Commons Sitting of 26 February 1864

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Taxation of Ireland appointed (List of Members, March 8), on Dockyards nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee*—Committee R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Land Drainage (Provisional Orders)* [Bill 25]; Inclosure* [Bill 26]; County Courts (Ireland) [Bill 12].
Committee — Malt for Cattle [Bill 6]; Conveyancers (Ireland) [Bill 5],
Report — Malt for Cattle [Bill 37]; Conveyancers (Ireland).

KERTCH PRIZE MONEY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty. If it is true that a portion of the Grant made by this House to the captors of Kertch and Yenikale has been bestowed upon three Flag Officers who were not serving in the Black Sea Fleet, or present at the capture?
  Lord CLARENCE PAGET,in reply, said, it was true that a portion of the Grant had been awarded to Admiral Boxer, Sir Montague Stopford, and Sir Frederick Grey, who were not actually present at the capture of Kertch. But the Naval Prize Proclamation of 1854, issued at the opening of the war, gave a share to all Flag Officers upon the station; and the award of the Kertch money was ordered to be distributed "according to the rules of our Naval Service, and in accordance with our Proclamation of March 29, 1854."
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, perhaps the noble Lord will tell us where those officers were?

THE ANGLO-CHINESE FLEET.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Africa, of four guns and 150-horse power, built in Her Majesty's Dockyard at Devonport, and launched 20th March, 1862, was sold to the Chinese Government; for what sum, and whether that sum has been paid j whether any other of Her Majesty's vessels have been sold to the Chinese Government; for what sums; whether the prices have been paid; and whether any monies are due, and the amount, from the Chinese Government on account of vessels sold, or for the supply of warlike or naval stores to the so-called Anglo-Chinese Fleet lately under the command of Captain Sherard Osborn, C.B., R.N.; and when the ship's books of Her Majesty's Ship Encounter are likely to be received at the Admiralty? He further wished to know, whether the prices obtained from the Chinese Government exceeded or fell short of the cost prices of the ships?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in reply, that the purchase-money of the Africa had been fully paid, and likewise that of the Jasper and Mohawk. The

  1183
  stores supplied had also been paid for. In the books of the Accountant General, however, there was a sum of £766 7s. 6d still remaining due to the public for stores supplied to that expedition, and the Accountant General believed that a further small sum would arise for stores supplied to the squadron after their arrival in Chinese waters. Captain Sherard Os-born had called upon him that day, and he had undertaken to state that the debt of the Chinese Government would amount to about £100 when the Admiralty had paid Captain Sherard Osborn for certain stores supplied by him, before he left, to the senior officer of the navy in China. Everybody knew that it was very costly to send out stores to China, and it was therefore a matter of good policy and economy to purchase the stores out there at their original price. After balancing accounts there would remain, as he had said, a sum of £100 due by the Chinese Government, and he had every reason to believe it would be paid. As to the latter pact of the question, the ship's books of the Encounter were now in the office, as far as they ought to be, until the ship was paid off; and his hon. and gallant Friend by applying to the Accountant General at Somerset House could have any extracts from them printed which he thought necessary.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, the noble Lord had not stated whether he got the cost price of the ships from the Chinese Government?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied, that the ships were sold at a valuation. They were disposed of for their real value at the time, just as they would be to any private individual.
  COLONEL SYKES: At a loss.

  HIGHWAYS ACT.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to introduce any Bill during the present Session to amend the Highways Act passed during the last Session of Parliament?
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, his hon. and gallant Friend was probably not aware that he had already stated, a few nights ago, in answer to a similar question, that he hoped to introduce a Bill on the subject. A memorial bearing on the subject had, however, reached his
  1184
  hands, and he wished to consider this before bringing in the measure.

  TRAINING COLLEGES.—QUESTION.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council for Education, Whether, when a Student having been admitted to a Training College without passing, or after failure at the examination for admission by the Inspector, succeeds in the examination of Students at the end of each of two successive years of training, completes the prescribed period of probation, and becomes a Certificated Teacher, he will be counted to the credit of the Training College in estimating the Grant earned by the Institution under the Minute of March 21, 1863?
  MR. LOWEreplied, that the Training Colleges were founded for the purpose of educating young men and women for the office of teacher, and it was not the business of those establishments to give elementary instruction, it being supposed that the pupil had received good elementary education before he came to the College to add there what was necessary to make him an efficient teacher. A person coming into a Training College without having undergone a good previous education was a great inconvenience and annoyance to the working of the College, for he could not generally be classed with the other students, and naturally dragged down the teaching to his own level. To prevent such occurrences, the Committee of Council had instituted a sort of matriculation examination for each of those training Colleges; and it was only in favour of those students who passed that examination that the Grant would be counted.

  CHINA—MR. LAY.—QUESTION.
  MR. LESLIEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is the case that Mr. Lay, after being dismissed by the Chinese Government from the office of Inspector General of Customs, has been appointed by Sir Frederick Bruce to act as Chinese Secretary to the British Legation?
  MR. LAYARDbegged to say, in reply, that no information of the kind referred to had been received by Her Majesty's Government; on the contrary, as far as he was aware, Mr. Lay was now on his way back to England.

THE CONVICT TOWNLEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MORRITTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it will be possible for Townley, lately convicted of murder, whose sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life, to obtain, by good conduct or otherwise, at any future period of his life, a Licence or Ticket-of-Leave to be at large and free from restraint in either this or any other country?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, I will only repeat the answer which I gave to a question on the same subject before—namely, that convicts under sentence of penal servitude for life, whether that sentence is original or remitted, are not entitled to the benefit of those regulations by which other convicts, under certain fixed conditions, may obtain the remission of portions of their sentences.

CASE OF THE "TUSCALOOSA."

  QUESTION.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, the noble Lord at the head of the Government told him the previous evening, that a set of instructions were sent out from this country to the Cape of Good Hope applying to a former supposed state of circumstances in connection with the Tuscaloosa, which orders were afterwards recalled and others substituted. He now wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, What were the other circumstances under which instructions were sent out to the Cape of Good Hope, and in consequence of which the Tuscaloosa was seized; and whether the Government will lay upon the table of the House the Papers relating to the subject?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Perhaps my answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question will save the House the trouble of listening to a rather complicated answer to the first part of the question. We have no objection to produce the papers, and these will explain the circumstances under which the first order was given for the seizure of the vessel, and the subsequent order for her release.

BRIDGE STREET, WESTMINSTER.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, When the houses left standing on the South side of Bridge Street, Westminster,
  1186
  will be removed; and whether any decision has been arrived at as to the mode in which the vacant ground should be utilized?
  MR. COWPER: Sir, the freehold of those four houses still remaining on the south side of the street has been purchased, and I am in negotiation for the purchase of the leasehold interest. I expect that, before very long, an agreement may be made as to the value of the leasehold interest, and as soon as this interest has been acquired, the houses will be pulled down. Then the time will come for a decision as to the appropriation of the vacant site, but at present no such decision has been come to.

DOCK AT MALTA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, in the absence of his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Talbot), he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will lay upon the table of the House the Report of Admiral Sir Frederick Grey and Mr. Whitbread, upon which the Admiralty decided upon the proposed dock at Malta, as opposed to the views of Admiral Sir William Martin and Vice-Admiral Codrington, and all other official Papers and Correspondence that bear upon the subject, and which is not contained in the Papers now upon the table?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Sir, the hon. and gallant Member has put the question under an erroneous impression with respect to Sir Frederick Grey and Mr. Whitbread. They were at the time both members of the Board of Admiralty, and they were deputed by the Duke of Somerset to go out to Malta to inspect the plans and the site for themselves, and to hear all the arguments pro and con with regard to the proposed new dock. They made no written report, but the substance of their opinions is embodied in the decision of the Admiralty. With regard to the latter part of the question, I have to state that the Admiralty are willing to give all the correspondence as to the Malta docks, but if the Motion were agreed to as it stood, it would oblige us to produce a long previous correspondence and plans that would cost a great deal of money to prepare. But all those previous Reports are by Officers of the Admiralty, and in favour of the Admiralty scheme, and the hon. and gallant Member will not, therefore, get much advantage from them. If, however, after

  1187
  coming to the Admiralty, he still wishes for the production of the whole, I shall, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, have no objection to produce the whole of the papers.

CHAIN CABLES—PROOF CERTIFICATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have given notice, by public advertisement, that they will accept the private Proof Certificates of Messrs. Brown, Lennox, and Co., for Chain Cables used on board ships hired by the Transport Department of the Admiralty for the conveyance of troops, in lieu of those required from Lloyd's Committee; and, if any such order has been made, if he has any objection to lay the same upon the table of the House; and if they accepted Messrs. Brown, Lennox, and Co.'s private Certificate of Proof for Cables supplied for vessels in Her Majesty's Navy without further test?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in reply, that Messrs. Brown, Lennox, and Co. stated to the Admiralty that they had applied to the Committee at Lloyd's for permission to allow their testing apparatus for chain cables to be accepted as the official test until the 1st of July next, and that the Committee at Lloyd's agreed to allow Messrs. Brown, Lennox, and Co. to issue cables and anchors, and accept their proof test until that date. They applied to the Admiralty for the same privilege with regard to ships in the public service, and the Admiralty granted them the same privilege which had been given by Lloyd's Committee.
  MR. LAIRD: Will there be any objection to lay the advertisement on the table?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: None whatever.

NEW ZEALAND LOAN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the New Zealand Legislature has passed an Act authorizing a Loan of Three Millions sterling for Colonial purposes; and whether there is any foundation for the rumour that such Loan is to be guaranteed by the Imperial Government; and whether any recent Correspondence respecting the War in New
  1188
  Zealand will shortly be laid before Parlialiament?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that last year the Home Government agreed to make application to Parliament to guarantee a Loan of £500,000 on condition that a certain portion—£200,000, he believed—should be applied to liquidate a debt due by the Colonial to the Home Government. However, the gentleman who was then acting for the New Zealand Government in this country, objected to the amount claimed by the Imperial Government, and the arrangement for the time came to an end, and the Bill which had been introduced was withdrawn. Since that time, the Governor of New Zealand had informed the Home Government, that his Ministers would be prepared to make the payment claimed by the Imperial Government out of such a Loan. A rumour had reached the Colonial Office in the shape of a debate in the New Zealand Parliament, that the Colonial Legislature had passed, or were about to pass, a Bill to negotiate a Loan for £3,000,000, and that they would probably apply to the Home Government for a guarantee for such a Loan. However, no such application had yet been received, and the subject could not therefore be considered. With respect to the papers alluded to by the hon. Member, they would shortly be laid on the table.

BUSINESS OF THE EVENING.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to make an appeal to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government with regard to the course laid down for the Business of the Evening; and, in order to place himself in order, he would conclude with a Motion. It appeared by the papers, to be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to go into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates that evening. It would be in the recollection of the House that, on Wednesday last, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an appeal to the House to permit a Motion to be carried, that the Speaker report Progress, as unavoidable circumstances compelled him to leave, and the right hon. Gentleman named Friday as the day for considering the Malt for Cattle Bill in Committee. On the faith of this understanding, a number of hon. Members were now present. It was therefore quite clear

  1189
  that great inconvenience would arise if the proposal so volunteered by the right hon. Gentleman was not adhered to. All hon. Members were aware that, by the rules of the House, Motions of Supply were placed on the paper on Fridays for the purpose of enabling Members to raise questions of various kinds; but he apprehended that it was not in accordance with the rules or practice of the House that Her Majesty's Government should force on Estimates, especially under present circumstances. Without saying anything about the merits of the Malt for Cattle Bill, it was clear that great inconvenience was arising in the country from not knowing what the decision of the House might be. He therefore begged to ask the noble Viscount whether he will consent to the Malt for Cattle Bill being taken before the Estimates?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I cannot agree with the doctrine laid down by the hon. Gentleman, that the rules or practice of the House exclude the House from going into the Estimates on Fridays, after the preliminary matters have been disposed of. With regard to the particular question raised, I can only say that, if any expectations were raised by any arrangement made on the part of the Government as to a particular question, unless great public inconvenience would arise from its being postponed, I should always be anxious not to inflict disappointment on those who come on the faith of the arrangement. I was not aware yesterday evening when we fixed the Navy Estimates, that any such agreement had taken place, but I am quite ready to accept the hon. Member's version of it, and I can at once assure him we will not go into the Navy Estimates this evening, but take the Malt for Cattle Bill if possible.

