circuit, but, under these circumstances, he could not ask any other Judge of the Queen's Bench to incur the serious inconvenience from which his brother Mellor had suffered for several days. There would, therefore, be no Second Court of Queen's Bench for the remainder of these sittings."
  The consequence had been a great addition to the arrear of causes. But the report in The Times did not go far enough, for he believed that Mr. Justice Mellor complained also of the confined space of the court, and its inconvenience in every respect. On the following day the Recorder for the City held a sitting in the same court. He presumed the City authorities

  607
  acted on the principle that they might do what they liked with their own; but certainly the learned Recorder must have sat in an atmosphere extremely injurious to his health. The City authorities were scarcely to be blamed for this state of things, because it was only in recent years that two courts bad been required at Guildhall for each of the superior Courts, and he believed that the additional accommodation provided was intended to be only of a temporary character. Unfortunately, however, it had existed without change for a number of years, and, notwithstanding numerous complaints, no effort had been made to remedy the inconvenience. He had been speaking of the courts only as yet, but the accessories of the courts were miserably defective. Neither at Westminster nor in the City were there waiting-rooms or retiring-places for witnesses, many of whom were women; and all attending the courts had either to haunt the purlieus or to remain in neighbouring taverns until they were called. No attempt had been made to give the Bar any accommodation whatever. At Westminster there was no room where the Bar could have a library. In that respect Edinburgh and Dublin were far before London, and a much better state of things existed even in Liverpool and other provincial towns. He did not wish to throw blame on the present Government. Only a year ago, indeed, they endeavoured to provide a remedy by proposing the establishment of a Palace of Justice. It was to be regretted that their scheme was defeated by a hasty division; but he was bound to say, that although the hon. and learned Member for the Cambridge University (Mr. Selwyn) had the apparent honour of defeating it, he believed it received its death-wound from some unseen hand at the Treasury. He hoped the Government would either re-introduce that measure—and if they did, he believed the House would be ready to accept it—or bring forward one of a less comprehensive character; for if millions could be expended on fortifications, and if a large sum could be voted for the purchase of a building for a collection of stuffed animals, surely we could afford to provide Courts of Justice affording suitable accommodation for the suitors, the Bar, and the Judges.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that bad as were the defects of the courts of law, they sank into insignificance compared with those of the courts of equity. By alterations made
  608
  during the last three or four years the courts of equity had been turned into nisi prius courts. The Chief Commissioner of Works, who had visited Lincoln's Inn, would know that a vast amount of the administrative business of the Court of Chancery was conducted in chambers not larger than the room behind the Speaker's chair, and which were utterly unfit for the transaction of any business whatever. Then the courts of equity themselves were in a worse state as regarded accommodation than even the courts of common law. There was no space for a jury-box, no place for the jury to retire to when they had to consult together, no room for the Bar and the solicitors, and the room into which the Judge had to retire was about eight feet square. Two of the Vice Chancellors sat in sheds that were erected twenty years ago, when the judicial staff was increased. There ought to be one great central building, where justice in all its branches could be duly and decorously administered, instead of having the courts scattered, as was now the case, in different parts of the town. The courts of equity might be kept together at Lincoln's Inn for an outlay of about £100,000 only. If that were carried out, he would be glad to support the scheme for placing all the courts of law under one roof between Lincoln's Inn and the Temple. He would be happy to concur in that or in any other situation which the Government might fix upon in which to provide suitable courts with accommodation for the Judges, the Bar, the solicitors, the suitors, the jury, and the witnesses; so that there might be some approach made to the proper and decent administration of justice. When the Government contemplated making an expenditure at Kensington or elsewhere, there seemed to be no lack of means for the purpose; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to refuse to provide the funds for an improvement so important and so imperatively called for as the present. He thought that £1,000,000 would suffice for the whole of the Courts of Law and Equity, the interest upon which at 3 per cent would be £30,000. The suitors, he was sure, would be gladly taxed to pay that amount of interest; although, as the Solicitor General knew, the means already existed for defraying it. He appealed, therefore, to the Government to take the necessary steps without delay for securing an object which ought to be the first concern of a civilized State.
  MR COLLIERthought the hon. and