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

DENMARK AND GERMANY. BASES OF PROPOSED CONFERENCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: I wish to ask the noble Viscount a Question of which I have not given notice. It refers, however, to a matter of importance at the present moment, and it is also one with which the noble Lord has so intimate
  1190
  an acquaintance, that he can have no difficulty in replying. If, however, he prefers that I should ask the Question on another day I will do so. I wish to know, Whether the Government have laid down any points as bases for the Conference that is proposed to take place respecting the Danish and German dispute; and, if so, whether he is at liberty to communicate them to the House?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The only basis on which the Conference between the Powers that concluded the Treaty of 1852 can take place—especially after the declaration made by Austria and Prussia that they adhere to the Treaty of 1852, and after the declaration from France that she also considers that treaty to be binding, and is favourable to the maintenance of the integrity of the Danish Monarchy—is of course the basis of the Treaty of 1852, and for the purpose of making arrangements compatible with the maintenance of the integrity of the Danish Monarchy.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: I should like to ask the noble Lord, whether one point laid down as a basis is that Schleswig and Holstein should continue to be united?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: We have not got the consent of all the parties concerned to the assembling of the Conference. We have received to-day a paper from Copenhagen, intimating that owing to local considerations, the Danish Government wished to be allowed to postpone their decision as to acceding to the Conference for a certain period of time. Of course, it is not for us to lay down any detailed arrangement which shall be the subject of consideration at the Conference. It will be sufficient that the basis of negotiation will be that which I have stated—the integrity of the Danish Monarchy.

DENMARK AND GERMANY.—THE GERMAN DIET AND THE CONFERENCE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Yesterday I asked the noble Lord whether the German Diet had been invited to attend the Conference, and I understood him to say his impression was that the German Diet had not been invited to attend the Conference. Can he tell us now, Whether, in the first place, the German Diet has been invited to send a representative to the Conference; and, if so, what answer has been received?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No answer has as yet been received. The House will easily understand that the Diet may be under some difficulties on the subject. The Diet is divided into two very conflicting and antagonistic portions, one portion adhering to the Treaty of 1852, and the principle of maintaining the integrity of the Danish Monarchy; the other, having proclaimed from the outset that the object to be aimed at is the dismemberment of the Danish Monarchy. We may hope that that obstacle may be got over; but, at the same time, it is possible there may be some difficulty in framing the particular instructions which the representatives of the Diet should receive.

  SLAVE TRADE.—QUESTION.
  MR. CAVE, in asking, pursuant to notice, Whether Her Majesty's Government intended to carry into execution the provisions of the treaty with the United States for the suppression of the slave trade, by stationing cruisers off the coast of Cuba, said, it was with great diffidence he ventured again to bring this subject before the House, as he felt he might lay himself open to the charge of occupying the time of hon. Members with an obsolete and unpractical subject. He was well aware that of late years many circumstances had combined to modify the strong feeling which formerly prevailed in the House and the country upon the subject of slavery. Information had, however, reached him which he thought justified the course he was about to take, and he would be very brief. He felt, moreover, however various might be the opinions which prevailed on the subject of involuntary servitude, there could be but one upon the slave trade. No English voice would be raised in its defence, and no Englishman would now deem it anything but a most detestable crime, whether they contemplated the misery inflicted upon the unhappy captives torn suddenly from their peaceful homes with every circumstance of atrocity, or upon their families, if any were left, who had escaped the torch and weapons of the manstealer; or whether, taking a wider view, they reflected that the testimony of all travellers, from Bruce and Mungo Park to his distinguished friend Captain Speke, united in condemning the slave trade as the greatest bar to the civilization and improvement of the tribes even far in the
  1192
  interior of the great African continent. But to come home to ourselves, there surely must be many who saw with apprehension how dependent we were upon this broken reed, and how sorely we might some day suffer from so unsatisfactory a position. He would explain his meaning in a few words. Thirty years ago the people of England, awakened to the evils of slavery, emancipated the negroes in their colonies at the cost of an enormous sum of money and of a social revolution from which few of those colonies had yet recovered. That was, in the eyes of the world, a remarkable sacrifice of expediency to principle. Some years later the increase of manufacturing industry in the midland counties gave an immense impetus to the growth of cotton. The internal slave trade peopled the cotton fields of the south, and the slave States of America obtained the monopoly of supply. We were now lamenting the consequences. A few years later we opened our ports to slave grown sugar. The African slave trade revived with all its atrocities, and the production of free labour languished throughout the world. We now depended upon slavery not only for two-fifths of our supply, but for nearly half the vast revenue derived from sugar. Should an insurrection break out in Cuba—and four years ago such an event would have seemed far more probable than the disruption of the United States—we might have cause to regret a change of policy which, in the eyes of many in this country, and still more out of it, seemed a remarkable sacrifice of principle to expediency. He had long felt the anomaly and danger of depending for so large a portion of our revenue upon a source which we condemned and were doing our best to destroy. There was now a race between our own colonies and Cuba. British Guiana, in a recent memorial to the Colonial Office, one of the best written and most temperate documents that ever came from a colony, stated, that with n, steady supply of immigrants she could compete with slavery, but not with the slave trade. The House knew how we had striven year after year, at considerable expense, and the sacrifice of many valuable lives, to put down this abominable traffic, and how we had been baffled by other nations allowing their flags to shelter it. One of the most promising changes in this respect had been the Treaty of 1862, under which the United States conceded the right of search in

  1193
  case of suspicion of slave trading. It was supposed that, this point gained, our difficulties would vanish, and that a few fast steamers off the coast of Cuba, where they were so efficient before (till recalled, owing to difficulties which had been removed by this treaty), would entirely put an end to the slave trade. What, then, had been the result? How did we stand in 1864? That was the information he sought from Her Majesty's Government, as the papers which had been presented to Parliament left them in a state of complete uncertainty. We were now advanced some little way into the present year, yet these interesting documents (Slave Trade Correspondence A and B) did not carry us beyond 1862; and it was most extraordinary and unfortunate that, on three important points, they broke off at the most critical moment, leaving us in the tantalizing case of the readers of sensation novels in monthly parts, with this difference, that our curiosity could not be satisfied till, at the earliest, the lapse of another year. What, then, did these papers tell us, and what did they leave untold? They told us that the trade to Cuba was as brisk as ever. That, although less than 12,000 slaves had, been reported as landed during the year, yet that so many new estates had been established in remote districts that vast numbers of slaves had been smuggled on to the keys or small rocky islets with which the coast of Cuba was fringed, whence they were removed a few at a time in country boats, so that it was impossible to say how many had been imported. They informed us that slaves were so valuable, that on one occasion the owners could afford to pay no less than £12,000 as hush money to Spanish officials for a cargo of 490. These papers mention, that the vigilance of Spanish cruisers had diminished in consequence of the sailors having been kept out of their prize money by the authorities. We learnt from them that the horrors of the middle passage had not diminished, when we read that there was a slaver captured by Her Majesty's ship Antelope, measuring from 85 to 90 tons, having 558 slaves on board, besides her crew, or seven persons to a ton, with a slave deck only thirty inches high, and insufficient food and water for the voyage of 50 days to Cuba. We had the usual passages of arms, or rather of sharp writing, between the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office and the Spanish authorities, which were very cre-
  1194
  ditable to the acuteness of both parties, but did not materially advance the question. We found, however—that this was most important—that in May 24, 1862, the noble Lord communicated the American Treaty to the French Government, and suggested that a similar right of search might be conceded by France. He (Mr. Cave) looked most anxiously for the reply. It was not given in the papers, but on the 31st of December, the last day to which the papers extended, he found a complaint to Lord Cowley, that a steamer with French colours had just left the coast of Africa with 1,000 slaves. In June the same year he found a similar proposal to the Sultan of Zanzibar. Again, he found no notice of the result. But, at any rate, Her Majesty's Government must have taken advantage themselves of that treaty with the United States which was to remove all our difficulties. At least, so he thought when he found Lord Russell, on the 11th of September, 1862, not brooking the tedious delay of the post or even of a courier, telegraphing to Sir John Crampton at Madrid, that Her Majesty's Government were going to send men-of-war to cruise off Cuba, and instructing him to propose to the Spanish Government that these cruisers should have liberty to anchor off any part of the coast. He looked carefully for the reply, but was still entirely in the dark, as far as those papers went, whether the required permission was given or, indeed, whether the cruisers were sent at all. This, then, was the point at which these papers left us more than a year ago. What had been done since? He feared nothing had been done. A recent memorial from Jamaica complained that the trade was being carried on in full vigour. A naval officer of the station wrote last month from Port Royal in the following terms:—
  "The past year has been one in which much might have been done to suppress the slave trade, as our treaty with the United States regarding the right of search was ratified early in 1863. Notwithstanding the principal objection was removed by that treaty, no advantage has yet been taken of it, and the cruisers have been so few in number and tied down by such rules, that the blockade of the coast of Cuba has not even been one which could be put on paper. As I now write, there is not a single vessel on the Cuban coast from this division, and I am certain that those in the Bahamas do not come down, except to get a stock of cigars now and then at Havannah. In fact, their duties are too arduous at Nassau in looking after British interests, and preventing attacks from Federal ships of war. We have at anchor to-day the gunboats Cygnet, Steady, Landrail; sloops

  1195
  Peterel, and Barracouta; corvettes Jason and Challenger, and flagship Nile. If the commanders were allowed their own discretion in cruising off Cuba they would pay for information, which is easily obtained; and, as was the case a few years ago, slavers would be taken at the rate of three or four a month; as it is, not one has been taken since we have been on the station. The commanders naturally do not enter with much zeal into the cruising, as they are told off for a particular station, and there they must remain, and their cruising ground is as well known to the slavers as to the commodore. Our papers authorize us to search the vessels of every nation, save France, and there ought to be six vessels on the north and six on the south if we wish to be in earnest and stop the slave trade."
  He (Mr. Cave) had the honour of transmitting to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, a few weeks since, two schemes for watching the Cuban coast, written without concert by persons who were well acquainted with those regions, and fully borne out by this letter received only a few days ago from an entirely independent source. The price of sugar was rising, which would enable the Cuban planter to give a higher price for slaves, and the demand would assuredly be met by increased supply. It was stated, indeed, that the new Captain General of Cuba was determined to stop the trade, and had already given proof of his sincerity. If this were really so, the thing would be done, as Spain, doubtless, had the power in her own hands; but he could not forget that the same good tidings had been received of one Captain General after another for years past, and had not been borne out by the result. At any rate, such good resolves would not be weakened by absence of temptation, and he trusted that the new admiral, Sir James Hope, than whom no man was more capable from former experience of coping with the slave trade, would take care that the temptation to which the Captain General might be exposed was not greater than he could resist. It was now well nigh fifty years since nearly half-a-million was paid to Spain in consideration for treaties which had been systematically evaded, for undertakings which had never been performed. We all knew too well the expenditure of English money and the waste of valuable English lives which had during that long interval been caused by this breach of faith, and he (Mr. Cave) thought the time was now come, when the people of this country had a right to know whether there was any better hope for the future or not; and, if not, then it would be for them to decide whether the partial success which
  1196
  had hitherto attended our efforts was worth the heavy cost at which it had been attained.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I can assure the hon. Member that the Government feel as deeply as he can on the subject to which he has drawn the attention of the House; and, if I may be allowed to speak of individuals, I venture to say that no men in the country have felt more warmly, and, within the limits of their spheres of action, have exerted themselves more for the suppression of the slave trade than my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office and myself. At the same time, when we recollect the great difficulty which was experienced in this country in gaining a victory over interested parties who maintained the slave trade, we must make some allowances for the reluctance which other Governments manifest to adopt the course which we have so honourably followed. But great progress has been made, though it is natural for man to look rather to that which remains to be done than to that which has been accomplished. In a survey of the whole matter, however, it is right to look both ways; and when we consider that the Brazilian slave trade, which formerly amounted to 60,000 or 70,000 slaves a year, and which implied the wretchedness and misery of three times that number of persons, including those who were torn from their homes, and died on their passage inland, or in crossing the Atlantic, we may say that a very great and important benefit has been done in the cause of humanity by the extinction of the slave trade of Brazil. Then there remains the slave trade of Cuba. That used to be, I believe, an importation of 20,000 slaves, or more, a year. According to the last accounts we have received from those who look to these matters, we have reason to think that the actual importation in 1863 has not exceeded 6,000 or 7,000. This is a very great reduction, and has been owing, in a great degree, to the treaty with the United States. The protection afforded for a great number of years to the slave trade by the American flag gave impunity to a vast extent of crime, and the President of the United States in the handsomest manner agreed — nay, almost himself proposed to us—to make a treaty for a mutual right of search, which has proved most valuable for the accomplishment of our object. I am sorry to say that the Government of France has not thought fit to follow the example of the

  1197
  United States—and that is more to be regretted as France took the lead in abolishing of her own accord the slave trade, and for a certain time agreed to a treaty for a mutual right of search. But a feeling of jealousy arose with respect to the national flag, and that treaty was put an end to, and we have not been able to obtain a renewal of it. France, however, does employ cruisers on the coast of Africa, and I have reason to hope that the action of France will be directed energetically and sincerely to put an end to the slave trade. We know that for a certain time the pretended immigration of free labourers into the French colonies, obtained I must hope under false representations, the sanction of the French Government. That was, in fact, the slave trade in its purest form, as far as concerned Africa. But, as slavery was abolished in the French colonies, these wretched immigrants when they arrived at their destination were not called slaves, but apprentices for a certain time. It was a great abuse, and the French Government felt it proper to put an end to it on condition of having the power of exporting coolies under regulations from our Eastern possessions. I am bound to say with respect to the present Governor and Commander-in-Chief in Cuba, that he has acted most honourably, and has exercised his power in every case effectually for the suppression of the slave trade. But the power of the Governor is not complete, as there are certain laws of Spain which cramp his action, and at his suggestion we have forwarded an earnest recommendation to the Government at Madrid to repeal those laws. This representation has not yet been successful, but I hope shortly that the Spanish Crown will feel it due to itself and the honour and good faith of the Spanish nation, to remove the obstacles which stand in the way of the accomplishment of the purposes for which the treaties for the suppression of the slave trade were concluded. We have forwarded to all our cruisers on the American station warrants authorizing them to exercise the right of search with respect to all the flags in reference to which we possess that right. It is very natural for those who look at one part of a question to think that part all important; and sometimes, if they succeed by their eloquence and energy in effecting their object, they may do as much harm as good. I recollect that the late Sir Fowell Buxton, as sincere an advocate for the abolition of slavery as
  1198
  ever lived, and who to his honour laboured with great success in the cause, at one time took up the notion that trading up the African rivers would be the great impediment to slavery. He published a book, and in his earnestness declared that the employment of those other means which were thought necessary by other people had failed. The hon. Member opposite attaches great value, and deservedly, to the action of our cruisers on the coast of Cuba. There is no doubt of their importance, and the warrants given to them to examine suspected vessels under the American flag will very much assist them in the performance of their duty; but I take leave to say that the value of captures in different places may be stated in the proportion I am now going to mention. The most important capture is the slave ship equipped and prepared on the coast of Africa without any slaves on board. That is the most important capture, because that prevents the misery entailed by the embarkation of the negroes, and throws on the hands of the chief, who makes money by selling them, the commodity before he has received the money. The next valuable capture is a ship with negroes on board, but off the coast of Africa, because then the negroes escape the sufferings of the middle passage which the hon. Member has so forcibly described. The third important capture is a slaver, with negroes on board, off the coast of Cuba, because those who have thus far survived the voyage are rescued from the doom to which they were destined, and restored to comparative freedom. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not at all blind to the importance of the points upon which he has dwelt. Admiral Hope, a most active and energetic officer, than whom no man has more at heart the abolition of slavery, and who has a local knowledge of these matters, will, I have no doubt, under the instructions of the Admiralty, do everything in his power to effect that object. There is one point which, I think, the hon. Member hinted at. We applied to the Spanish Government to give permission to our cruisers on the coast of Cuba to anchor within their territorial limits. I am sorry to say that they have not hitherto agreed to that proposal. There may be some feeling of national jealousy in the matter, or those who influence the Spanish Government may be actuated by other motives, not, perhaps, so honourable. I hope, however, we may yet prevail on them to con-

  1199
  cede tills privilege, because it would be a great advantage to our cruisers. The channels by which these slaves arrive are well known, and limited in number; and if we could station our vessels so as to command those channels, it would greatly facilitate captures. It is well known that the Spanish Government have been urged over and over again, by every motive of national honour and good faith, to exert themselves for the suppression of slavery. They have always stated that orders of the most stringent character had been sent to Cuba, but that the difficulty of putting them into execution had hitherto foiled the intentions of the Government, I know that the Marquis of Miraflores, who was not long ago at the head of the Spanish Government, was most sincerely and honourably anxious to do all in his power to carry out the treaty. As to the papers relating to the slave trade, they include reports and correspondence from distant parts, and some time must elapse before they are all received and ready for presentation to Parliament. Those for the last year are now in course of preparation, and will, I believe, be laid before Parliament very shortly. I trust that they will show a considerable diminution in the slave trade of Cuba.

  TAXATION OF IRELAND.—MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Taxation of Ireland; and to move for a Select Committee to consider how far it was in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Union, or just in reference to the resources of the country. His Motion was a renewal of that he made during the previous year, but he believed it would be new to most of the Members, because on the former occasion very few were present. Although his former Motion had no practical result, it was, he was bound to say, extremely gratifying to himself, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed a disposition to discuss the question fairly; but, of course, he did not agree with the arguments he used. Since then, a considerable change had come over the question. He never knew the attention of Ireland to be so thoroughly and earnestly directed to the consideration of her material interests, hitherto too much neglected, and especially the amount of taxation imposed upon her, as compared with the rest of the kingdom. In Dublin, a committee had been appointed to inves-
  1200
  tigate the matter, which had taken evidence from witnesses from both sides, and had made an extremely clever report, very much in accordance with his views. Similar inquiries had also been conducted in Waterford, Clonmel, Limerick, and other towns. He hoped that was the commencement of an agitation in which every Irishman would take part, and which would bring the question fully and fairly before the Legislature. The great difficulty in dealing with the subject was the paucity of information. The Returns were often contradictory, and no clear accounts seemed, for some time past, to have been kept of the different taxes in Ireland. All the calculations appeared to be based on the false assumption that Ireland paid a certain amount of taxation, whereas she really yielded a great deal more. There was a considerable revenue which, although attributed to England, was actually derived from Ireland. At the time of the Union it was agreed that the proportion of taxation imposed on Ireland should be two-seventeenths, and that on England fifteen-seventeenths. That arrangement was resisted by Grattan and others in the Irish Parliament. The Lords protested against it as grossly unjust. In spite of all opposition, however, the Commons of Ireland induced, it was suspected, by the same reasons which won them over to the Union, agreed to it. Within seven years after that proportion had been in force, there was scarcely a statesman of the day who did not assert in the British Parliament that it was unfairly high. Ireland had been assured that she would enjoy a relief in the way of taxation and other advantages from the Union; but none of these expectations had been fulfilled. The fact was, that Ireland was taxed indirectly by heavy loans, which were put down to her credit, and which, at the end of fifteen years, amounted to an enormous sum. At the time of the Union, England had a debt of £420,944,590 and odd, and Ireland a debt of £26,841,219. The interest on the English debt was £15,000,000, and on the Irish, £1,150,284. Now, one of the provisions of the Act of Union was, that the two debts and the interest should be kept distinct; but that provision was never carried out. In 1802 the revenue of Ireland rose from £3,619,000 to £7,544,000, but the proportion of debt imposed upon that country amounted to about £107,000,000. The original debt was taken at£18,000,000, instead of £26,000,000, and to that was

  1201
  added £88,000,000, to make up a deficit which certainly did not exceed £9,000,000. On that point some explanation was required, and even after the lapse of sixty years a Committee of Inquiry might well be appointed. He would not press the matter, however, further than to show that the amount of debt thus saddled on Ireland was most unjust. At the time of the Union the debt of Great Britain, as he had said, amounted to upwards of £420,000,000, and the debt of Ireland to a trifle more than £26,000,000, making together about £447,000,000. Deducting that from the present debt—£736,000,000, there was a balance of £289,000,000, which, if divided in the proportion of 2–17ths, would give to Ireland a much smaller share than had been allotted to her, but which, if dealt with according to the value of the property assessed to the income tax, would reduce the portion payable by Ireland to £24,000,000, or £25,000,000. Surely, then, the people of Ireland had a right to inquire whether they were not called upon to pay more than their fair proportion. The Act of Union provided that at the end of seven years the proportion established between the two kingdoms might be revised, and, if necessary, altered. It was inconceivable to him how, while almost every statesman of eminence was complaining of the injustice done to Ireland, advantage was not taken of that provision. So it was, however; and twice seven years passed without anything being done. At length, in 1816, the two Exchequers were consolidated, and then was placed on Ireland an amount of debt which had no reference either to her capabilities or to the principle of justice. The object, apparently, was to get from Ireland as much as could be squeezed out of her. Ireland, of course, sunk every day, and her condition became such that every one complained of it. In 1816 Lord Granville acknowledged that Parliament had not fulfilled its obligations to Ireland, and declared that the Irish people were entitled to demand redress as a right. The first Sir Robert Peel warned the House of Commons against imposing additional taxation upon Ireland, and Lord Castlereagh himself complained of the injustice done to that country. At a later period, Mr. James Fitzgerald stated that Ireland could not pay the 2–17ths which England had imposed on her, and the same statement was repeated by Sir Henry Parnell. In fact, almost every statesman of those days gave his testimony
  1202
  to the fact that the Irish proportion was an unjust one, and, therefore, he had a right to ask the House to inquire whether the evil could not be rectified and justice done to Ireland. He need not say that the consolidation of the Exchequers, though propounded as a panacea for the evils of Ireland, added to the mischief. It might be said, that the Consolidation Act of 1816, having virtually repealed the Act of Union, we could not go beyond it, and that we had nothing more to do with an Act which was obsolete. He maintained, however, that the Act of Union was as binding as it was before 1816. Since that time Parliament had more than once recognized the validity of the Act of Union, In 1823, for example, long after the consolidation of the Exchequers, a Bill was ordered to be prepared and brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others, in conformity with the 7th Article of the Act of Union, providing that no article in Ireland should be taxed to a greater amount than a similar article in England.
  Apart from the provisions of the Act of Union, however, he could rest his case upon another ground equally strong—namely, the relative ability of each country to bear taxation, and in that view also he believed he should be able to show that Ireland was entitled to more favourable treatment than she received. It was notorious to Europe, that Ireland, although connected with a country abounding in wealth, and marvellously advancing in the accumulation of resources of every description, was diminishing in prosperity in every possible manner. Let them first of all look at her population. She had lost two millions and a half of her population, and emigration was constantly increasing those figures. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin stated the other night that 100,000 fighting men had left her shores for America. That assertion was questioned at the time, but as the whole number of emigrants was 150,000, and 50,000 would be a fair allowance to make for women and children, he had no doubt of its truth. He believed that the movement had not yet reached its maximum. He believed that if peace were restored in America, such a demand would arise for labour, in consequence of the exhaustion of the native population created by the war, that a new impulse would be given to the tide of Irish emigration, and the number of the emigrants would be doubled. He knew there were people who said—and he found that the present Lord