  609
  learned Member for Truro (Mr. M. Smith) deserved the thanks of the profession and the public for calling attention to what had long been a crying grievance. The complaints regarding the defective accommodation in Westminster Hall were very old, and Lord Erskine had once called the Court of Common Pleas "a hole in the wall." There had been a vast increase of judicial business of late years, owing to a variety of causes, and the courts of law were entirely blocked up: there was a great delay in the hearing of cases, and if a case was entered in the Court of Queen's Bench, the chances were that it would not be disposed of for twelve months. Indeed, it was a question with him whether the existing judicial strength was sufficient for the transaction of all the business which now came before the courts. He regretted that the comprehensive scheme of the Lord Chancellor, for erecting one large building in which all the courts should be concentrated, had not been successful. He was glad to hear that there would be no further opposition from Lincoln's Inn if that scheme were again brought forward.
  MR. WHITE SIDEsaid, he would point to the Probate Court recently erected in Ireland as an instance of bad taste and inconvenient arrangement. He wished, before the Solicitor General spoke on this subject, to put to him two questions—a particular question and a general one. The particular question related to the assimilation of the law in the two kingdoms. A person had lately been tried in Ireland for sending a threatening letter. There they might establish the proof of writing by comparison, but in England that law was made to apply only to civil cases; in Ireland it applied to both civil and criminal cases. He wished, therefore, to ask the Solicitor General which was the best law; and whether, as there were two separate laws of evidence, the one in civil the other in criminal cases, that distinction should prevail. The other question he had to put was general. Elsewhere something was being done in the consolidation and assimilation of the statute law; he wished to know if anything was to be done in that respect for Ireland.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALobserved, that at that late period of the Session it would of course be impossible for the Government to introduce any measure on the subject of the Law Courts with any chance of carrying it. He had, however,
  610
  heard with great interest and satisfaction the observations made by so many of his hon. and learned Friends relative to the deplorable condition of the courts compared with those of any other civilized country. He owned, if those eloquent statements from the other side had been made last year, they might have been attended with considerable effect:—but the measure introduced by the Government, which was now described as an excellent comprehensive measure, was lost by a majority of one, and his hon. and learned Friend for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) was that individual. He did not mean to say what would be the best course for the Government to take with the uncertainty that might still prevail as to the views of Lincoln's Inn, and of other Members sitting on the same side of the House with his hon. Friend the Member for Walling-ford. Undoubtedly the evil complained of required a remedy; but he should not so much regret the temporary continuance of the miserable state of things described as an attempt to meet it by incomplete or inadequate measures. The country had a real and important interest in providing properly for the administration of justice; and we had actually got the money in hand. Not one farthing need be voted by the House. There was every reason to believe that the funds in the Court of Chancery which might be legitimately used for this purpose would be adequate for the whole expense of the purchase of ground and buildings. He hoped this discussion would not be without fruit; but he certainly did not admit that the Government in 1863 was to blame for the continuance of the inconvenience complained of. With reference to the questions put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside), he had to state that the rule of evidence ought to be the same in criminal as in civil matters, and before long he hoped the anomaly would be removed. With regard to the general consolidation of the Irish statutes, that was a very large undertaking, as to which he could give no promise at present. In England the work of expurgation and reduction was going on; when that was done, other undertakings might follow. He believed that arrangements were actually in progress for dealing with the Irish statutes in the same manner and to the same extent as had been done with the English statutes.
  MR. LYGONprotested against its being

  611
  supposed that there were not serious objections to the great and comprehensive scheme which had been referred to. In his opinion it was unnecessary and extravagant. The better plan would be to mate use of existing accommodation, and add to it anything which might be needed. He was, however, content to leave the matter upon the Treasury Minute of 1861, which showed that it was probable that according to the scheme proposed a large charge would fall upon the public.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Treasury Minute referred to was not a statement of the outlay which the scheme must necessarily involve, but a maximum estimate of the sum which it might cost. Of late years the Treasury, warned by what had occurred with regard to public buildings, more especially with regard to the Palace of Westminster, had adopted the course of submitting to the House only maximum estimates—estimates of the highest sum which the works referred to could possibly cost. Unfortunately, hon. Members had, in two or three cases, assumed that these were minimum estimates, which would be sure to be exceeded, and thus a certain amount of delusion had been produced. With respect to the building of new courts, the Government had been waiting for the concurrence of the House, and after the encouragement which they had received in the course of this debate they would no doubt be ready to discharge the duty to which the hon. and learned Member opposite had directed their attention.
  MR. O'HAGAN (Attorney General for Ireland)said, that the consolidation of the Irish Statutes was actually in progress, and that two gentlemen of capacity and experience were engaged under his direction in doing for the statutes of Ireland what was now being done for those of England, and he had no doubt that their work would be efficiently and successfully performed.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, as a Member of the Committee which examined the scheme for the construction of the courts of justice, said, that the opinion of that Committee was that the estimate was not a maximum but a minimum one, and that the building could not be erected simply out of the Suitors' Fund. The fact was that it was the case of "the Brompton boilers" and Captain Fowke over again. It was a pet scheme of the present Lord Chancellor, then Attorney General, who
  612
  had his pet architect, Mr. Abraham. Mr. Abraham himself was forced to admit, that if the proposition of Lincoln's Inn were accepted, one half the expense would be saved.
  Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY considered in Committee.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

ENGLISH CHURCH SERVICES IN WALES BILL (Lords)— [BILL 190.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. WALPOLE MR. WALPOLE moved that this Bill be read a third time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  COLONEL WILLIAMSdeemed the Bill uncalled for, and moved that it be read a third time this day two months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day two months."—(Colonel Williams.)
  COLONEL PENNANTsupported the Bill. The Amendments which had been introduced entirely removed all well-founded objections to it.
  MR. LYGONthought the Bill was not so obnoxious as when it came down from the House of Lords, but was still open to great objection. He was of opinion that it should be made temporary in its operation.
  MR. H. H. VIVIANsupported the Bill, and said there were many places in Wales in which its operation would be of advantage.
  MR. C. W. WYNNalso supported the Bill. He bad received several letters from clergymen in Wales in favour of the measure, and but one against it.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 0: Majority 38.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3o, and passed, with Amendments.

  TURNPIKE TRUSTS ARRANGEMENTS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BRUCE, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made under an Act of the fifteenth year of Her present Majesty, to facilitate arrangements for the relief of Turnpike Trusts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRUCE and Sir GEORGE GREY.

  TURNPIKE ROADS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BRUCE, Bill to amend the Laws relating to the repair of Turnpike Roads in England, and to continue certain Turnpike Acts in Great Britain, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRUCE and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock, till Monday nest.