  1203
  Lieutenant was one of the number—that the departure of the population from the country ought not to form a subject of regret. But that was not his opinion, and he could not help thinking that it must be a loss to any country to have its population flying from its shores. When he endeavoured to trace those evils to their sources, he was led to believe that the primary cause of the depression of Ireland was the repeal of the Corn Laws. He did not mean to pronounce an opinion as to the wisdom of that measure; it might have been productive of great benefit to this country; but it had certainly operated most injuriously for Ireland. Ireland had, practically, a monopoly of the English market for the supply of corn while the Corn Laws had been in operation, and that monopoly had been destroyed by the abolition of those laws; and such a change, to an agricultural country like Ireland, was an unmitigated evil. When wheat was at 26s. per barrel of twenty stone, it was impossible that the profits of agriculture should be such as they were in the old times of the monopoly. With the profits so did the pursuit of agriculture decay, and as the employment for labourers fell off they had no alternative but starvation or emigration. According to the most authentic accounts, Irish agriculture was passing through a period of depression. Within a period of ten years, the quantity of arable land under cultivation in Ireland diminished by upwards of two millions of acres, and during last year there was a further diminution of 144,799 acres, or between 5 and 6 per cent of the cereal crops of the country. Ireland used to export cereals to the value of from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000. She now imported £5,000,000 worth, showing a loss of £9,000,000 on that head alone. The falling off had also extended to green crops and to stock. The diminution of green crops last year amounted to 19,336 acres. Of horses, there was in the same period a loss of 23,715, valued at £189,720; of cattle, 93,415, of the value of £1,777,998; of sheep, 153,201, of the value of £147.421; and of pigs, 89,821, of the value of £98,000, making altogether a loss within the last year—that was from 1862 to 1863—of stock worth £2,207,616.
  He approached the question of manufactures, and there, also, he could find little room for congratulation. In the north of Ireland it was true that the gain derived from the growth and manufacture of
  1204
  flax was considerable, but that was the only Irish manufacture, and it was confined practically to a single province. Attempts had been made to introduce flax into other portions of the country, but he was not sanguine enough to believe that fortunes would be made by it; on the contrary, a noble Friend had told him up his personal experience, that he had burnt not merely his fingers, but his arm up to the shoulder. At the same time, he thought the extension of the system ought to be encouraged, and to the extent of his opportunities he had done so. The chief good to be derived, in his opinion, from flax culture would be, if every peasant would grow a small portion for his own use, so that the women of the family could turn it into good and solid articles of clothing, and thus obviate the necessity of buying anything from Manchester. Other manufactures had almost died out in Ireland. In 1839 cotton mills were found in six counties, but in 1862 they had entirely disappeared. Woollen manufactures still lingered in some counties, but the struggle was a hard one, as shown by the fact that in 1839 they gave employment to 1,231 persons, whereas in 1862 they only occupied 862. The industry in frieze, however, was valuable, and he hoped it would be extended. According to the Reports of the Inspectors of Factories, worsted had sunk even lower than the woollen manufactures. There used to be a trade called "sprigging," which gave employment to 100,000 persons, chiefly in the north of Ireland; but since the beginning of the American war that had fallen off considerably.
  Another test of the amount of prosperity in a country consisted in the value of the personal property and stocks transferred. Glancing over the Returns of the transfers accomplished by wills, letters of administration, &c., it appeared that the amount decreased from £4,250,000 in 1838, to less than £4,000,000 in 1857. The balance of stocks transferred between England and Ireland was generally in favour of Ireland to the year 1854 by about £1,000,000, but since then matters had changed, and were now the other way. That change was largely traceable, he believed, to purchases of corn, which had become necessary, and which always impoverished a country. With regard to savings banks, too, the investments were less in the present day than they were in 1845. It was true that they had rallied

  1205
  since the great fall in 1849; but they were now only £2,153,211, as against £2,921,581 in 1845. The Reproductive Loan Fund had fallen in a remarkable manner. In 1846 its capital was £408,842, and its circulation £1,770,397; in 1862 its capital was but £185,980, and its circulation £719,460. As regarded that particular fund, he did not think it a very great loss to the country, and probably some portion of the funds formerly utilized in that channel had gone to the savings banks. But still, its falling off was a feature that could not be overlooked in any general estimate of the resources of the country. Probably one of the most striking evidences of downward tendency presented itself in connection with railways. On more than one of the principal lines trains had actually been taken off, and the circumstance had been commented upon in terms of regret by Mr. Ennis, the chairman of the Midland Great Western Company. He had even heard that upon that line passengers bound to or from Galway in some cases would not travel by the ordinary trains, but waited for the goods trains. Another important branch of industry in which there had been a terrible decline was in the fisheries. In the year 1846 there were connected with the Irish fisheries 15,932 boats, and 70,011 fishermen; in 1862 the numbers had fallen to 11,375 boats and 48,601 men, being a decrease of 4,557 fishing boats and 21,410 hardy seamen, from among whom the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty might, doubtless, have drawn materials for excellent crews in the case of a great national emergency. Another important indication of the declining wealth of the country, was the diminution which had taken place in the money circulated by the banks. In 1859 the Irish banks enjoyed a circulation of £6,870,238; but from that period depression had taken place year after year till the amount had fallen to £5,658,392. The Customs and Excise Returns had also diminished, but not in an equally perceptible degree, owing, he believed, to the fact that the amount had been maintained by additional taxation. A nobleman who had spent a great deal of money in Ireland, and who had lately returned from the west, assured him that until the present year he had never despaired of the prospects of the country. This result he attributed to the successive bad harvests; and although in his own neighbourhood the crops, as a whole, had
  1206
  been well saved last year, there were many other parts of the country where the produce by no means realized the earlier promise of the season.
  Having shown the diminished capacity of the country to sustain heavy burdens, he turned to the question of taxation; and he found that in the last decennial period the taxation had increased from £48,560,000 to £52,893,000. The taxation of Ireland, as given in the last official Return, was £6,845,000, but that by no means represented the entire amount properly to be classed under that head. The customs' duties on much that was consumed in Ireland were paid in England. In addressing the House during the last year, he had over-rated the amount, but the Dublin Committee, by whom the subject had been investigated, calculated the proportion at about a million. £700,000 was paid in that way upon sugar alone, and that amount should be added to the taxation stated in the Return. Some years ago the net rents from Crown lands in Ireland amounted to £93,000; but many of these had been sold since, and the produce applied, not to the Irish, but the English revenue. The rents levied in Ireland were spent, in a great measure, out of the country. If Ireland were, indeed, an integral part of the kingdom, she had a right to count on a part of the sums that figured in the Miscellaneous Estimates. If stores were sold, if money were received on account of a Chinese indemnity, if sums owed by the Ionian Islands, by Greece, or Sardinia were repaid, why should not a share of these credits be apportioned to Ireland? These items would make another million, and altogether the real amount of Irish revenue might be put down at £9,000,000. Of course, the English revenue must be diminished in the same proportion. The next question was, how the proportion was to be regulated between the two countries? According to the provisions of the Act of Union, it was to be made by a comparison of the amounts in value of consumption of various articles of produce, such as tea, spirits, and beer. But this, under the altered circumstances of the country, was manifestly unjust, and why should not the valuation of property be taken as a scale of reference? He thought it would be a much fairer way of judging the question. This, at any rate, would be a very proper subject of investigation for the Committee. Two Returns have been moved for — one showing the

  1207
  proportion of taxation to population, and the other the proportion of taxation to property. The test of population he considered to be by no means a fair one, if the plan were adopted of dividing the income by the number of the inhabitants. This system was manifestly greatly to the advantage of the rich country over the poor one; because in the rich country wealth was much more largely diffused, and in the poor country the rate of valuation was much lowered. Out of the £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 of income, about £4,000,000 were sent annually to this country and spent in England, or elsewhere, by absentees. He had been told that the result of his Motion would be to show that Ireland was too lightly taxed, and that then the assessed taxes would be levied in Ireland. But he defied any Chancellor of the Exchequer to add a farthing to the taxation of Ireland. The people were flying the country, and no more taxes could be paid. The total income of Great Britain in 1862 was £70,433,620. Estimating Irish income at £8,341,119, the net income of England was £61,092,501. Of that sum, about £10,000,000 were spent out of England, and £51,000,000 in England. Another point was, as to the remission of taxation. Ireland had increased in taxation more rapidly than Great Britain. The increase of taxation in Great Britain from 1800 was as 16½ to 10 in permanent taxation, and with war taxes as 21¼ to 10. In Ireland, however, the increase had been as 23 to 10, while in 24 years it was as 463/8 to 10. Since 1816 there had been a large reduction of taxation in England, but not in Ireland. In 1816 the taxes repealed were £17,196,324, of which the benefit to Ireland was only £163,155. From that time to 1842 the taxes paid by Great Britain were repealed to the amount of £45,549,683; by Ireland only £2,416,981. Since that time the income tax had been imposed and the spirit duties increased. The proportion of taxation to population was an unfair test, but the reverse was the case in regard to the proportion of taxation to property. The property assessed to income tax in Great Britain was £301,380,730; in Ireland, £21,638,975. The gross revenue of Great Britain was £61,360,749; of Ireland, £6,792,606. Thus, for every pound of gross revenue, Great Britain paid 4s. d., while Ireland paid 6s.3½d. If, however, there were added to the account uncredited Customs
  1208
  and absentee rents, there would be a drain from Ireland amounting to at least 10 s. in the pound. In this way Ireland had become impoverished by a load of taxation. After he had thus laid his case before the House, he would ask if there was anything unreasonable in his Motion. All he wished to ask the House was this — Was there anything unreasonable in a reconsideration of the Treaty of the Union for the purpose of ascertaining whether the promises held out by that treaty had been fulfilled, and whether, considering the relative wealth of the two countries, the method of taxation was just and equal? And if he had proved that every species of industry and wealth had been lessened in Ireland, he thought the House could not refuse an inquiry to see whether the present taxation of Ireland was not greater than she could bear. The Irish people had turned their attention to this subject with the same ardour that they frequently displayed on far inferior questions. He had made no complaint against the Government, he had simply asked for an account between the two countries, and he thought, if the Committee were granted, there was no reason why either party should be dissatisfied with the examination. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving the appointment of a Select Committee.
  Mr. HENNESSY,in seconding the Motion, wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question. They were about to have this Committee granted, and a Conference might take place between half-a-dozen English Members and half-a-dozen Irish Members. What, then, was to be the basis of that Conference? The noble Lord had told them that a basis had been fixed for the Conference on the Dano-German question, and there was a remarkable parallel between the cases of Denmark and Ireland. In both cases there were certain solemn engagements which had been made and broken. Mr. Pitt promised at the time of the Union that Ireland should be taxed only in proportion to her ability to pay, and that promise had been broken. Lord Castlereagh also said that the government of Ireland should not be administered by Englishmen, but by Irishmen—a promise, likewise, which had not been carried out. The present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland approved of the depopulation of the country, and thought it a healthy symptom that the people should be going away. The Irish Members differred from his Excellency on that point,

  1209
  and deplored the loss of the population. He wished, therefore, to know whether or not, in granting this Committee, the Government would make it the basis of the inquiry that the people of Ireland ought to be preserved?
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed, to consider the Taxation of Ireland, and how far it is in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Union, or just in reference to the resources of the Country,"—(Colonel Dunne,)
  —instead thereof.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, the Irish Members were most grateful to his hon. and gallant Friend for bringing forward this subject, and for dealing with it in the manner he had done. There was a striking and a painful contrast between the condition of England and Ireland. In England there was no end to the accumulation of wealth and the development of prosperity. Let them cross the Channel, however, and all was changed. He did not, of course, hold the Government responsible for the succession of bad seasons under which Ireland had suffered; but the country was not in a progressive state, and there must be something wrong to account for its backwardness. The Irish people believed that one great cause of the evil was over-taxation; and where a country was taxed beyond its means its capital must diminish and its condition become retrograde. He did not want any special exemptions in favour of Ireland; but as Scotland, under the terms of the Union with England, had the benefit of certain sums for the formation of harbours and other improvements, so Ireland also ought to have proportionate sums for encouraging her industrial progress and developing her natural resources. It was scarcely possible to get at the relative financial position of the two countries, from the conflicting Returns issued on the authority of the Government, and he hoped that one of the advantages of the proposed inquiry would be the putting an end to that state of uncertainty. The conviction was strong and general in Ireland that the country was grossly over-taxed, and that it was entitled to some relief. Ireland had a right to such an adjustment of her burdens as was consistent at once with the terms of Union and with her ability to contribute. With that she would be satisfied, but not with
  1210
  less. He trusted that the Committee would be impartially constituted, so as to secure for it general confidence.
  LORD DUNKELLINsaid, that all who listened to the hon. and gallant Member must sympathize with the account he gave of the state of Ireland. He feared, however, that his hon. and gallant Friend had gone the right way to attain the end which the Irish Members all had in view. That end was to call attention to the heavy load of taxation which Ireland laboured under, in order to effect some alleviation of it. It would, perhaps, have been better, therefore, if particular burdens pressing unduly upon that country had been brought under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's notice, with a view to their being removed or mitigated in the right hon. Gentleman's next financial scheme. If the Committee were to go through all the accounts from the date of the Union to the present time, making out a kind of debtor and creditor sheet as between the two countries, and were also to consider the grounds why one tax had been put on and another taken off, he was afraid they would get into endless confusion and embarrassment without any hope of a practical result. He quite concurred with his hon. and gallant Friend in the opinion that Ireland suffered to a great extent from over-taxation. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government would calmly contemplate the picture that Ireland presented at that time, they would feel that any boon they could confer upon her would be an act of charity which would be well received there, and which would commend itself also to the sympathies of a generous English Parliament. After three years of scarcity, sometimes of crops, sometimes of fuel, and sometimes of both, the poor people of Ireland were in a very reduced condition, and they had only to look to that to understand the enormous emigration now going on. There was no doubt that, under present circumstances, it was impossible for any tenant in that country who rested his dependence upon agricultural produce to prosper, and, indeed, it was a matter of doubt whether there was not an actual loss upon the mere cultivation of the land. He did not mean to say that Ireland was in a state of beggary or abject misery; but amongst the poorer classes, and he might say, perhaps among the middle classes too, those who depended upon the exchange of produce to procure ordinary necessities were reduced to very great straits. In

  1211
  this condition of things the taxation pressed with no common severity, and the tax which pressed the heaviest, and in respect to which they had special claims upon the Government, was the income tax. The income tax was not popular in England, but what would Englishmen say if they were asked to pay it twice over? Yet, that was the condition in which Ireland was practically placed. In illustration of his meaning, he might observe that Sir Robert Peel, in whose footsteps the Chancellor of the Exchequer followed, and not without success, when proposing the imposition of the income tax in 1842, said he did not seek to impose it upon Ireland, which had in 1798 also been exempted from its operation, because he was of opinion that there were two ways in which that country could contribute a similar amount as if she paid income tax; the one being by means of the increase of the spirit duties, the other by the increase of the duty upon stamps. The Chancellor of the Exchequer! however, since then, had not only imposed an income tax upon Ireland, but had still further increased the duty on spirits and stamps, thus causing her to pay in another shape the equivalent of a tax for which she had already compounded. He had, therefore, no hesitation in asking the right hon. Gentleman to take the subject into his consideration before he made his arrangements for the financial year, and by extending to Ireland the relief to which she was entitled, stimulate the exertions and excite the energies of a greatly depressed people.
  MR. LONGFIELDobserved, that his lion, and gallant Friend had no wish that the Committee should undertake the useless task of unravelling the intricate accounts that existed before the Union, or even those which, by a sort of juggle, were made the basis of settlement afterwards. The only reason, as he understood, of the reference to those figures was, to show that the proportion fixed for the taxation of Ireland was originally unjust, and that she had therefore the greater claim to a rigid adherence to the treaty now when any stipulations were made for her benefit. Nothing could be more absurd than to go back sixty-four years to see what was the proportion of taxation between the two countries then, but if they were adjusting the proportion again, he believed that one-seventeenth would be found to be nearer the proportion Ireland ought to bear than two-seventeenths. The
  1212
  figures which his hon. and gallant Friend had laid before the House, however, showed clearly that Ireland was very rapidly, for her means, improving in wealth and increasing in agricultural resources, at a time when she had a population nearly double in amount that which it was at present. Despite even of the calamity with which she had been visited in 1846, her taxation was so light that she was able to a great extent to recover from the effects of a grievous famine. With 1852, however, came a new state of things. A new system was inaugurated; the result of the financial operations of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer being that, while there had been since that time a great remission of taxation in England, there had been in Ireland an increase from £4,500,000 to £7,000,000. At what cost to the industry of the country had that enormous increase taken place. One instance would show that. At one time there were over ninety distilleries at work in Ireland. Now, it was well known that grain not sufficiently ripened might be used in distilling, and it would therefore be seen how important it was to the industry of a country subject to so many bad harvests to have so large a number of distilleries at work. But, instead of ninety, there were only twenty-seven distilleries in operation now. Could it be doubted that when at one time the duty upon whisky was only 2s. 10 d. the gallon, and it was now 10 s., that the increased taxation had nothing to do with the closing of so many distilleries? Then there was another manufacture—paper— which the Chancellor of the Exchequer lent a helping hand to destroy. Mr. Greer, one of the most extensive paper manufacturers in the south of Ireland, had, since the operation of the French Treaty — which might have been beneficial to England—been obliged to work his mills only half the time, and give only half the employment which he had done before. There was thus injury caused by unjust imposition and unwise remission of taxes since 1852. When the wealth of the country and the population of the country were decreasing, the people attributed it, perhaps unjustly, to the pressure of taxation under which they laboured. That being so, nothing could be more just and reasonable than to grant the Committee. As parties to a solemn treaty and as representing a country which of late had suffered enormously, Irish Members had a right to demand this Committee, and he was very much deceived

  1213 s
  if its labours would be such as had been represented by the noble Lord (Lord Dunkellin). There were certain green books in the right hon. Gentleman's hand which he appeared to be studying very industriously. Those books endeavoured to show, that though men were decaying, wealth was accumulating. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman anything from those books would be received at the other side of the water with very little respect. It was just as absurd to get a gentleman to write a book to prove that Ireland was prospering though her wealth and population decayed, as it was to ask learned Members of the Royal Society to write an essay to account for this—how it was that if a live salmon was put into a vessel full of water, the water would not overflow. Facts always outweigh theory, and it was felt that the recent increase of taxation in Ireland depressed its energies and diminished its resources. He trusted that much good might result to that country from the investigation into the subject which would take place before the Committee; he approved, therefore, of the gallant Colonel's Motion.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, Her Majesty's Government would not have felt disposed, upon their own responsibility, to recommend a Committee to inquire into the taxation of Ireland. There are practical disadvantages in the appointment of such a Committee, and this is the main one—that it tends to excite expectations which it may be found impracticable to fulfil. But it is not always by their own view of the abstract utility and expediency of a proposal that the Government must be guided. In a question of this kind the Government are bound to pay a great degree of respect to the wishes of those who, in a peculiar manner, represent the feelings of the people of Ireland; and it must also be admitted, that the very peculiar circumstances of Ireland during the last few years in respect to emigration and bad harvests, have tended to raise questions of difficulty and doubt, the solution of which is not obvious, and not unnaturally to direct men's minds to inquire whether excess of taxation could have anything to do with the distress of the country. Under these circumstances, and finding a strong desire on the part of Irish Members, who represent a similar desire on the part of the Irish people, to investigate the question of Irish taxation, I think it would not be
  1214
  wise, and hardly kind, if the Government were to offer any opposition. Their duty is rather to make clear the grounds upon which they accede to the proposal, and to lend to the hon. and gallant Gentleman all the assistance they can—in the first place, with respect to the formation of the Committee, and in the next place with respect to the direction of the inquiries to a right issue. It is not necessary for me to arm myself with a blue-book or pamphlet, or to inflict its contents on the House. In point of fact, the general views of the Government were declared by me last year on an occasion similar to the present. But, as so much has been said on the subject, I will detain the House with a few remarks. The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not propose a re-trial of the arrangements which were made at the time of the Act of Union with regard to their justice or propriety at that period. He proposes two subjects of inquiry—one, how far the present taxation is in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Union; and the other, how far it is just with reference to the resources of the country. As respects the terms of the Treaty of Union, I cannot disguise my opinion that they have been kept, and more than kept. And that, I think, is very capable of demonstration. If we look back simply to matters of fact, and to the tables of revenue yielded by the two countries—Great Britain considered as one country and Ireland as another—we find that, whereas the stipulation of the Treaty of Union was, that Ireland should raise a revenue equal to 2–17ths of the gross revenue, bearing the relation to the British revenue of one to seven and a-half, the Irish revenue from the time of the Union to the expiration of the war appears to have been in the proportion of one to eleven. I do not think it rose in any one year as high as one to ten. The result was, the contribution of Ireland to the expenses of the two countries, in regard to revenue, fell short, and that led to a rapid accumulation of the debt of Ireland. I presume it was felt by Parliament that it was impossible that state of things should continue, and the consequence was, that the exchequers of the two countries were consolidated, with the general consent of Parliament—that is to say, when the exchequers were consolidated, the debts which were contracted to fulfil the separate engagements of Ireland, from 1800 to 1816, were taken over by England, and from that time forward

  1215
  were shared by the whole kingdom. With respect to that consolidation, I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not suppose that it was effected in a manner contrary to the terms of the Act of Union—because it was, in the first place, made in a way favourable to Ireland; and, in the second place, it was distinctly provided by the Act of Union that its arrangements with regard to taxation might be revised and considered. That may be one reason why we are justified in acceding to the present proposal; and in referring this matter, which can hardly be elucidated thoroughly by discussion in the Whole House, to a Committee, where a conclusion can be arrived at by an impartial tribunal, which may, at any rate, settle and compose the minds of persons in this country or in Ireland, if at present disturbed on this subject. I will just refer to a Return moved for by the hon. Baronet the Member for Dublin (Sir Edward Grogan), and presented in July of last year. I believe every syllable in it to be correct, but I have never seen a Return more calculated to deceive those who draw what appear the natural deductions from it. The Return gives the relative populations of Ireland and Great Britain, and also the gross revenue of the two countries. The Return also shows that Ireland contributes less than 2–17ths of the gross revenue specified by the Act of Union, though the hon. and gallant Member has made a calculation that Ireland contributed more. I am not prepared to accede to the statement of the hon. and gallant Member, who, as I understood, said that a sum of £700,000 is paid in England on account of duly for sugar, which is carried to Ireland and consumed; and that that sum virtually forms part of the Irish revenue. It would, indeed, show a capacity for the consumption of that article in Ireland out of all proportion with the population if, besides the duty on sugar realized in Ireland, so much as £700,000 were paid in England as duty on sugar which was afterwards carried to Ireland and consumed there. [Colonel DUNNE said, he had made the statement on the authority of the Dublin Committee.] I prefer the evidence before the Committee in this country. According to the Return I have just alluded to, the amount of property and profits assessed to income tax in Great Britain is £301,380,730, and in Ireland £21,638,975; but I have two observations to make in reference to that calculation, and the false conclusions to which
  1216
  it is calculated to lead. One is that the valuation of property for the purpose of the income tax in Ireland is lower than in England as far as concerns landed property, for in England the income tax is charged on the gross rental without deductions. That is not the case in Ireland, and the basis taken for the imposition of the tax in Ireland is Sir R. Griffiths' valuation, which is notoriously very much below the gross rental. [Mr. KER: I beg your pardon.] I am not speaking of particular cases or of particular districts, but of the general principle of the valuation, which, no doubt, is below the gross valuation. That, I think, to be a source of fallacy, but the principal fallacy suggested by these Returns is, that the income tax charged on Great Britain is lower in proportion than that charged on Ireland. These, however, are all subjects which may fairly be investigated. There is one circumstance connected with the taxation of Ireland which can not fail to meet the observation of the Committee. The Committee will, of course, have to direct its attention not merely to the taxes imposed on Ireland, but to other taxes from which Ireland is exempted. You can scarcely find any tax incident on the labouring population, of which Ireland did not bear its full proportion, while of very considerable exemptions nearly the whole are so adjusted as to bear very lightly on property. That is a peculiar state of things. It is possible that the Committee may direct its attention to the adjustment of these taxes in Ireland as well as to the gross amount as compared with English taxation. But these are points upon which I will not venture to give an opinion. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Dublin that it will be extremely difficult, and that it will be a disadvantage to all parties if we were to break up the system of uniform charges that now prevails on consumable commodities. With regard to the composition of the Committee, I hope that as the hon. and gallant Member and myself have advanced so far in harmony there will be no difference of opinion, and I think we ought to endeavour to give weight to it by a careful selection of members. With respect to the proportion of British and Irish Members we must feel that an undue preponderance of any particular element will be objectionable. Fortunately we have a precedent in the Committee that sat during the Liverpool administration on the subject. If it is to

  1217
  consist of fifteen, then there may he seven Irish members and eight British; or if twenty - one, then ten Irish and eleven British. I hope no sanguine expectation likely to lead to disappointment will be indulged in on the subject. As regarded the distress of Ireland, I deplore it. Whether the cause of it be taxation, or emigration, or those deficient harvests which beyond doubt have caused an enormous loss to the country, I trust that the day of that distress may be near its close, and that in future the career of Ireland may be one of happiness and prosperity.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That a Select Committee be appointed, to consider the Taxation of Ireland, and how far it is in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Union, or just in reference to the resources of the Country.—(Colonel Dunne.)
  And on Tuesday, March 8, Committee nominated as follows:—
  Colonel DUNNE, Sir EDWARD GROGAN, Sir FREDERICK HEYGATE, Mr. LONGFIELD, Mr. HENNESSY, Mr. MONSELL, Lord JOHN BROWNE, The O'CONOR DON, Lord STANLEY, Sir STAFFORD NORTH-COTE, Mr. HOWES, Mr. FINLAY, Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Mr. LOWE: — Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  And, on March 9, Mr. HANKEY added.

UNITED STATES—ISLAND OF SAN JUAN.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HALIBURTONsaid, he had been requested by the hon. Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to postpone a question of which he had given notice, as to the present state of the negotiations with the United States on the subject of their forcible possession of the Island of San Juan, on the coast of Vancouver. He had no objection to assent to the postponement, but it must not be supposed that he could accede to postponing it indefinitely.

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

MALT FOR CATTLE BILL. [BILL 37.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Malt may be made and used, free of Duty, in the Feeding of Animals).
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Packe), he would propose an Amendment with the object of permitting the mixture of malt with cotton cake and rape cake.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, which would be destructive of the object of the. Bill. In matters of that sort they were treading on the very edge of danger, and it was requisite to be very cautious as to the materials which the Legislature allowed to be mixed with malt, or else a mixture might be produced the elements of which might again be separated and the malt which had been prepared for cattle might be used for the brewing of beer. There was no material known which could be used without danger except linseed or linseed cake. Still, other substances might be discovered in course of time which would protect the revenue as effectually as linseed, and he should, therefore, offer no opposition to the Amendment of the hon. Member near him (Mr. Caird), who proposed to allow the admixture of any such substance as might hereafter be allowed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, to insert in line 14, after "Malt house," the words "or with such other substance as may hereafter be approved by the said Commissioners,"—(Mr. Caird), agreed to.
  The object of the Amendment was to allow substances that might be found out hereafter, to be used instead of linseed if required.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 2, 3, and 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Maltster to provide a secure room for grinding and mixing Malt).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as the clause now stood, a farmer would be required to have one room for storing his malt and another for grinding it; but he proposed to amend the

  1219
  clause by allowing the malt to be stored and ground in the same room.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Malt to be mixed with Linseed Cake or Meal, &c).
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the excellent beer to which they had lately been treated by the hon. Member for Derby showed that a very good beverage might be brewed from the mixture produced by the Excise officer, and he would therefore suggest that the proportion of linseed should be one-fifth, instead of one-tenth. Some years ago an addition of 5 per cent was made to the taxes generally, but the malt duty was the only impost on which it was still retained. He, therefore, gave notice that on an early day he would move that the malt tax be relieved from that addition so as to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the disposal of his surplus revenue. He now moved, that in the present clause one-fifth should be substituted for one-tenth.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, lie regretted that he did not see his way to improving the Bill in favour of the agriculturists; but, on the other hand, he did not wish to render it more stringent as would be the effect of the Amendment. He entirely appreciated the motive of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wakefield, but as regarded the measure he could venture to assure him, in the opinion of the Government there was no cause for apprehension. He would not then enter into the question of the reduction of taxation, by which the hon. and gallant Member proposed to content both maltsters and farmers. With regard to the beer of which some hon. Members had had such an agreeable experience, conflicting accounts had reached him. He had heard even of contortions of visage on the part of those who had tasted the beverage, and of some having hastened to purge themselves of the effect of it, by resorting to a stronger liquor. Moreover, the linseed which had been used in that decoction had not been prepared in accordance with the conditions of the Bill. He believed that beer adulterated as he proposed could not be profitably sold.
  MR. MITFORDsaid, he would suggest that as the excisemen were not experts, they might have some difficulty in detecting a breach of the Act.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he believed the officers would
  1220
  be quite competent for the task. In the event of their not being able to decide as to the character of the malt, they could send a sample up to the London establishment for analysis.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he should be glad to feel satisfied that no danger to the revenue would arise from the measure. He had drunk a glass of beer made with the mixture of one-Tenth of linseed with the malt, and he must say the beverage was of a satisfactory character. He would not say it was the finest he had drunk out of Mr. Bass's bottles; but it was of far better character than the beer generally met with. If, therefore, the mixture would produce as good a liquor, could they doubt it would be used for that purpose? If, however, that difficulty could be overcome, the Bill would remove the great objection to the malt tax, which was that it was an impediment to industry.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  SIR EDWARD DERINGsaid, he rose to move a new clause, giving permission to agriculturists to malt barley. There had been a good deal of misapprehension with regard to the effect of his clause. Its practical effect would not be to withdraw the agricultural malt house from the supervision of the excise, but simply to enable the proprietors of these malt-houses to malt their barley for the consumption of their own stock without being obliged to take out a maltster's licence. That did not appear to be an unreasonable proposition. In fact, it was only an echo of the preamble. Under the existing Act any person had a right to steep his own barley and to germinate it, without any interference on the part of the Excise. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No.] Many years ago, when the repeal of the malt tax was proposed by the late Marquess of Chandos, Sir Robert Peel in opposing it quoted one of the regulations of the Excise, to the effect that the practice of steeping barley in water having become prevalent, and as the revenue might be endangered by the extension of it to other purposes, it was ordered that the supervisors should ascertain the parties who carried on the practice, and their mode of disposing of the grain so steeped, but that no interruption should be given to the process except upon actual proof or well-grounded suspicion of fraud. That

  1221
  regulation, as far as he was aware, had not been rescinded, and so he concluded that farmers were at liberty to steep their own barley and to germinate it. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No.] But, leaving that point, what he complained of was that the right hon. Gentleman in the Bill went out of his way to impose a tax upon the farmer in the shape of a maltster's licence, merely for converting the raw produce of his fields into a food for cattle. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that it would be desirable to enable farmers to malt their barley, but he had suggested that in all probability it would be cheaper and more convenient for them to hare recourse to some neighbouring maltster. Now, in some counties, there never had existed any great number of malt houses, and since the alteration in the system of malt credits, many of them had disappeared. Consequently, if the farmer were obliged to send his barley a considerable distance for the purpose of being made into malt, the cost of carriage would be something considerable, and in many cases would, no doubt, put a stop to the business. But, even supposing there was a maltster close at hand, it must be remembered that fresh malt was quite as necessary for cattle as it was for brewers, and he doubted whether its feeding properties would not be seriously impaired, if not altogether destroyed, by a detention for weeks and months in the warehouse of the maltster. As the operation of the Bill was limited to six years, it could hardly be expected that any man would go to the heavy expense of erecting new buildings for malting. It was manifest, indeed, that if the Bill was to come into operation at all, it could only be through the working of the farmers themselves, and if impediments were to be thrown in their way, he should be disposed to say that the measure, so far from being a benefit, would be an actual disadvantage to agriculturists. He admitted that the malt licence was not of a very onerous character, but that was the strongest possible reason why it should not be imposed upon farmers. It was an admitted principle not to maintain taxes which yielded little or nothing to the revenue, and which were at the same time extremely galling to those who had to pay them. It might be said that the exemption of agriculturists might be productive of danger to the Exchequer, but he contended that there were provisions within
  1222
  the Bill, as well as in the existing Excise laws, which put the probability of fraud entirely out of the question. By the second clause it was provided that every person intending to make malt under the Bill should be obliged to enter into a bond with two sureties, and the officers of Inland Revenue were entitled to put in that bond such stipulations as they might think fit. Again, by the existing Excise laws every person about to commence the process of malting, must give notice to the Excise of his intention, in order that an officer might gauge the contents of what he was about to malt, and so take care that the revenue was not defrauded. The same obligation would attach to a person malting under the Bill, and he did not believe that the taking out of a licence would make the slightest difference. He might be told that the Excise did not like exemptions; but up to last year the hop-growers, though dealing in an excisable article, and though not allowed to remove a single pocket before it had been visited by the officers of Excise, were never required to take out a licence for drying their hops. Why should the same liberty not be given to the growers of barley? But, after all, he hoped that the Bill would pass into law, believing that it would be of great practical utility. Among its incidental advantages, he had no doubt that, if not clogged with restrictions, it would have the effect of leading to a reduction of the enormous prices which linseed cake and other artificial feeds now brought in the market. He was persuaded, moreover, that the recent debates must have convinced everybody that the agriculturists were fully alive to the great importance, he would not say of agitating, but of ventilating the question of the malt tax in a fair and legitimate way. He believed it was indisputable that, in a pecuniary point of view, the proposed licence tax would produce so infinitesimal a sum, that it might be considered as of no value to the revenue. He, therefore, hoped the right hon. Gentleman, as an indication of his good will towards the agricultural classes, would concede the boon asked for, and sanction the principle of the British farmer being allowed to convert the produce of his fields to the best possible advantage, without having to pay an impost in the shape of a maltster's tax. He begged to move the following clause:—
  (Permission to Agriculturists to Malt Barley). —"That it shall be lawful for all persons engaged in agriculture to Malt Barley (according to the

  1223
  provisions of this Act) for the consumption of their own stock without taking out a maltster's licence."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his hon. Friend had on that as on all other occasions, discharged his duty to his constituents with zeal and ability; but it was not in his power to concede what his hon. Friend asked, nor to carry on the Bill saddled with such a clause as he proposed. As the law at present stood, it assumed, when certain processes reached a certain length, that the intention was to make malt, and the Excise charged a duty. The question for the Revenue Department to consider was at what stage, in virtue of their powers, they should interfere. His hon. Friend was mistaken as to the point at which that interference took place. He seemed to suppose that the whole process was permitted, with the exception of a single step; but nothing was allowed to go forward under the present system except the simple steeping, and even that was watched, or upon the next step the whole germination of the barley would be arrested, and taken to indicate an intention of proceeding to a further stop. His principal objection to the proposed clause was, that it would check a system of law that was uniform, recognized, and understood, in a matter of great difficulty and delicacy, and that for the sake of an advantage which was immaterial. His hon. Friend proposed to secure for the farmer this distinction— that whereas no person in any other condition of life might carry on a manufacturing process without a licence, he should be enabled to do so without making any payment to the revenue. And what did the impost, which his hon. Friend wished to remove, amount to? The greater number of farmers would pay the duty of 7s. 6d. for malting up to fifty quarters. Hardly any of them would pay beyond 15 s. the sum which would allow them to malt up to one hundred quarters; so that the licence duty might be taken to amount to 2d. per quarter. The clause was the more objectionable because it would prove the parent of a brood of similar demands. His hon. Friend said that the farmer only asked to be allowed to malt barley for his own use. But why was not the farmer allowed to brew for his own use without taking out a licence? There was a description of malt that paid no duty—malt intended for distilling; but if the maltster desired to make malt for distilling he was
  1224
  obliged to take out a licence. The clauses of the Bill were not numerous nor complicated, but their effects would be to bring the trade carried on under the Bill within the general scope of the Excise Acts. If they proceeded to recognize descriptions of trades that might be carried on under the supervision of the Excise, but without a licence, they must have a new set of legislative provisions for that purpose. Under these circumstances, he must oppose the introduction of the clause.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUobserved, that whenever there was a Motion of a tyrannical or oppressive character, it was sure to come from the opposite side of the House, and proceed from some ultra-liberal Member. The present instance was an example of what he meant. Now, the exciseman did not pry into farmer's houses, he only troubled maltsters. But the hon. Baronet desired that excisemen should be constantly hovering round every farm house in the kingdom, thrusting themselves in, and prying into every corner. For the exciseman must see what farmers are malting, and then watch the malt to see whether it is devoted to feeding cattle, or to other purposes. Now if there was one thing in the Bill which had an odious tendency it was this, that the inquisition of excisemen would be rather increased. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had obviated that as well as he could; the hon. Baronet was not satisfied, but desired to make it as onerous and oppressive as possible.
  The hon. Baronet made a mistake in his quotation, which he rather triumphantly read from a speech of Sir Robert Peel, as if it proved his whole case. He made a confusion between steeping, germination, and malting. Every one, then as now, might steep barley. It was only when germination had begun that the exciseman might step in. The hon. Baronet spoke as an agriculturist. Doubtless he had read Liebig's works. He might, therefore, remind him of what Liebig had said. Barley in itself was not such a very superior food, but malted barley had a peculiar efficacy in promoting the feeding qualities of other food. After the barley had been steeped, when germination commenced, a chemical change took place; other combinations were made, and a new substance called Diastase came into existence, somewhat similar to that which doctors, a few years ago, had administered to dyspeptic patients—he meant Pepsine. If germina-

  1225
  tion continued this substance would, in its turn, be speedily destroyed. But this was arrested by kiln drying. That was the history of malting, and the use of malted barley for feeding cattle; and the hon. Baronet would see that his quotation of words, which referred to steeping alone, did in reality not apply, and was no argument in favour of his Amendment.
  MR. NEATEsaid, his objection to the clause was, that it gave an undue advantage to the large farmer over the small farmer, and he thought legislation should give no advantage to either one or the other. It had been said, that if they allowed the farmer to dry his hops they should allow him to dry his barley; but hops would be spoiled without drying, and barley would not.
  MR. PACKEwas understood to say that the Bill offered no inducement to the farmer to make his own malt for feeding purposes, and that it would be useless in its operation.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who declared that he would not proceed with the Bill if the clause were carried, the hon. Baronet would do well to withdraw his proposal. It would be only fair to give the Bill a fair trial. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, meant well to the agriculturists; he proposed the measure in good faith, and it should be accepted for what it was worth, and in the spirit in which it was given.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, his noble Friend near him had laid down a great principle, in which he thoroughly agreed—namely, that liberalism and tyranny were convertible terms; he would go a step further and say that those who studied history would find that liberalism was the sister of tyranny, and the parent of anarchy. He believed that there was little in the Bill which would be satisfactory to the agriculturists, that it would cause great disappointment, and that they must indeed be thankful for small mercies if they were thankful for such a measure. The hon. Baronet said, that whatever might be the result of the Bill, the agricultural interest would not relax their efforts to obtain a repeal of the malt duty. But he feared that, for many years to come, the total repeal of that duty would not be financially possible. As far as the producer of barley was concerned, the advantage of such a remission would only extend to a small portion of the agricultural districts of this country; and he
  1226
  therefore hoped that the agricultural interest would unite for larger objects, regarding this as one only out of many burdens which they had to bear beyond their just proportion of taxation.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYobserved, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that the Board of Inland Revenue would take care of the purity of the particular material to be intermixed with the malt. He should like to know whether the Board of Inland Revenue would equally guarantee, by Government seal, the admixture to be sold to the farmer. There was a possibility, that between the period of the intermixture and the sale to the consumer, that adulteration might be practised, which would create distrust in the mind of the farmer, and, probably, loss to the revenue.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, as far as his opinion went, the Bill would be of some use to discourage adulteration in linseed. As far as the relations between the maltster and the man of whom he bought linseed went, the Bill would be a check; but beyond that it could not go. Any further interference would be so vexatious and so increase the cost that the dealing between the buyer and seller must be left to the ordinary regulations of trade.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing the Bill, ought to have explained how little benefit the farmers would derive from the measure. It appeared to be really a Bill to transfer an experiment from the Inland Revenue Department to the maltsters of England. With regard to the Amendments of the hon. Member for East Kent, he really thought it was of little importance whether it was pressed or not, or whether the Bill passed or was abandoned.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he would add his recommendation to the hon. Baronet to withdraw the clause. It was quite clear the farmer would not get rid of the exciseman. A few shillings for a licence was nothing, the nuisance was the exciseman. He should have thought the hon. Baronet the Member for East Kent (Sir Edward Dering) would have understood that nuisance, for the inhabitants of that part of the country had the reputation of holding peculiar views as to the revenue beyond any other part of the kingdom. But, be that as it might, our Excise laws, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, formed a very com-

  1227
  plicated mass. No one could tell what the effect of having a licence might be as to penalties. The unhappy farmer might probably be deluded into believing that if he had no licence he would have nothing to do with the Excise, and yet he might be sued for £100 penalties. The Excise department might also be forced, for its own protection, to interfere with that which hitherto they had not interfered — the steeping of barley for cattle feeding. He agreed with the noble Lord that the Bill was not of much consequence one way or other. Some people might think that they would obtain an advantage from it, and if so, let them have it; but let the Government, like the black man's legs, have all the credit of it.
  SIR EDWARD DERINGsaid, after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in the event of the Amendment being carried, the Bill would not be proceeded with, he would not press it to a division. He did not wish to prevent the Bill from passing through the House, and he would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

CONVEYANCERS, &c. (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 5.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Commissioners of Inland Revenue not to grant Certificates to Persons herein mentioned, except on their depositing Order from Benchers of King's Inns authorizing the same).
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he rose to move some Amendments of which he had given notice. The measure would make a material alteration in the law with regard to the parties who were at present entitled to practise in Ireland. As the law stood, an English conveyancer was entitled to practise in that country, but the effect of the Bill would be to prevent any person practising there who was not certificated by the King's decree in Dublin. He thought that no restriction ought to be placed on persons practising the legal profession in Ireland, and that it would be a
  1228
  great advantage if there were but one school of uniform law for the two countries. The effect of his Amendments would be to leave the law as it stood, and to allow an English barrister admitted in England to practise in Ireland. For that purpose he proposed to provide that all persons entitled to practise as conveyancers, special pleaders, draughtsmen in equity, or barristers in England, should be entitled to practise as such respectively in Ireland, and that all persons entitled to practise as conveyancers, special pleaders, draughtsmen in equity, or barristers in Ireland, shall be entitled to practise as such respectively in England. He hoped that the Attorney General for Ireland would agree to his Amendments, otherwise he must trouble the Committee to divide upon them.
  Amendment moved to add.
  At the end of Clause add — "Provided always, That all persons now or hereafter admitted to practise as barristers by one of the said four Inns of Court in England, shall be entitled to practise as barristers in Ireland; and all persons now or hereafter admitted to practise as barristers in Ireland by the said Society of King's Inn at Dublin shall be entitled to practise as barristers in England."
  MR. VANCEsaid, he should oppose the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments, as they would complicate the simple object of the Bill. That object was to prevent incompetent persons from making deeds and conveyances in Ireland, by requiring certificates of qualification for the work. At present, any one could practise as a conveyancer who took out a licence, costing £6 a year, and it was found that many persons, who were wholly incompetent, took out such licences and practised.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he also opposed the Amendments, which opened up too wide a question to be dealt with incidentally in a measure of the kind before the Committee. At present, anybody who paid a tax of £8 was allowed to practise as a conveyancer in Ireland, and the Bill was designed merely to remedy the evils which naturally flowed from such a state of things.
  MR. NEATEsaid, that as a member of the English bar, he was in favour of the principle of the Amendment, but he thought it would be better to propose it at a future time.
  MR. O'HAGAN (ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND)explained the social mischief which the Bill sought to redress, and objected to the Amendments as crude

  1229
  and premature. The Bars of the two countries ought to he consulted before any proposal was made for their amalgamation. However desirable it might be to assimilate the laws of England and Ireland, or to assimilate the systems of legal education in both, that was not a fitting occasion to discuss so large and important a subject. He regretted to have to oppose the Amendment.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he wished to point out that the particular Amendment then before the Committee was limited in its scope. It would merely allow English barristers whose competency was admitted to practise as conveyancers and draughtsmen in Ireland.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. O'HAGAN (ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND)moved, to leave out in line 22 the words "at the date of the passing of this Act shall be legally acting," and insert, "on the 11th day of January, 1864, was legally qualified and acting."
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he should oppose the Amendment. He could only characterize it as ex post facto legislation.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he thought the 11th of January, the date fixed for the Bill to come into operation, was too early, seeing that some of these practitioners might have practised in the mean time, and thereby render themselves liable. He suggested that the 11th of February should be substituted.
  MR. O'HAGAN (ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND)said, it was necessary to fix some day; and the latest date for taking out the certificate being the 7th of January, he had made the clause to take effect a few days afterwards.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, in confirmation of the opinion he had expressed, he would refer to a passage in the letter of Mr. Orpen, President of the Incorporated Law Society, which urged that the proper period for the saving clause was the 8th of February.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, some alarm had been excited in the minds of country gentlemen by the announcements that persons not duly qualified would in future expose themselves to punishment by drawing formal instruments of whatever kind. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would state that the Act was not intended to apply to any agent or bailiff drawing leases or agreements on behalf of holders of land.
  MR. O'HAGAN (ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND)said, there ought to be no difficulty about the meaning of the Bill. It was intended simply to apply to persons practising as conveyancers, &c.," for fee and reward," without a proper qualification. It had no reference to persons acting gratuitously.
  Clause 2, amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Penalties on Persons acting as Attorneys, &c., unless qualified as herein mentioned).
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he held that it was monstrous to subject persons to the penalties which it contemplated, and which were wholly without precedent. It was well known that in country districts, remote from proper legal advice, schoolmasters and others filled up bills of sales, and filed processes in the County Courts for trifling sums—6d. or 1s. Was it reasonable to inflict penalties of £20 in such cases?
  MR. O'HAGAN (ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND)said, there certainly was no precedent for the enactment in England, but the circumstances of the two countries were very different. A properly qualified Conveyancer or an Attorney was subject to many kinds of restraint and control—these unqualified practitioners to none at all. He saw no hardship in protecting those who obeyed the law, and discouraging those whose operations were against the interests of society.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 12.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that while giving his adhesion to the main principles of the Bill he could not but take exception to its phraseology. He did not like the attempt to introduce into Ireland the term "County Courts," which was utterly unknown there. He should have preferred the name of "Civil Bill Courts," as being more consistent with Irish custom, and the title of "Chairman" instead of "Judge" for the presiding officer of the court. To the measure itself he was by no means hostile, for it promised to effect a great amendment in the old system, and a funda-

  1231
  mental change in the mode of executing civil bill decrees. He trusted that the Committee on the Bill would not be taken until after Easter, in order that full time for its consideration might be given.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, that -while he was anxious to assist the Government in removing gross abuses, he was not prepared to go the whole length of totally remodelling these courts. It was desirable that their efficiency should not be destroyed by making them too expensive to be resorted to by the present class of suitors. He did not see, he might add, why the high sheriff should not, as in the superior courts, still remain the recognized responsible officer for execution of process under the Bill, instead of making the sub-sheriff, whom he nominated pro tanto, independent of him.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask whether the Government — £44,000 having last year been voted by Parliament for the salaries of high bailiffs in England —would grant a proportionate amount out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the additional expense which would be entailed by the operation of the Bill on Ireland?
  MR. M'MAHONurged the expediency of introducing into the Bill some provision under which persons who, without any grounds of defence, appeared to a suit, should be subjected to pay the costs, and needless litigation for trifling sums thus discouraged.
  MR. O 'HAGAN (ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND)said, that with regard to the suggestions which had been made, he had no objection to postpone the Committee of the Bill until after Easter. In making the sub-sheriff an officer of the courts, acting entirely on his own responsibility, the Government had simply in view the expediency of relieving the high sheriff from the additional burden which the Bill would cast upon him. No further expense would, he might observe, in reality be thrown upon the parties to a suit with reference to the execution of decrees under the Bill, inasmuch as the relief which it would afford would be greater than the burdens which it would impose.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Friday next.

  KERTCH PRIZE MONEY.—RETURN MOVED FOR.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he rose to move "for a Return of the names of the Flag
  1232
  Officers to whom the Kertch Grant has been distributed, with the proportions in which they share." It would be in the recollection of hon. Members, that in two previous Sessions of Parliament, application had been made in vain for the payment of prize money which had been due for nine years to the captors of Kerteh and Yenikale, and that eventually the Government consented, in lieu of that money, to give those captors a sum of £85,000, which amount was granted by the House of Commons. The Queen's Warrant was quite explicit. It said that the sum of £85,925 was to be distributed in lieu of prize—not as prize—to the officers and men comprising the conjoint expedition of the naval and land forces, three-fourths to go to the naval and one-fourth to the land forces. It was true it said that the distribution was to be made "according to the rules of our naval service." [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: Hear, hear!] But the two cases were very different. In the distribution of prize the rule was that a certain portion of the prize money should be set aside as what was called "the flag share." But that was not the case in the distribution of money granted in lieu of prize. There were present at the capture of Kerteh one general officer—Sir George Brown—and two admirals—Lord Lyons and Sir Houston Stewart—and if it were possible that any officer not present was entitled to a share it was Lord Raglan, the Commander-in-Chief, who had instigated the expedition. And yet the General's share of the one-fourth which had been apportioned by Her Majesty's Warrant for distribution among the army was given, not to Lord Raglan, but to Sir George Brown. But a dispute arose as to the distribution of the flag share, and for a case of that kind provision had been made, for it had been laid down in the Queen's Warrant, that any doubts which might arise as to the distribution of the naval prize should be determined by Her Majesty's Commissioners, including the Lord High Admiral, or by such persons as they might think fit. Had the whole sum of £150,000 been shared as prize money, not only the Commander-in-Chief but Lord Lyons and the other admirals in the Mediterranean—Admiral Boxer, Sir Frederick Grey, and Sir Montagu Stop-ford—would have been entitled to a share. But it seemed to him impolitic that three officers holding high positions in the navy should step in to claim a portion of the

  1233
  sum which had been granted by that House to the captors of Kertch, and to the captors alone, upon the recommendation of the Crown, and to which, he contended, others had a right. Claims were put in on the part of the heirs of Admiral Boxer, who was at Balaclava, on the part of Sir Frederick Grey, who was at Constantinople, and Sir Montagu Stop-ford, who was at Malta; and Sir Frederick Grey, as a Lord of the Admiralty, in this way became a judge in his own case, though probably he abstained from attending the Board at which the decision was given. The House made a grant for the capture of St. Jean d'Acre, which was taken by a joint expedition of land and sea forces. Sir John Louis was an admiral in the Mediterranean, and had commanded the fleet shortly before the arrival of Admiral Sir Robert Stopford, before the commencement of hostilities, but had subsequently proceeded to Malta. No part of the grant of the House, however, was paid to him, but to Sir Robert Stopford, who commanded at Aere, and no claim was set up by Sir John Louis. That was a case which was an exact precedent, except that there was no declaration of war at that time, and that precedent was entirely against the rule of the Admiralty to which he now took exception. On two former occasions it was decided, when similar grants were made in conjoint expeditions, that it was only those who were present at the capture that were entitled to a share as captors. When Lord Duncan was in command of the fleet in the North Sea, he projected a small expedition to the coast of Holland, but he was not held entitled to what might have been his share because it was a conjoint expedition. In the case of "Lord Nelson v. Tucker," a similar judgment was given in the Court of Queen's Bench. He thought it probable that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would not object to the production of the papers, and then, if it seemed necessary, he (Sir John Hay) could afterwards found a Motion upon them. He hoped his noble Friend would call the attention of the Admiralty to the necessity of having some higher decision on the subject than that of a branch of Somerset House. He begged to move for the Return.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he was not aware that the gallant Officer was going so much into detail on a Motion for a Return of the names of certain officers, and lie was not, therefore, prepared to go
  1234
  fully into the argument. But with regard to Sir Frederick Grey, as one of those to whom the gallant Officer's objection applied, he could assure him that the decision was come to by the Duke of Somerset after full consideration, and without any leaning towards one flag more than another. The only object of the Duke of Somerset was to do justice and to decide according to the rules of the service. The only distinction between this case and that to which the gallant Officer had alluded was, that there was a proclamation of war at the beginning of the Russian war, and that provision was made in it for a certain distribution of prize money, so that it might be shared according to the rules of the service. They had that proclamation, therefore, as a guide. That House voted the money, but it was to be distributed according to the Queen's Warrant. In that document it was distinctly stated, that the money was to be distributed "according to the rules of our naval service, and in accordance with our proclamation of March 29, 1854." He (Lord Clarence Paget) could not see how the Duke of Somerset could have decided in any other way. The matter was not one upon which a legal opinion was required. It was quite true that not only some admirals, but he believed Lord Lyons himself, wished the matter should be referred to legal authority, and it was referred by the Admiralty to their legal adviser, the Solicitor of the Admiralty, although that branch of the department which constantly dealt with matters of prize had no doubt that the money should be distributed according to the Warrant and the Queen's proclamation at the commencement of the war. The case of the Acre grant was made as a testimony to the gallantry of the men engaged. [Sir JOHN HAY: In lieu of stores captured.] He believed that was the case, but we were not then at war, and that made a material distinction. Much as he agreed that in all these expeditions those who were engaged should receive the benefit of grants made, still there were certain usages in the navy from which if they were to depart and merely take a sentimental view of these matters, to suit the circumstances of the moment, they might get into great difficulty. As to the Motion, he had no objection to its being agreed to.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had no wish whatever in the matter, except that justice should be done. He must express his opinion that the noble Lord

  1235
  had not answered the points raised by his hon. and gallant Friend. The decision of the Admiralty, as to the distribution of the prize money, had been disputed. He might state, that his hon. and gallant Friend had submitted to him the opinion of a very eminent lawyer upon the question. He had read that opinion very carefully, and it appeared to him that he had arrived at that decision on very strong grounds. He had also read the Queen's Warrant; and it seemed to him that the merits of the question really turned on how far, when the army and navy acted together, the naval forces in that case were taken out of the usual prize laws of the navy. [Sir JOHN HAY: Hear, hear!] Secondly, it turned upon the terms of the Queen's Warrant. He had no doubt that, upon the face of the Queen's Warrant, the final decision in case of dispute rested with the Board of Admiralty; but he was sure that the noble Lord would not deny that the Board of Admiralty, having that responsibility thrown upon them, were bound to arrive at their decision justly and righteously. He would rather like to know more fully what were the grounds upon which the Board of Admiralty had acted. He feared, from what the noble Lord had said, that the Admiralty had referred the question to what was called "the branch" (a term better understood within the Admiralty than out of doors), one of the numerous departments of the Board, and that the branch had referred it to their solicitor. He thought that in a matter of this sort, where the rights and interests of very eminent officers were concerned, and the real merits of the case were disputed, the Board of Admiralty ought not to have been contented with a reference merely to the "branch" or their solicitor, but should have taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. In his view of the matter they would have acted with much greater prudence and justice, and he thought they were bound to take that course.
  Motion agreed to.
  Return ordered,
  "Of the names of the Flag Officers to whom the Kertch Grant has been distributed, with the proportions in which they share." — (Sir John Hay.)

  DOCKYARDS.—NOMINATION OF COMMITTEE.
  Select Committee nominated,
  Sir FRANCIS BARING, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Mr. STANSFELD, Sir JOHN HAY, Mr. BAXTER, Mr.
  1236
  LAIRD, Sir MORTON PETO, Mr. GEORGE BENTINCK, Sir JOSEPH PAXTON, Mr. CORRRY, and Mr. CHARLES BERKELEY:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that his noble Friend had done him the honour to ask him to be a Member of the Committee, and if he could be of any use he would willingly give his service; but, at the same time, he could not consent to remain a Member of that Committee without expressing his regret that the Board of Admiralty had thought it proper to appoint a Committee at all upon the subject. The question of the dockyards was one which the Admiralty itself was quite competent to deal with, and could have taken into their own hands with the hope of a better result than by delegating it to a Committee. He did not quite understand what was the real scope of the inquiry, because the terms of the Motion were somewhat peculiar. The terms of the Motion were, to inquire into the state of the dockyards in England, and especially into some questions connected with Portsmouth. Now, he wanted to know why that special reference was made to Portsmouth, and in what respect were the inquiries to be directed more to Portsmouth than to any other portion of the dockyards. Then there was another point which he wished to suggest to his noble Friend. It had been suggested that it was hardly consistent with courtesy to put one Member for Portsmouth on the Committee without adding the other Member to it, and that objection was now met by the proposed nomination of Sir James Elphinstone; but, considering that this question, of great public importance, might very much turn on the interests, in a narrow sense, of the town of Portsmouth, he could not help throwing out a suggestion, whether it was desirable that any Member for Portsmouth should be on the Committee? His noble Friend told him, in the first place, that he would make it a small Committee, consisting of nine members. His own opinion was, that the inquiry would be much better conducted by such a Committee than by one of fifteen members. That, however, was a question entirely in the hands of the Government.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the observations just made showed how difficult it was to meet the views of all Members of that House, though it was the desire of the Government to consult the convenience and wishes of hon. Gentlemen.

  1237
  As the right hon. Baronet had called in question the propriety of appointing a Committee, he would remind the House, that last year on the question arising respecting the enlargement of Portsmouth dockyard, several hon. Members observing that it was a matter of great importance, suggested the appointment of a Committee, and the Committee was appointed in deference to the opinions of hon. Members interested in the subject. It was very reasonable to ask for a Committee upon so important a scheme, that the details might be carefully examined, and he accordingly promised last year to nominate a Committee on the meeting of Parliament. It was natural that Members for Ireland should think that in making so great an improvement in the dockyards in England there was a port in the South of Ireland which might be advantageously adapted to the same purpose. He thought it fair that they should be represented on the Committee, and that the Committee should have the opportunity of recommending any modification of the proposal, or any other proposal connected with the subject, which might suggest itself as worthy the consideration of the House. He did not wish to confine the Committee altogether to Portsmouth, because he thought it quite possible, that if the Committee suggested the construction of a great basin at Portsmouth, they might also suggest some modification of the proposed basin and dock accommodation at Chatham. The Committee could examine the Government engineers, civil engineers, and the naval authorities, and give that careful and detailed consideration to the subject which one so vast and so important required; and which could not be dealt with in a debate in the House of Commons. With regard to the composition of the Committee, he certainly did think that a Committee of nine would, be more compact and perhaps better able to carry on the business. But hon. Gentlemen from the South of Ireland pressed strongly to have their views represented. He had chosen the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), as one perfectly acquainted with the subject and interested in the sister country, but the Irish Members desired very much to have one of their number intimately connected with the South of Ireland. Then, again, with regard to the Members for the place, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring), who sat behind him, would have willingly given up
  1238
  his seat, but he did not wish him to do so; and the other hon. Member for Portsmouth thought, that as the interests of the borough would be affected by questions of stopping ways and altering approaches from the sea, he ought to be present to watch over the interests of his constituents. He likewise proposed the addition of two hon. Members of independent judgment, whose names would be a guarantee to the House that they would watch over the proposed expenditure with very jealous eyes. It was under these circumstances that he had proposed to extend the number of the Committee.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEobserved, that what occurred had confirmed him in the conviction that the House ought to pause before they adopted the proposal before them. He quite agreed that it was very important that such a Committee should be watched by hon. Members desiring to control the expenditure which was to be incurred, because the expenditure on dockyards was a very serious item in the Estimates. He wished to put it to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whether experience had not shown that a Select Committee was not the most economical tribunal which they could select. Generally speaking, a Select Committee entered upon inquiry with their minds directed to the importance of the object to be attained, and thinking very little of the expense. They were not under the control of the financial Members of the Government, and they usually recommended measures the reverse of economical. The question to be discussed was not only dock accommodation at Portsmouth, but elsewhere; and, when conflicting interests were represented, there was a natural tendency of human nature, however excellent, to end in a kind of agreement, "I will recommend your dockyard if you will recommend mine." He did not mean to say that the names on the Committee were the names of Gentlemen likely to fall into that course. But if that were done now claims for other places would come in, and they would get into the habit of delegating some of the most important functions of the executive Government to Committees. He thought that constitutionally that was very dangerous and likely to lead to very great evils. He felt so strongly on the subject that he suggested the matter should, at all events, stand over till Monday for re-consideration, being inclined himself to recommend the noble Lord to withdraw it altogether.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think the right hon. Baronet who spoke before the hon. Baronet placed the matter on erroneous grounds. First of all, the House has determined that there shall be a Committee. That question is not under consideration. The only question is, of whom shall the Committee consist? It is said that matters of this sort ought not to be referred to a Committee of the House, but ought to be determined by the executive Government. That assumes that a Committee of this House has to determine what is to be done. But that is not all the functions of a Committee of this House. A Committee is appointed to investigate considerations which may lead either to doing or not doing anything. With regard to the dockyards, the Committee is objected to on the ground of economy. I do not think economy is the ruling and leading principle to be taken into consideration. The ruling and guiding principle is the advantage of the public service. The question is, not how cheap you can do anything, but whether it is of importance to the interests of the country that there should be dock accommodation at Portsmouth, Chatham, or Cork, or anywhere else. There seems here to arise considerations which must turn on matters of considerable detail, and to sift which, in the first instance, it is of importance a Committee should be appointed. The Committee will take evidence and make recommendations. Those recommendations are to be considered by the executive Government, and the executive Government, upon their own responsibility, will make thereupon such proposals to this House as they may think fit. The House then has the responsibility of the executive Government in determining what proposals shall be made, and they will have the advantage of the previous investigations of the Committee, who will have better information of the grounds upon which the decision is to be taken than can be found in a debate upon the Navy Estimates. Therefore, it seems to me that the course pursued is really the best course to enable the House to come to an ultimate decision, because, although the discretion of making the proposal rests with the Government, the final decision of that proposal—the Vote of money to carry it into effect—must rest with this House, and the House will be better able to come to a decision upon a clear understanding of the facts by a previous investigation, than it would by any
  1240
  statement of a department. It is said that: Committees will be appointed of persons who will say, "You recommend my dockyard and I will recommend yours"—a sort of bargain of jobs; but that is not the function of a Committee, nor is it that which the Members of this Committee will perform. Several questions will arise before the Committee—one of the public advantage and another of the local convenience or inconvenience; and it is quite fair, therefore, that the Members for the different places concerned should be there to represent the opinions of their constituents, and to say what are their local interests as contrasted with the interests of the public. Both parties should be represented, and I think, therefore, that my noble Friend has done quite right in putting the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth on this Committee. The Government will then afterwards have to consider, whether the local injury is sufficient to counterbalance the public advantage. The House has already determined to appoint a Committee, and the only question to be decided is, whether the persons selected are those fittest to serve on it.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock.